Analysis and Interpretation of in Situ Rock Bolt Pull Tests

Analysis and Interpretation of In Situ Rock Bolt Pull Tests in Hard
Rock Mines
by
Luke Nicholson
A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Masters of Applied Science
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
© Copyright 2016 by Luke Nicholson

Abstract
Analysis and Interpretation of In Situ Rock Bolt Pull Tests in Hard Rock Mines
Luke Nicholson
Masters of Applied Science
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering
University of Toronto
2016
Rock bolts are the principal reinforcement element of many underground support systems. This thesis
investigates and characterizes the behaviour and performance of rock bolts as measured by a pull test.
A database composed of 985 pull tests from six mines in the Sudbury Basin was assembled. Procedures
and apparatuses used to conduct these tests were compared to ASTM’s standards and ISRM’s suggested
methods. The results from the pull tests were used to compare the behaviour of reinforcement elements
with theoretical models and to quantify performance metrics and their distributions. The influence of
bolt, installation and rock mass parameters on the performance of certain rock bolts was investigated,
and distributions of expected behaviour were constructed. These may be used in the design of hard rock
underground excavations using methodologies that incorporate both the load capacity and displacement
behaviour of rock bolts.
ii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor John Hadjigeorgiou, for the guidance and educational
experience I have had the pleasure to experience over the last two years.
This project would not have been possible without the funding and active participation by Vale. In
particular, I would like to thank Dr. Mike Yao, Lindsay Moreau-Verlaan, Derek Boucher and the rest
of the ground support staff at Vale’s Sudbury operations for the support they provided me.
I also extend my gratitude to ground support suppliers who provided technical information on test-
ing, including Mansour Mining Technologies Inc, Jennmar Canada, DSI, Normet and Atlas Copco. In
particular, Francois Charette, Lynn Mainville-Beach and Bryan Lamothe.
Thank you to my friends and research associates Marie-Helene Fillion, Philippe Morissette and
Stratos Karampinos for their education, support and generally putting up with me.
I am very grateful to all my friends home and abroad for being there for me when I needed it and
generally improving my life.
Last but certainly not least, I thank my family for their advice and unlimited support on every step
of my journey.
iii
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.5 Structure of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Testing of Rock Bolts 4

2.1 Rock Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Laboratory Testing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 Tension Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Wedge Tension Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3 Bend Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.4 Tests of Expandable Rock Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.5 Laboratory Rock Anchor Capacity Pull Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.6 Laboratory Drop Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 In Situ Pull Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Discussion of Testing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Composition of the Database 14

3.1 Pull Test Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1.1 Regional Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.1.2 Coleman Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.3 Copper Cliff Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1.4 Creighton Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1.5 Garson Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.6 Stobie Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.1.7 Totten Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2 Reinforcement Elements in the Pull Test Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.1 Friction Rock Stabilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.2 Rebar Rock Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.3 Modified Cone Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2.4 D-Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
iv
3.2.5 Expandable Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.1 Database Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.3.2 Comparison to Other Pull Test Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3.3 Specific and General Limitations of the Pull Test Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4 Review of Implemented Pull Test Methods 28

4.1 Implementation of Pull Tests in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2 Deviations from ASTM Standard D4435-13 and ISRM Suggested Methods for Rockbolt
Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2.1 Deviations in Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.2 Deviations in Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.3 Practical Considerations in Pull Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.3 Pull Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3.1 Working Capacity and the Measurement of Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3.2 Recording Displacement During a Pull Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3.3 Rock Bolt Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3.4 Limitations of the Metrics Measured in a Rock Bolt Pull Test . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5 Summary Statistics and Interpretation of Pull Test Data 40

5.1 Summary Statistics and Statistical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1.1 Summary Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1.2 Statistical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2 Friction Rock Stabilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.1 Theoretical Behaviour of a Frictional Rock Stabilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.2.2 Observed Behaviour of Friction Rock Stabilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.2.3 Characterization of Performance Metrics for Friction Rock Stabilizers . . . . . . . 46
5.3 Rebar Rock Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.3.1 Theoretical Behaviour of a Rebar Rock Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.3.2 Observed Behaviour of Rebar Rock Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.3.3 Characterization of Performance Metrics for Rebar Rock Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.4 Modified Cone Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4.1 Theoretical Behaviour of a Modified Cone Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.4.2 Observed Behaviour of Modified Cone Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.4.3 Proposed Interpretation of Modified Cone Bolt Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.4.4 Characterization of Performance Metrics for Modified Cone Bolts . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.5 D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.5.1 Theoretical Behaviour of a D-Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.5.2 Observed Behaviour of D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.5.3 Characterization of Performance Metrics for D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.6 Expandable Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.6.1 Theoretical Behaviour of an Expandable Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
v
5.6.2 Observed Behaviour of Expandable Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.6.3 Characterization of Performance Metrics for Expandable Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.7 Other Reinforcement Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.7.1 Yield-Lok . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.7.2 Fibreglass Rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.7.3 DS Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.7.4 Other Expandable Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.7.5 MD Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6 Factors Influencing Pull Test Performance 78

6.1.1 Influence of Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.1.2 Installation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.1.3 Influence of Drive Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.1.4 Influence of Drill Bit Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.1.5 Influence of Bolt Diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.1.6 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.1.7 Rock Mass Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.1.8 Summary of Investigation on FRS Pull Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.2 Rebar Rock Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.2.1 Rebar Rock Bolt Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.2.2 Encapsulation Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2.3 Spin Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.2.4 Residence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.2.5 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.2.6 Summary of Investigation on Rebar Rock Bolt Pull Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.3 Modified Cone Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.3.1 Residence Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
6.3.2 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6.3.3 Inter-variable Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.3.4 Summary of Cone Bolt Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
6.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7 Characterization of Rock Bolt Behaviour 112

7.1 Characterisations of Bolt Behaviour using Laboratory Pull Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
7.2.1 Characterization of FRS Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
7.2.2 Characterization of FRS Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.3 Rebar Rock Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.3.1 Characterization of Rebar Rock Bolt Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.3.2 Characterisation of Rebar Rock Bolt Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.4 Modified Cone Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.4.1 Characterisation of Modified Cone Bolt Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
vi
7.4.2 Characterisation of Modified Cone Bolt Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7.5 D-Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.5.1 Characterisation of D-Bolt Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.5.2 Characterisation of D-Bolt Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.6 Expandable bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7.6.1 Characterisation of Expandable Bolt Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7.6.2 Characterisation of Expandable Bolt Behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
8 Conclusions 140
8.1 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
8.2 Load Capacities of Reinforcement Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
8.3 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.4 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
8.5 Implications and Path Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
List of References 144
Appendices 151
A Pull Testing Forms 152

A.1 ASTM D4435-13 Sample Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
A.2 ISRM Suggested Method for Pull Testing Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
A.3 Proposed Pull Test Information Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
vii
List of Figures
2.1 Types of rock bolt (Hadjigeorgiou & Charette, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Tensile test specimen with a reduced section (ASTM A370, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Apparatus for a tensile test on an FRS (ASTM F432, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Bolt head configuration for a wedge tension test (ASTM F606, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.5 Two alternative configurations for the ferrule test (ASTM F432, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.6 Apparatus for the Laboratory Rock Anchor Capacity Pull Test (ASTM D7401, 2008) . . 8
2.7 Apparatus for the Laboratory Drop Test (ASTM D7401, 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.8 Apparatus for a rock bolt anchor pull test (ASTM D4435, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.9 Conceptual load versus bolt head deflection curve for a rock bolt pull test (ASTM D4435,
2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.10 Apparatus for a pull test (ISRM, 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1 Map of Sudbury area showing locations of relevant mines (after Eckstrand & Hulbert, 2007) 14
3.2 Longitudinal section of Coleman Mine (Morissette et al, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Longitudinal section of Copper Cliff Mine (Chinnasane et al, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4 Longitudinal section of Creighton Mine (Snelling et al, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.5 Longitudinal section of Stobie Mine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.6 Longitudinal section of Totten Mine (After Sudbury Platinum Corporation, 2015) . . . . 19
3.7 FRS A schematic (Courtesy of Supplier A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.8 FRS B schematic (Courtesy of Supplier B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.9 Schematics of rebar manufactured by Supplier C (top; courtesy of Supplier C), Supplier
A (middle; courtesy of Supplier A) and Supplier B (bottom; courtesy of Supplier B) . . . 21
3.10 MCB33 (Courtesy of Mansour) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.11 D-Bolt schematic (Normet, 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.12 VersaBolt schematic (Courtesy of Mansour) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.13 Schematic of a Python bolt, and cross sections before (1) and after (2) inflation (Courtesy
of Jennmar) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1 Normet’s pull test apparatus mounted on a 22 mm D-Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2 Static laboratory pull test on a 22 mm D-Bolt 2.1 m in length (left; Doucet & Voyzelle,
2012) and dynamic impact test on a 22 mm D-Bolt 1.5 m in length (right; Li & Doucet,
2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Methods of determining yield strength: halt of the pointer method (left) and offset method
(right; ASTM E6, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
viii
4.4 Determination of working capacity from a pull test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.5 Measurement of displacement for a pull test on a generic reinforcement element . . . . . . 35
4.6 Generic reinforcement system (Thompson et al, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.7 Measurement of displacement for axial loading of a point anchored rock bolt . . . . . . . . 36
4.8 Design of support systems using the ground reaction curve (Brady & Brown, 2006) . . . . 37
4.9 Calculation of secant and tangent stiffness from a pull test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.10 Pull test campaign results for partially encapsulated Rebar A from November 16th , 2012
at Coleman Mine (Mainville et al, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.1 Shear stress distribution along a frictionally coupled bolt subject to axial load (Li &
Stillborg, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5.2 Shear stress and axial load along a Swellex rock bolt (Li & Stillborg, 1999) . . . . . . . . 44
5.3 Pull test performed on an FA39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.4 Ultimate capacity per unit length distributions for FRSs with nominal diameters of 35,
39 and 46 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
5.5 Stiffness metrics for an FRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5.6 Stiffness distributions for the FA35 and FA39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.7 Model of the shear stress profile in a grouted rock bolt (Li & Stillborg, 1999) . . . . . . . 50
5.8 Model of tensile load and shear stress profile for a rebar (Li & Stillborg, 1999) . . . . . . 51
5.9 Pull test performed on a 20 mm Rebar B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5.10 Pull test performed on a 20 mm Rebar A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
5.11 Working capacity distributions for rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.12 Secant stiffness for 20 mm rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.13 Tangent stiffness for 20 mm Rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.14 Comparison of Rebar A unloading stiffness to secant (a) and tangent (b) stiffness . . . . . 56
5.15 Laboratory pull test of an MCB33 (Simser et al, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.16 Conceptual load–displacement behaviour of a cone bolt subject to quasi-static loading
(Simser et al, 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5.17 Pull test performed on an MCB33 with plough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.18 Pull test performed on an MCB33 without a linear plough response . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.19 Close-up of the bolt response shown in Figure 5.18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5.20 Amended conceptual load–displacement behaviour of a cone bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.21 Performance metrics measured from a cone bolt pull test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.22 Load metric distributions for the MCB33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.23 Stiffness metric distributions for the MCB33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.24 Apparatus for a simulated joint laboratory test on a D-Bolt (Li, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.25 Results of simulated joint laboratory tests on 20 mm D-Bolts (Li, 2012) . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.26 Pull tests performed on 22 mm D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.27 Pull tests performed on 20 mm D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5.28 Pull tests performed on 22mm D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.29 Distributions of stiffness for 20 and 22 mm D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.30 Pull tests performed on Pm12 and Mn12 expandable bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.31 Working capacities of Swellex Pm12 and Mn12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.32 Secant stiffness of Swellex variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
ix
5.33 Secant stiffness of Swellex sorted by installation medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.1 Relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FA35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.2 Relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FB35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.3 Relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FB39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.4 Relationship between ultimate capacity and anchorage length for all FRS bolts . . . . . . 82
6.5 Comparison of ultimate capacities between jackleg and bolter installations of the FA35 . . 83
6.6 Comparison of ultimate capacities between jackleg and bolter installations of all FRS bolts 84
6.7 Relationship between drive time and ultimate capacity for all FRS bolts . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.8 Relationship between drive time and ultimate capacity for FB35, distinguishing between
installation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.9 Relationship between drive time and absolute ultimate capacity for all FRS configurations
installed using a bolter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.10 Relationship between installation time and ultimate capacity for all bolter-installed FRS
fit with linear and power functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.11 Relationship between drill bit diameter and ultimate capacity for all FRS configurations . 89
6.12 Relationship between drill bit diameter and ultimate capacity for two testing campaigns
performed on the FB46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.13 Relationship between drill bit diameter and ultimate capacity for FA35 and FB35, sepa-
rated by installation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
6.14 Bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratios for all FRS variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
6.15 Relationship between bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratio and ultimate capacity . . . 92
6.16 Relationship between bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratio and ultimate capacity for
all FRS configurations by testing campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.17 FRS ultimate capacity by lithology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
6.18 Relationship between UCS and ultimate capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.19 Distributions of FRS bolts installed in ore and waste rock normalized to the campaign
average ultimate capacity for bolts installed in waste rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.20 Ultimate capacities recorded for FA46 bolts installed in poor and good quality ground . . 97
6.21 Ultimate capacities recorded for FRSs installed in poor and good quality ground . . . . . 98
6.22 FA39s pulled at Garson, 9/20/2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.23 Rebar performance metrics by length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.24 Relationships between stiffness and grout length : rebar length for Suppliers A and B . . 102
6.25 Unloading stiffness and grout length : rebar length for Rebar A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
6.26 Relationship between stiffness and resin spin time for Rebar A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.27 Stiffness comparison of Rebar A installed on the day of testing versus previously . . . . . 104
6.28 Stiffness comparison between lithologies for rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
6.29 Performance comparison of MCB33s installed prior to and on the day of testing . . . . . . 107
6.30 Performance comparison of MCB33 bolts installed in ore, igneous/metaigneous and metased-
imentary lithologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6.31 Relationship between plough stiffness and plough point for the MCB33 . . . . . . . . . . . 110
7.1 Average load–displacement behaviours obtained by Stillborg in a laboratory setting (Still-

borg, 1993; composited by Hoek et al, 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
x
7.2 Distributions of secant stiffness and ultimate capacity for a pull test on an FRS with an
anchorage length of 1.52 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.3 Ultimate capacity per metre distributions for all FRS configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
7.4 Distribution of secant stiffness and ultimate capacity for all FRS bolts tested . . . . . . . 116
7.5 All FA35 and FA39 pull test load-displacement relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
7.6 Distribution of displacement measured during pull testing of FA35 and FA39 with anchor-
age lengths of 1.52 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.7 Conceptual displacement distribution of FRSs with anchorage lengths of 1.52 m subject
to a pull test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
7.8 Conceptual displacement distribution of pull tests performed on FRSs . . . . . . . . . . . 119
7.9 Distributions of secant stiffness and working capacity for a pull test with a pre-load of
17.8 kN on a rebar rock bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.10 All rebar pull test load-displacement relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.11 Distribution of displacement measured during pull testing of 20 mm rebar 1.8 m to 2.4 m
in length with a pre-load of 17.8 kN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
7.12 Distribution of displacement measured during pull testing of 20 mm rebar 1.8 m to 2.4 m
in length without a pre-load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.13 Conceptual distribution of displacement during pull testing of 20 mm rebar without a
pre-load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7.14 Distributions of secant stiffness and working capacity for a pull test with a pre-load of
17.8 kN on an MCB33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7.15 56 MCB33 pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
7.16 Distribution of displacement measured during pull testing of a 2.4 m MCB33 with a
pre-load of 17.8 kN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.17 Conceptual distribution of displacements for a pull test of a 2.4 m MCB33 without a
pre-load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.18 Distribution of secant stiffness for a pull test with a pre-load of 17.8 kN on a 20 mm D-Bolt128
7.19 Distribution of secant stiffness for a pull test with a pre-load of 17.8 kN on a 22 mm D-Bolt128
7.20 20 mm D-Bolt pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.21 22 mm D-Bolt pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.22 Load–displacement behaviour of a 20 mm D-Bolt with a pre-load of 17.8 kN . . . . . . . . 130
7.23 Load–displacement behaviour of a 22 mm D-Bolt with a pre-load of 17.8 kN . . . . . . . . 130
7.24 Conceptual distribution of displacements for a pull test of a 20 mm D-Bolt without a
pre-load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.25 Conceptual distribution of displacements for a pull test of a 22 mm D-Bolt without a
pre-load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.26 Distributions of secant stiffness and working capacity for a pull test on Swellex Pm12 and
Mn12 without a pre-load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
7.27 Swellex Pm12 and Mn12 pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations . . . . . . . . 133
7.28 Swellex Pm24 and Mn24 pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations . . . . . . . . 134
7.29 Load–displacement behaviour of Pm12 and Mn12 bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.30 Load-displacement behaviour of Pm24 and Mn24 bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
7.31 Conceptual load–displacement behaviour of Pm12 and Mn12 bolts subject to a pull test . 135
xi
7.32 Conceptual load–displacement behaviour of Pm24 and Mn24 bolts subject to a pull test . 136
7.33 Conceptual load–displacement behaviour extrapolated to 0 load for various rock bolts
subject to a pull test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
7.34 Median load–displacement behaviour for all bolts with no pre-load . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
A.1 Rock bolt pull test sample form (ASTM D4435, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
A.2 Rock bolt pull test data sheet (After ISRM, 1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
A.3 Proposed pull test campaign information sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
A.4 Proposed pull test data sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
xii
List of Tables
3.1 Intact rock UCS values in MPa by mine site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Comparison of FRS supplier specifications (Courtesy of Suppliers A and B) . . . . . . . . 21
3.3 Steel properties for a 20 mm threaded rebar (Courtesy of Suppliers A, B and C) . . . . . 21
3.4 MCB33 mechanical properties (Courtesy of Mansour) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.5 VersaBolt and D-Bolt mechanical properties (Courtesy of Mansour, Normet) . . . . . . . 23
3.6 Summary of Swellex, Omega and Python bolt mechanical properties (Atlas Copco, 2012;
Courtesy of Jennmar, DSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.7 Number of pull tests by bolt type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.1 General One-Way ANOVA table (NIST-SEMATECH,2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.2 Statistics regarding the ultimate capacities of FRSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.3 FRS stiffness summary statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5.4 Summary statistics for the working capacity of rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.5 Summary statistics for the stiffness of rebar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.6 Comparison of stiffness between partially and fully encapsulated rebar . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.7 Summary statistics of MCB33 load metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.8 Summary statistics of MCB33 stiffness metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.9 D-Bolt stiffness by anchor stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.10 Unloading stiffness calculated for pull tests performed on 22 mm D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . 66
5.11 Working capacities obtained from all D-Bolt pull tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.12 D-Bolt summary statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.13 Swellex behaviour breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.14 Coupling strength of partially embedded and slipped Swellex pull tests . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.15 Summary statistics of Swellex Pm12 and Mn12 working capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.16 Swellex secant stiffness summary statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5.17 Secant stiffness summary statistics on Swellex sorted by installation medium . . . . . . . 73
5.18 8’ (2.44 m) Yield-Lok pull test result summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.19 DS Bolt campaign summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.20 Summary of expandable bolt campaigns not including Swellex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.21 Summary of working capacities for all bolts pull tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.1 Statistics on the relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FA35 . . . . . 79
6.2 Statistics on the relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FB35 . . . . . 80
6.3 Statistics on the relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FB39 . . . . . 81
xiii
6.4 Single factor ANOVA performed on the relationship between ultimate capacity and length
for the FB39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.5 Breakdown of bolts contributing to major sets of anchorage length . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
6.6 Comparison of 1.52 m and 1.83 m of anchorage length for all FRS bolts . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.7 Ultimate capacity statistics for jackleg and bolter installations of the FA35 . . . . . . . . 83
6.8 Ultimate capacity statistics for jackleg and bolter installation of all FRS bolts . . . . . . . 84
6.9 Description of relationships between drive time and ultimate capacity for FRSs installed
with a MacLean Bolter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6.10 Summary statistics for bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratios for all FRS variants . . . 91
6.11 Comparison of average ultimate capacities for pull tests performed in ore and waste rock
in the same campaign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.12 Comparison of FRS bolts installed in ore and waste rock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
6.13 Comparison of FA46 bolts installed in poor and good quality ground . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
6.14 Comparison of all FRSs installed in poor and good quality ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6.15 Comparison of partial and full encapsulation test statistics for Rebar A and B . . . . . . . 102
6.16 Statistics regarding residence time for Rebar A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
6.17 Comparison of stiffness across different lithologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.18 Performance comparison of MCB33s installed prior to and on the day of testing . . . . . . 107
6.19 Performance comparison of MCB33 bolts installed previously and on the day of testing . 108
6.20 Summary of observed relationships of between various factors and performance indicators
for each rock bolt type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
7.1 FA35 and FA39 performance percentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

7.2 Distribution of ultimate capacity across all FRS configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
7.3 FRS performance compared to supplier specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
7.4 Percentiles of performance metrics for rebar rock bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
7.5 Rebar performance compared to supplier specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.6 Distributions of MCB33 performance metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7.7 MCB33 performance compared to supplier specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
7.8 Secant stiffness distributions of 20 mm and 22 mm D-Bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.9 Swellex secant stiffness percentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
7.10 Swellex Pm12 and Mn12 performance compared to supplier specifications . . . . . . . . . 136
xiv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Problem Definition

An effective ground support system has two primary functions: to strengthen the rock mass with the
use of reinforcement elements, and to retain and hold fractured rock using surface support (McCreath
& Kaiser, 1992). During the development of a rock support strategy, five basic questions should be
addressed: where do stability problems exist, why do they exist, what reactions are necessary to alleviate
them, when should support be installed, and how should the strategy be implemented (Thompson et
al, 2012). In order to determine the what and when of support system reactions, an understanding of
the behaviour of a support system (and thus its constitutive elements) in terms of load capacity and the
corresponding displacements is necessary. In its most elementary form, the design of a ground support
system for an underground excavation can be seen as a force balance problem; an unstable portion of a
rock mass must have its mass supported by a stable portion of the rock mass through load transfer along
a reinforcement element (Windsor & Thompson, 1992). In theory, a design methodology may consider
the characteristic force–displacement relation of an excavation’s failure mechanism (such as Windsor,
1997). Such a methodology incorporates the development of displacement with load, as well as the load
capacity of the support system.
Rock bolts are the principal reinforcement elements used in underground support systems (Hadjige-
orgiou & Charette, 2001). While mechanical properties such as tensile strength or elastic modulus of
the materials used to manufacture rock bolts may be quantified in laboratory conditions, there exists
an incomplete understanding of how the same rock bolts perform in situ. Various parameters that may
influence how a bolt performs include those associated with the installation of the bolt, the nature of
the rock mass the bolt is installed in, and the physical characteristics of the bolt itself. One method of
quantifying bolt performance is the pull test, in which an increasing load is applied to the head of a rock
bolt installed in a rock mass until either a predetermined load is reached or a certain behaviour (such
as yield, slip or failure of the bolt) is observed.
Pull testing campaigns generally include a small number of bolts (usually 5 to 10) installed and tested
under very similar conditions. There is a lack of large-scale, in-depth analysis across different testing
campaigns on the part of the mine sites to investigate variability in bolt performance. This limitation
is addressed in this thesis by reviewing pull test results from six mines sites across the Sudbury Basin.
1
Chapter 1. Introduction 2
1.2 Significance
The appropriate use of rock bolts in underground mines represents a cost-benefit problem. Over–design
of ground support systems may lead to inefficiencies in labour and equipment usage, inflating costs and
cycle times. Under–design may result in serious safety concerns and production stoppages. An important
step in the design and optimization of a ground support system is the selection of appropriate elements
and systems for a set of conditions. The performance that may be expected from a particular element
given a set of installation parameters and its associated variability should be recognised by those who
design the support system. With improvements in the understanding, measurement, and quantification
of performance, safer and more cost–effective ground support systems may be developed.
1.3 Objectives
This thesis aims to provide information that can be used for design purposes based on in situ pull
tests rather than laboratory results. There are three principal objectives of this thesis. The first is
to develop an understanding of the load–displacement behaviour of various rock bolts, and use it to
interpret pull test data. The second is to identify relationships between recorded pull test parameters
and the performance of the rock bolt. The third is to develop input parameters in terms of bolt load
capacity and displacement that can be used for design purposes in hard rock mines.
1.4 Methodology
The progression of this thesis can be broadly summarized in the following sequence:
1. Data Collection: Pull test campaign reports from several rock bolt suppliers at six Vale mine sites
in the Greater Sudbury area were collected, and their results and all recorded testing parameters
input into a database. The majority of the pull tests used for this analysis were performed between
2011 and 2014.
2. Data Analysis: Statistical methods including linear regression and analysis of variance (ANOVA)
amongst others were used to quantify the performance of the rock bolts tested, as well as investigate
the influence of various factors on bolt performance.
3. Development of Performance Guidelines: Load–displacement data from individual pull tests was
analysed and combined to create performance envelopes for various rock bolts.
1.5 Structure of the Thesis

The structure of the thesis is as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction —- The need for data regarding rock bolt capacity is addressed. The method-
ology used to undertake the thesis is laid out, and the thesis structure stated.
Chapter 2: Testing of rock bolts — A review of rock bolts used in underground hard rock mines is pre-
sented. Standardized testing methods used to characterize rock bolt behaviour are identified, including
Chapter 1. Introduction 3
both laboratory and field tests.
Chapter 3: Composition of the database — The mines from which the pull tests were collected, the rock
bolts tested, and the database used for analysis are described.
Chapter 4: Review of implemented pull test methods — Typical pull test methodologies and apparatuses
used in the constructed database are described. Deviations from standards and suggested methods are
identified. The information obtained from a pull test is discussed.
Chapter 5: Summary statistics and interpretation of pull test data — Methods of data analysis are
described. A theoretical understanding of rock bolt behaviour is used to interpret pull tests, and per-
formance metrics are quantified.
Chapter 6: Factors influencing pull test performance —- The influence of a variety of individual factors
on rock bolt performance are examined and discussed.
Chapter 7: Characterization of rock bolt behaviour — The load–displacement behaviours of several

reinforcement elements subject to a pull test are quantified and described.
Chapter 8: Conclusions — The main conclusions of this thesis are presented. Contributions and limita-
tions of the current work are identified, and recommendations are made for future work.
Chapter 2
Testing of Rock Bolts
In this chapter, rock bolts are categorized, and various laboratory and field testing methods applicable
to rock bolts are described. While the focus of this thesis is on in situ pull tests (described in Section
2.3), a comparison between testing methods targeting a well-defined set of material properties and a test
more representative of in situ performance is of value.
2.1 Rock Bolts

Rock bolts are the primary rock reinforcement element in most underground mines (Hadjigeorgiou &
Charette, 2001). Various mechanisms by which load is transferred from the element to the rock mass
are used by different types of bolt. Rock bolts can be broadly categorized into three groups; mechanical,
grouted (or resin), and friction bolts (Figure 2.1).
Mechanical
Bolts
Resin Bolts
Paddle bolt
Posimix
Solid deformed
Wriggle bolt
Chemical
anchor
Friction bolts
Split set
Swellex
Figure 2.1: Types of rock bolt (Hadjigeorgiou & Charette, 2001)
4
Chapter 2. Testing of Rock Bolts 5
Mechanical bolts are steel tendons fitted with an expansion shell that anchors the bolt at the toe of
the hole, pressing against the sides of the hole as the bolt tendon is torqued and tensioned. Grouted bolts,
such as rebar, may use either a cement or resin grout to bond the bolt to the rock mass continuously
along its length. Changes in the pattern on the bolt, bolt shape (e.g. paddle bolts) and fixtures on the
bolt (e.g. Posimix) are used to more effectively mix the grout and/or increase the strength of the bolt–
resin interface. A friction bolt also transmits load from the bolt to the rock mass continuously along its
length, but does so using frictional resistance. An example is the friction rock stabilizer (FRS), composed
of a steel tube with a gap in the circumference running along its length, tapered on one end and with a
steel ring welded to the other (or alternatively the bolt’s head is crimped). An FRS is installed in a drill
hole with a diameter slightly smaller than that of the bolt, compressing the bolt radially and generating
forces that result in frictional resistance to pull out. The Swellex bolt is another example of a friction
bolt. In recent years since the expiration of Atlas Copco’s patent, several similar bolts from different
manufacturers have become available. These are commonly referred to as expandable or inflatable bolts.
Expandable bolts are rock bolts that are expanded using pressure exerted by a water pump once the
bolt is placed loosely in a hole. Resistance to pull out is not only frictional, but is also attributed to
mechanical interlock between any undulations in the sides of the drill hole and the resulting shape of
the inflated bolt (Hadjigeorgiou & Charette, 2001).
More recently, a distinction is made for yielding or energy-absorbing rock bolts. While these are often
grouted bolts, they are specifically designed to address stability problems caused by high stress, such as
rock bursting or squeezing (Li et al, 2014). Yielding bolts generally have larger deformation and energy
capacities than bolts only intended for use in static loading scenarios. This is usually achieved through
one of two mechanisms. The first is an increase in uncoupled tendon length between two or more anchor
points. An example of a bolt that uses this mechanism is the “D-Bolt” (available from Normet), where
a smooth bar deforms between anchors set in grout. The second mechanism is movement of the bolt or
a section of the bolt relative to an internal fixture or the drill hole; for example a “Modified Cone Bolt”
(available from Mansour) ploughing through resin (Thompson et al, 2012).
2.2 Laboratory Testing Methods

There are several tests that examine bolt performance and behaviour in a laboratory setting, including
tests used to determine the material properties of the bolts. Because of the wide variety in types of rock
bolt, certain tests may only be applicable to or relevant for a specific set of bolts.
2.2.1 Tension Test

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard F432-13 is ASTM’s primary rock
bolt testing standard, describing the “chemical, mechanical and dimensional requirements for roof and
rock bolts and accessories” (ASTM F432, 2013). It references and specifies a range of testing methods,
the first of which is the tension test. ASTM F432-13 dictates that “test bars for the manufacture of bolts
and threaded and threaded slotted bars” (ASTM F432, 2013) must be in accordance with ASTM A370-
12, which describes procedures and definitions for “the mechanical testing of steels, stainless steels, and
related alloys” (ASTM A370, 2012). A full-sized or machined sample of known dimensions including
cross-sectional area with or without a reduced test section (Figure 2.2) is gripped in two locations
(designated as the “grip sections”), and tensioned at a constant strain, stress or crosshead travel rate.
The yield point and the yield strength of the test sample may be determined using a variety of methods
during the test or post-processing. Subsequent to the yield of the bolt, its tensile strength is determined,
as well as elongation, elongation at fracture and reduction of area.
Figure 2.2: Tensile test specimen with a reduced section (ASTM A370, 2012)
Tensile Test of Friction Stabilizers
This particular test is a recent addition and is applicable to what ASTM refers to as “friction stabilizers”,
synonymous with FRS. An FRS bolt is installed in a test plate made flush against the head of the bolt
while maintaining clearance between the circumference of the plate hole and the FRS (i.e. the bolt is
loose in the plate). The other end of the bolt is gripped and plugged so as to be held in place (Figure 2.3).
The bolt is then tensioned to the minimum ultimate load specified by the standard for the applicable
nominal bolt diameter without failure of the plate or any visual destruction of the bolt head (ASTM
F432, 2013).
Figure 2.3: Apparatus for a tensile test on an FRS (ASTM F432, 2013)
2.2.2 Wedge Tension Test

The wedge tension test, described in ASTM Standard F606-13, is to be used to test bolts and threaded
bars in conjunction with the nut intended for practical use. A 10◦ wedge is placed under the bolt head
(Figure 2.4), and the unheaded end of the bolt gripped. The bolt is then tensioned until failure. The
yield strength is obtained using the “drop of the beam” method (ASTM D4435, 2013), which designates
the yield strength as the point where either a drop or a plateau in load is registered while deformation of
the bolt continues. Tensioning progresses in order to determine the wedge tensile strength of the sample,
while also demonstrating head quality and ductility of the product (ASTM F606, 2013).
Figure 2.4: Bolt head configuration for a wedge tension test (ASTM F606, 2013)
2.2.3 Bend Test

The bend test as described by ASTM Standard F432-13 is only applicable to notched bendable bolts.
Bolts are subject to one bending cycle, i.e. are bent 90◦ in the area of the reduced cross-section with
respect to the original position, and then bent back. The test is passed if there is no obvious visible
evidence of fracturing. The same bolt is subsequently subject to a tensile test across the section that
was bent, and must attain the minimum yield load specified in ASTM Standard A615-15 corresponding
to the steel grade and bar diameter, plus 6000 lbf (26.7 kN). After fracture of the bolt in the tensile test
(which must occur above a load of 23000 lbf; 102.3 kN), there should be no evidence of prior fracture
induced by the bend test (ASTM F432, 2013).
2.2.4 Tests of Expandable Rock Bolts

ASTM Standard F432-13 describes three tests that must be performed on expandable bolts. They are
as follows.
Expansion Test
The expansion test entails fully expanding the product at the manufacturer’s recommended pressure.
Ferrule Test
The tensile strength of the ferrule-to-bolt weld must be found to meet or exceed the bolt profile breaking
load. This is verified by gripping the ferrule on one end of the bolt and the other, plugged end of the
bolt itself (Figure 2.5), and applying tension. The specific test methodology must be supplied to the
customer.
Figure 2.5: Two alternative configurations for the ferrule test (ASTM F432, 2013)
Expandable Bolt Mechanical Property Test
A fully inflated bolt (it is permissible to use the bolt subject to the expansion test) is tensioned in
order to find the yield and ultimate tensile loads. These must reach the specifications laid out in ASTM
Standard A370-12.
2.2.5 Laboratory Rock Anchor Capacity Pull Test

The laboratory rock anchor capacity pull test is one of two tests described in ASTM Standard D7401-08.
It may be applied to elements with “mechanical, resin or other similar anchor systems” (ASTM D7401,
2008). A bolt is installed in a steel tube, using standard installation procedures so far as they can be
reasonably replicated, i.e. using the torque, spin time, etc. specified by the supplier. Two potentiometers
are used to measure both the bolt end displacement and the plate displacement (Figure 2.6). The bolt
is then tensioned until failure using a hydraulic ram, while load and displacement of the bolt head are
recorded. The working and ultimate load of the bolt are found from the resulting load/displacement
graph, and the energy absorbed by the bolt is calculated (ASTM D7401, 2008).
Figure 2.6: Apparatus for the Laboratory Rock Anchor Capacity Pull Test (ASTM D7401, 2008)
2.2.6 Laboratory Drop Test

The drop test is the second test described in ASTM Standard D7401-08. It is to be applied to similar
bolts as those described in the laboratory pull test, as the installation in the steel tube is nearly identical
although for this test an impact plate and load cells are incorporated into the head assembly. The tube
is installed in a drop frame (Figure 2.7), where an electromagnet raises a known mass to a predetermined
height before its power supply is cut, dropping the weight. The energy input into the system is measured
by calculating the velocity of the mass as it lands on the impact plate, displacing the bolt head through
bolt-dependent displacement mechanisms. It is permissible to perform the experiment multiple times
on the same bolt to investigate the effect of cumulative energy input (ASTM D7401, 2008).
Figure 2.7: Apparatus for the Laboratory Drop Test (ASTM D7401, 2008)
2.3 In Situ Pull Test

ASTM Standard D4435-13 describes the only ASTM-standardized in situ test for rock bolts; the pull
test. Additionally, the International Society for Rock Mechanics provides suggested methods for pull
testing (ISRM, 1981).
ASTM D4435-13: Standard Test Method for Rock Bolt Anchor Pull Test
ASTM D4435-13 dictates that when developing a rock bolt pull test program, the program should reflect
all possible installations of bolt, such as rock unit, orientation relative to any anisotropy present in the
rock mass, anchor configurations, etc. 10 to 12 tests are recommended for each set of variables.
The apparatus described in the standard (Figure 2.8) includes a loading system with sufficient ca-
pacity to fail the bolt and induce at least 50 mm of displacement. Additionally, it should be compatible
with any rock surface condition and not deviate more than 5◦ from the bolt axis. Either a load cell on
the bolt or a pressure gauge on the ram is to be used to measure applied load, and displacement is to
be measured to an accuracy of at least 0.025 mm and resolution of 0.013 mm. The displacement trans-
ducer must be supported from a point no closer than 0.9 m from the loading system if attached to the
same rock face, or alternatively from the floor. A borehole diameter measuring gauge with a resolution
of at least 0.25 mm is to be used to measure the drilled hole diameter at the location of the anchor,
and a thermometer used to record temperature at a resolution of 0.5◦ C. The bolt, anchor and drilling
equipment are to be used per typical operational procedure, although bolts are not to be tensioned.
Figure 2.8: Apparatus for a rock bolt anchor pull test (ASTM D4435, 2013)
At least half of the bolts tested are to have three loading/unloading cycles performed to 1/4, 1/2 and
3/4 of the estimated failure load. For these cycles, 10 equal load increments are to be used, and load is to
be applied smoothly and rapidly. These bolts are then pulled until failure in either the same increments
as the previous cycle, or increments of 2.2 kN, whichever is less. Non-cycled bolts are tested until failure
in either 20 equal load increments, or increments of 2.2 kN, whichever is less. Displacement is recorded
to the nearest 0.013 mm after each loading increment. Bolts are to be pulled 12.7 mm beyond the failure
displacement, defined either by the peak load or 12.7 mm of recorded displacement. After failure occurs,
load is to be recorded every 1 mm of displacement, as opposed to recording at load intervals (ASTM
D4435, 2013).
As per ASTM D4435-13, the stress on the bolt is to be calculated, as well as the corrected bolt head
displacement (total displacement discounting elastic deformation of the bolt). Working and ultimate
capacities (Figure 2.9) are to be interpreted from the resulting load–displacement graph. Working
capacity is defined as “the load on the anchor system at which significantly increasing displacement
begins”, and ultimate capacity as “the maximum load sustained by the anchor system” (ASTM D4435,
2013).
Figure 2.9: Conceptual load versus bolt head deflection curve for a rock bolt pull test (ASTM D4435,
2013)
Suggested Methods for Determining the Strength of a Rockbolt Anchor (Pull Test)
Published by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM), the scope of this suggested method is
“to measure the short-term strength of a rockbolt anchor installed under field conditions” (ISRM, 1981).
It is suggested that at least 5 tests are performed for a given set of rock and installation conditions.
The standard rock bolt assembly is to be used for the pull test, along with a hydraulic jack and
handpump with a travel of at least 50 mm and a method of measuring load with an accuracy of 2%
of the maximum load reached in the test. Displacement should be measured by a device (a dial gauge
is suggested) accurate to 0.05 mm, to be mounted on “firm rock” (ISRM, 1981). Figure 2.10 shows a
schematic of the suggested apparatus. The bolt should be installed in conditions representative of those
commonly encountered on site with standard installation, and if possible the bolt should not be tensioned.
Dimensions of the drill hole, bolt, and anchor should be measured, and the type and condition of the
rock should be noted. It is suggested that the pre-load (the load at which 0 displacement is recorded)
should not exceed 5 kN. Further load should be applied in increments of either 5 kN or 5 mm, whichever
is less, at a rate of 5-10 kN/min. Load and displacement readings should be allowed to stabilize before
recording, and the time taken for this stabilization noted. The bolts should be pulled until 40 mm of
displacement, yield, or failure, whichever occurs first.
Total displacement should calculated, along with the anchor strength (defined as the maximum load
before yield or failure of the anchor). If the tendon yields or fails before the anchor, the failure/yield load
is recorded as the minimum anchor strength. Elastic elongation should be calculated and contrasted
with bolt behaviour, and the effect of cement cure time examined (ISRM, 1981).
Figure 2.10: Apparatus for a pull test (ISRM, 1981)
2.4 Discussion of Testing Methods

Most of the laboratory tests outlined are largely dependent on the mechanical properties and dimensions
of the rock bolts tested. While these tests may be highly controlled and are likely quite repeatable
(depending on materials and manufacturing processes used), they ignore vital aspects of rock mass
reinforcement. As such, they only provide a measure of rock bolt performance under controlled conditions
that may not represent those found in situ. A rock bolt system is composed not only of the bolt-nut-
plate assembly, but also the surrounding rock mass and, for some types of bolt, a mechanical or chemical
anchor. Each of these, and their interactions with one another, may be affected by how the bolt is
installed in operational scenarios. As such, to properly evaluate support element performance, more
realistic analogues of bolt installation conditions are necessary.
A laboratory pull test has certain advantages over a field test; more control may be exerted over
certain parameters, and thus it may act as a better test to compare the relative performance of some bolts
or grouts for that specific apparatus. Due to the controlled environment, more advanced instrumentation
is significantly easier to implement than in the field. However, the laboratory pull test as described by
ASTM D7401-08 has limited application to field results, depending on bolt type. Bolts that are in direct
contact with the rock mass (friction and expandable bolts) may outperform their in situ counterparts;
as both the bolt and the installation tube have quite uniform diameters, the load distribution along the
length of the bolt may not be realistically replicated. The strength of the anchor/rock or grout/rock
interface may also not be accurately represented for other types of bolt. This could and has been
addressed to some extent by going beyond the scope of the standard and installing bolts in blocks of
concrete or rock in the lab (Li et al, 2014). However, even this test is missing two crucial aspects of
support element systems; the specific rock mass the bolts are to reinforce, and installation of the bolts
as performed on a mine site.
Although the in situ pull test incorporates these two missing aspects of testing into an evaluation of
performance, this is not to say that it is a perfect descriptor of the efficacy of a reinforcement element.
There are problems with this test on a conceptual, as well as practical, level. Bolts are only loaded
axially at their heads, while it is unrealistic to assume that bolts underground will only be subject to
similarly oriented and positioned forces. Shear and rotational forces may occur at one or multiple points
along the bolt. The working environment is a difficult one, limiting instrumentation due to delicacy
or set–up time. With this lack of complete instrumentation, there also comes uncertainty with regard
to how the bolt physically fails or yields, or the displacement mechanisms recorded – ASTM D4435-13
concedes that “interpretation of the [load-deflection] curve often requires some engineering judgement.”
2.5 Summary
Several rock bolt types are used in underground mines. Each of these bolts may be subject to variations
of several tests described by ASTM, designed to quantify various aspects of behaviour and performance.
The in situ pull test best incorporates certain aspects of operational bolt performance, namely the bolt
installation process and the rock mass in which the bolt will be installed. Despite the shortcomings of
the pull test, as a site-specific evaluation of the performance of a rock bolt, it is a widely applicable and
relatively inexpensive test influenced by a greater number of relevant factors than any of the laboratory
tests discussed.
This thesis focused on the behaviour of rock bolts subjected to pull tests. Chapter 3 provides a
description of the mines that provided the the results of the pull tests, and the specific bolts tested.
This information was used to construct a database of pull tests performed at these mine sites within a
specific time frame.
Chapter 3
Composition of the Database
This chapter provides a brief description of the regional geology of the Sudbury Basin, and of the mines
participating in the development of the pull test database. The latter part of this chapter provides
a description of the specific bolts tested in the database, and compares the database assembled with
previous work.
3.1 Pull Test Setting

Pull test data was collected from six copper-nickel mines around the Sudbury Basin, all owned and
operated by Vale: Coleman, Copper Cliff, Creighton, Garson, Stobie and Totten (shown in Figure 3.1).
The operations and their geological setting are described herein.
Milnet N
North Range Whistle

Z km AZ Nickel
Shaft
Offset
Strathcona
Coleman Capreol
Longvac
Fecunis
Fecunis Lake Fraser
Levack
Levack West McCreedy
Boundary
Hardy Norduna
Windy
Chelmsford
Lw Lw
East Falconbridge
Falconbridge
Little StobieGarson
Lw Stobie
Frood
Murray
SUDBURY
Trillabelle
Lw
Ramsey
Collins Lw Lake
Lw
Copper Cliff North
Sultana Clarabelle Copper Cliff South
Chicago
Creighton
Victoria
Worthington
Totten
Proterozoic LEGEND
Quartzite
Sudbury Igneaous Complex
Granophyre Chemsford Formation

GreywackeI volcanic rocks
Quartzxrich gabbro Onwatin Formation Archean
Granite gneiss and plutons
Norite Onaping Formation
South Range Shear Zone Fault
Sublayer Olivine diabase dykes
CreightonI Murray granites
NixCuxPGE deposits
Figure 3.1: Map of Sudbury area showing locations of relevant mines (after Eckstrand & Hulbert, 2007)
14
Chapter 3. Composition of the Database 15
3.1.1 Regional Geology

The Sudbury Basin is located at the contact between the South Province (South Range), composed of
Proterozoic Huronian supracrustal lithologies including sedimentary and volcanic rocks, and the Superior
Province (North Range), a collection of greenstone and metasedimentary belts, felsic plutons and gneissic
terrains (Card et al., 1974). In 1964, Dietz proposed an interpretation of the Sudbury Structure as a
meteor impact. He theorized that about 1.7 Ga, a meteorite 4 km in diameter struck Earth at 15
km/s, excavating a crater 30 miles (48.3 km) wide and 2 miles (3.2 km) deep. Magma welled up into
the crater, resulting in the Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC), which was then overlain by sediments.
Several subsequent orogenies, particularly the Grenville Orogeny (about 1 Ga), deformed the basin into
its present oval shape (Dietz, 1964). This model has been refined over the years, and it is now widely
accepted that the basin is the result of an extraterrestrial impact at 1.85 Ga (Long, 2009), resulting in a
200 km diameter crater after the collapse of the initial crater, and the SIC is largely a product of impact
melt as opposed to a mantle-derived magma (Naldrett, 2009).
Ore deposits in the Sudbury Basin can be broadly divided into four categories. SIC-footwall contact
deposits occur at the contact between the base of the SIC and the underlying rocks in the footwall, while
footwall vein deposits are up to 700 m into the footwall from the SIC with magmatic or hydrothermal
origin. Offset dike deposits are quartz diorite dikes with mineralized cores, and sheared deposits are
SIC-footwall contact deposits typically in the east of the South Range that have been affected by ductile
shear (Golightly, 2009). Vale’s Sudbury mines, described in Sections 3.1.2 through 3.1.7, exploit all four
types of mineral deposits between them. Table 3.1 shows the rock units present on the six mines and
the UCS values used on site. In some cases the rock type is present on site, but no UCS values were
readily available.
Table 3.1: Intact rock UCS values in MPa by mine site
Coleman Copper Cliff Creighton Garson Stobie Totten

Ore 130 110-150 130 91 155 170
Granite Gneiss 240
Mafic Gneiss 280
Granite Breccia 210
Sudbury Breccia 300
Olivene Diabase Dyke
Quartz Diorite 150 270
Metasediments 150-170 133
Granite 240 240
Norite 150 155 191
Trap Dyke 200-240 260
Amphibolite 200-240
Greenstone 209
Metabasalt 248
Conglomerate 223
Metagabbro 190.4
3.1.2 Coleman Mine

Located in the North Range, 30 km north-west of Sudbury, Coleman Mine entered production in 1970
and is now one of Vale’s most productive mines. Four ore bodies (Main Ore Body, West Ore Body,
153 Ore Body and 170 Ore Body) are currently being exploited (Vale, 2011), extracting a combined
1,515,000 metric tons of ore in 2013 (Vale, 2013). Several faults and an olivine-diabase dyke contribute
to the challenge of managing seismicity on site. Up until 2010, various configurations of cut-and-fill were
the main mining method. Since then, bulk mining (mainly slot and slash) has become more prevalent
for pillar recovery (Vale, 2011). Figure 3.2 shows a longitudinal section of the mine. The 170 orebody
extends below 5700 feet (1740 m), and as a result of high stresses and certain geologic structures such as
the Lunchroom Fault, seismicity is a concern at Coleman. 145 pull tests were collected from Coleman,
performed between September 2010 and March 2015.
MOB
153 OB
170 OB
Figure 3.2: Longitudinal section of Coleman Mine (Morissette et al, 2014)
3.1.3 Copper Cliff Mine

Copper Cliff Mine is located on the Copper Cliff Offset, a quartz diorite dike in the South Range
extending from the SIC to a system of faults to the south. Clarabelle pit entered production in 1960,
with a shaft coming online at Copper Cliff North in 1968, and Copper Cliff South in 1969 (Cochrane,
1984). The mine consists of numerous steeply dipping, pipe-like ore bodies (Morissette et al, 2014)
mined with methods including blasthole, vertical retreat, slot and slash and uppers retreat (Vale, 2010).
A cross fault, olivine-diabase dyke and trap dikes all act as sources for seismic activity across several
levels of the mine (Morissette et al, 2014). 164 pull tests were obtained from Copper Cliff Mine between
October, 2008 and March, 2015. Figure 3.3 shows a longitudinal section of Copper Cliff Mine.
Figure 3.3: Longitudinal section of Copper Cliff Mine (Chinnasane et al, 2014)
3.1.4 Creighton Mine

Creighton Mine is one of the oldest operating mines in Ontario, having entered production in 1901 (Vale,
2014). It is located on the outer rim of the South Range. Currently, the majority of production comes
from the 7400 level (2255 m) and below, with most of the of the shallower resource already mined out.
Significant seismic activity occurs on site as a result of its great depth and structures, including shear
zones and faults. Several orebodies are mined in tandem, all steeply dipping. Mineralization occurs
at the contact between the norite hanging wall and the granite-gabbro footwall, and is exploited using
the slot-and-slash mining method (Morissette et al, 2014). 294 pull tests were collected from Creighton
Mine, performed between January 2003 and January 2015. Figure 3.4 shows a longitudinal section of
Creighton Mine.
7LShaft
3LShaft 5LShaft 11LShaft 9LShaft
SE Surface NW
1000LL 305Lm
3 Shaft
Ramp
3800LL 1158Lm
Footwall Orebodies
Orebodies
Hangingwall Orebodies
Granite I Gabbro Complex
Sudbury Igneous Complex
6 Shaft 5800LL 1768Lm
Shear Zone
7000LL 2134Lm
8 Shaft
7680LL 2341Lm
461Orebody
8200LL 2500Lm
0 2000 m
2000 N
8000 N
10000LL 3048Lm
Figure 3.4: Longitudinal section of Creighton Mine (Snelling et al, 2013)

3.1.5 Garson Mine

Garson Mine consists of two operations; the surface ramp, and the shaft-accessed main mine which ex-
tends down 5200 feet. Four main orebodies are present, coincident with four shear zones (Mukwakwami
et al, 2013). Slot and slash is used to mine the two ore bodies at depth (1 Shear and 4 Shear), both
intersected by an olivene diabase dyke which defines east and west segments for each. The two orebodies
have strike lengths of around 600 m, and dip at about 70◦ (Abdellah et al, 2014). The shear zones,
dykes and faults combined with the depth of mining result in seismic activity in the lower parts of the
mine. 119 tests were obtained from Garson, performed between June 2011 and March 2015.
3.1.6 Stobie Mine

The Frood-Stobie deposit is located on the Frood-Stobie concentric offset dike hosted in Sudbury Breccia
just north of the city of Sudbury. Although the Frood-Stobe dike is concentric while the dikes hosting
Totten and Copper Cliff mines are radial, they are comparable insofar as they are steeply dipping and
composed of quartz diorite (Roussel et a., 2003). Vale suspended operations at the Frood section of the
mine in 2012 (Carmichael, 2012), although Stobie remains a significant producer at present. 150 pull
tests were collected from Stobie Mine, performed between December 2011 and December 2014. Figure
3.5 shows a long section of Stobie Mine.
Figure 3.5: Longitudinal section of Stobie Mine
3.1.7 Totten Mine

Totten Mine is one of several mines situated on the Worthington Offset, and is the most recent Vale
operation to come online in Sudbury. After 7 years of development, Vale produced 64,000 tons of ore in
2013 and will ramp up to full production in 2016 (Vale, 2015). The sulphide ore is found in an offset
quartz diorite dike dipping at 80◦ , the geological model of which is often compared to that of the Copper
Cliff Offset (Lightfoot & Farrow, 2002). 113 tests from between April 2010 and December 2014 were
obtained.
Figure 3.6: Longitudinal section of Totten Mine (After Sudbury Platinum Corporation, 2015)
3.2 Reinforcement Elements in the Pull Test Database

This section describes the bolts that constituted the pull test database. The bolts are briefly described,
and manufacturer-provided specifications for bolt performance are outlined.
3.2.1 Friction Rock Stabilizers

The FRS was developed by Scott (1977) as a reinforcement element that provides resistance to pull
along its length by using friction generated between the element and the surrounding rock. They were
originally branded as “Split Sets” by Ingersoll-Rand, but with the expiration of the patent they have
become available from other suppliers under various names. This list of names includes Friction Set,
Friction-Lok, Friction Stabilizer, Friction Bolt, as well as Split Set among others. As such a wide range of
brand names exist for similar bolts, this class of bolt is referred to collectively as friction rock stabilizers
(FRS) for the purposes of this thesis to avoid confusion. The FRS consists of a tube of steel with a
gap, or “split”, along its length such that the bolt may compress radially when installed in a hole with
a diameter smaller than that of the bolt. Resulting outward pressure on the surrounding rock mass
generates frictional resistance to pull out. These rock bolts have a tapered toe-end to facilitate insertion
into a drill hole, and generally have either a crimped head or, more recently, a ring welded on to the head
to hold a plate at the end of the bolt. Over the course of the period examined, Vale had two primary
suppliers of FRSs for testing. They will be referred to herein as Supplier A and Supplier B, supplying
FRS A and FRS B respectively. Limited testing was also performed on a third supplier’s (Supplier C)
FRS bolts.
FRS A
The FRS A (Figure 3.7) is manufactured in 4 nominal diameters: 33, 35, 39 and 46 mm (FA33, FA35,
FA39 and FA46 respectively), although the 33 mm variant was neither used nor tested at Vale’s Sudbury
operations during the time frame for which pull test data was collected. After the tube is electrolytically
galvanized, a ring is welded to the head of the bolt, and the weld and ring are painted over with zinc-
based paint to prevent corrosion. Bolts manufactured in this sequence are referred to as “pre-galvanized”
(i.e. the bolt is galvanized before assembly; Lynn Mainville-Beach, June 2014). Length-normalized load
capacities are calculated with an anchorage length equal to the bolt length minus 6” (15 cm). This is
the specified anchorage length used for such calculations in Supplier A’s pull test reports, and accounts
for the taper length and a portion of the bolt that is not fully inserted into the rock mass so that the
pull testing apparatus may be attached.
Figure 3.7: FRS A schematic (Courtesy of Supplier A)
FRS B
The FRS B (Figure 3.8) is manufactured in the same 4 nominal diameters as FRS A bolts (FB33,
FB35, FB39 and FB46), although as with the FRS A, the 33 mm variant was not used or tested by
Vale’s Sudbury operations. The bolts were manufactured with a crimped head until 2012, and are now
manufactured with a welded ring head. Bolts are post-galvanized; the galvanization is performed after
the ring head is welded on to the bolt (Lamothe, June 2014). Length-normalized load capacities are
once again calculated using a length 6” (15 cm) less than the total bolt length.
Figure 3.8: FRS B schematic (Courtesy of Supplier B)
Table 3.2 compares what is referred to as the ‘minimum breaking capacity’ by Supplier A and the
‘minimum ultimate tensile strength’ by Supplier B of the FRS A and FRS B, as well as the initial
capacity claimed by the suppliers, and the bit sizes suggested for installation.
The FRS Bs have slightly larger minimum ultimate tensile strengths than their FRS A equivalents,
although the recommended initial load ranges are identical. There is also variation in the bit size
recommendations; Supplier B recommends a larger minimum diameter for the 33 mm bolt, smaller
minimum and maximum diameters for the 35 mm bolt, and a larger maximum diameter for the 46 mm
bolt.
Table 3.2: Comparison of FRS supplier specifications (Courtesy of Suppliers A and B)
Minimum Ultimate Tensile Strength Initial Load Capacity Nominal Bit Size
FA33 71 kN 27 to 54 kN 30 to 33 mm
FB33 89 kN 27 to 54 kN 31 to 33 mm
FA35 71 kN 27 to 54 kN 32 to 35 mm
FB35 89 kN 27 to 54 kN 31.8 to 33.3 mm
FA39 89 kN 27 to 54 kN 35 to 38 mm
FB39 102 kN 27 to 54 kN 35 to 38 mm
FA46 133 kN 54 to 89 kN 41 to 44 mm
FB46 145 kN 54 to 89 kN 41 to 45 mm
3.2.2 Rebar Rock Bolts

Rebar rock bolts are partially threaded steel bolts that are grouted in a setting medium upon installation
(in the case of Vale’s Sudbury operations, resin is used). Rebar supplied by Suppliers A and B, as well
as a third supplier, Supplier C, were tested. Each bolt is installed in the corresponding supplier’s brand
of resin. The rebar are usually tensioned by tightening the nut on the bar after the fast-setting resin at
the base of the hole has set, and before the slower setting resin along the rest of the column has set. The
large majority of the bolts tested were 20 mm in diameter, with a limited number of tests on 22 mm
bolts. Both Suppliers A and C manufacture their rebar using Grade 60 steel (minimum yield strength
of 420 MPa; ASTM A615, 2015), while Supplier B uses grade 400W steel (minimum yield strength of
400 MPa; CSA G30.18, 2009). Figure 3.9 shows schematics of the three rebar, and Table 3.3 compares
the strengths of 20 mm bolts.
Figure 3.9: Schematics of rebar manufactured by Supplier C (top; courtesy of Supplier C), Supplier A
(middle; courtesy of Supplier A) and Supplier B (bottom; courtesy of Supplier B)
Table 3.3: Steel properties for a 20 mm threaded rebar (Courtesy of Suppliers A, B and C)
Gr. 60 Gr. 400 W

Minimum Yield Strength 89 kN 86 kN
Minimum Ultimate Tensile Strength 134 kN 116 kN
As shown in Table 3.3, the Grade 60 rebar (Suppliers A and C) has a marginally higher yield strength
as well as higher tensile strength than Supplier B’s Grade 400 W rebar. It should also be noted that
each bolt type has a different surface pattern, which may influence the interaction between the bolt and
grout during and after mixing. All three of the suppliers’ rebar are manufactured with 10 UNC threads.
3.2.3 Modified Cone Bolt

The Modified Cone Bolt (Figure 3.10) is a yielding reinforcement element, designed to absorb kinetic
energy in the event of a rock burst. It consists of a smooth bar with a conical head that ploughs through
the resin column as displacement of the plate at the surface of the rock mass occurs. The current
configuration of Conebolt supplied by Mansour, the MCB33, derives its name from the recommended
drill bit size for bolt installation (33 mm). Limited testing was also performed on the discontinued
MCB38. The Modified Cone Bolt has a paddle on the end of the conical head to improve resin mixing
as the bolt is inserted into the drill hole. For debonding and protection against corrosion, the smooth
bar of an MCB33 has a plastic coating, or ‘sleeve’, while greasing the smooth bar of an MCB38 was
previously performed to limit bonding between the tendon and the resin (Cai et al, 2010). The MCB33
is manufactured using a modified C1055 carbon steel. Table 3.4 shows the minimum and typical yield
and ultimate loads at the thread of the bolt.
Figure 3.10: MCB33 (Courtesy of Mansour)
Table 3.4: MCB33 mechanical properties (Courtesy of Mansour)
Minimum Typical
Yield Strength 98.5 kN 113.6 kN
Ultimate Tensile Strength 151.5 kN 163.6 kN
3.2.4 D-Bolt
The D-Bolt (Figure 3.11) is a yielding reinforcement element supplied by Normet. It consists of segments
of smooth bar punctuated by anchor sections that are composed of perpendicularly oriented flattened
paddles. The D-Bolt is designed such that load is distributed evenly along the smooth steel section,
allowing for relatively large deformations and thus capacity to absorb energy. Due to the strength of the
steel and relatively stiff bolt response, the D-Bolt may also hypothetically be used as a static support
element (Li, 2011). The D-Bolt is manufactured with a smooth bar diameter of either 20 mm or 22 mm,
with pull tests on both diameters of bolt present in the database.
Figure 3.11: D-Bolt schematic (Normet, 2014)

Mansour manufacture a similar, 20.5 mm diameter bolt: the VersaBolt (or DS-Bolt). Figure 5.19
shows one possible configuration of the Versabolt. Table 3.5 shows the yield and ultimate tensile loads
of the D-Bolt and VersaBolt.
Figure 3.12: VersaBolt schematic (Courtesy of Mansour)
Table 3.5: VersaBolt and D-Bolt mechanical properties (Courtesy of Mansour, Normet)
VersaBolt D-Bolt (20 mm) D-Bolt (22 mm)

Typical yield strength 138 kN 150 kN 190 kN
Typical ultimate tensile strength 192 kN 210 kN 250 kN
3.2.5 Expandable Bolts

Expandable bolts are reinforcement elements that are inflated once placed in a drill hole. They consist of
a folded tube sealed at one end, with a pump adapter on the other. Water is pumped into the bolt to a
specified pressure, expanding the bolt and contouring it to the walls of the drill hole. The original brand
of expandable bolt was the Swellex, supplied by Atlas Copco. Upon the expiration of the patent, similar
alternatives from different suppliers came onto the market. The Swellex line was the most prevalent
expandable bolt in the database, while significantly fewer tests were performed on DSI’s Omega bolt
and Jennmar’s Python bolt. Figure 3.13 shows a Python bolt, as well as cross-sections before and after
inflation.
1 2
Figure 3.13: Schematic of a Python bolt, and cross sections before (1) and after (2) inflation (Courtesy
of Jennmar)
Atlas Copco manufacture three different types of Swellex; the Premium (Pm) line for standard
applications, the Manganese (Mn) line for large deformation circumstances, and the Spartan (Sp) line
for low convergence, low energy scenarios (Atlas Copco, 2012). DSI supply a “Standard” and a “Plus”
line, which are equivalent to the Pm and Mn lines respectively, and Jennmar only have one line. Table
3.6 compares different bolt variants. Swellex Spartan bolts are omitted as they were not tested at Vale’s
operations, and there were no DSI or Jennmar equivalent at the time of writing. Note that breaking load
and elongation values are expressed as minimums for Swellex and Omega bolts, but as typical values for
Python bolts.
Table 3.6: Summary of Swellex, Omega and Python bolt mechanical properties (Atlas Copco, 2012;
Courtesy of Jennmar, DSI)
Type Variant Breaking Load (kN) Elongation Material Thickness (mm)

Swellex Pm12 110 10% 2
Mn12 110 20% 2
Omega 12 Tonnes Standard 120 10% 2
12 Tonnes Plus 115 20% 2
Python Standard 120 25% 2
Mn16 150 20% 2
Omega 16 Tonnes Plus 150 20% 2
Python Midi 160 25% 2
Mn24 220 20% 3
Omega 24 Tonnes Standard 240 10% 3
24 Tonnes Plus 220 20% 3
Python Super 240 25% 3
In addition to the different bolt variants supplied by Atlas Copco, the bolts may also be manufactured
with a plastic coating, denoted by adding a prefix of “Pc” to the bolt name (e.g. PcPm12). Two types
of plastic coating are used; a polyvinyl (PVC) coating is used exclusively on the Pm12 bolt, while a
polyethylene (PE) powdered coating is used on other variants (Leung, 2014).
3.3 Database
In total, pull test data for at least 26 bolt configurations from 7 suppliers across 5 classes of bolt was
collected.
3.3.1 Database Description

The pull test database was constructed as a tool that may be used to investigate overall trends and
behaviours of various rock bolts by analysing a large number of pull tests, as opposed to examining
results within isolated testing campaigns. A wide variety of rock bolts were pull tested over the period
of data collection, allowing the direct comparison of performance when installed and tested in broadly
similar conditions. The large amount of empirical data collected made it possible to compare conceptual
results with behaviour interpreted from in situ pull testing. This also allowed for the determination of
input parameters for design, recognizing variation present in field data.
The database was constructed using pull test reports issued by the personnel conducting the tests
(usually the supplier of a certain bolt will perform the pull tests on that bolt) to the mines. While the
content and quality of the reports varied between and within suppliers, they generally contained data
on the installation of the bolt, an indication of ground conditions, and information about the bolt being
tested. The results of testing take the form of a load–displacement curve, a “yield” load (i.e. working
capacity) and/or a maximum recorded load. The pull test reports were evaluated on an individual
basis to ensure consistency in the data input into the database. For example, the working capacity was
evaluated directly from the load–displacement curve of a test; the “yield” value recorded by the author
of the pull test report was not accepted without verification. Table 3.7 summarizes the number of pull
tests performed on each configuration.
Table 3.7: Number of pull tests by bolt type
Class Name Manufacturer Configuration Number

FA35 92
FRS A Supplier A FA39 30
FA46 52
FB35 100
FRS FRS B Supplier B FB39 101
FB46 154
FRS C Supplier C FC35 6
FC46 6
MD Bolt Sandvik N/A 10
TOTAL 555
Rebar A Supplier A 20 mm 52
Rebar B Supplier B 20 mm 54
Grouted Bolts Rebar C Supplier C 20 mm 18
(Static) Fibreglass Rebar FiReP N/A 10
Unspecified rebar 7
TOTAL 141
Pm12 57
Swellex Atlas Copco Pm24 36
Mn12 17
Expandable Bolts Mn24 20
Omega DSI 12t 4
24t 1
Python Jennmar 16t 5
TOTAL 140
Modified Cone Bolt MCB33 78
MCB38 8
D-Bolt Normet 20 mm 15
Yielding Bolts 22 mm 20
DS-Bolt Mansour 20.5 mm 4
Yield-Lok Jennmar N/A 10
TOTAL 135
Other Eyebolts in FA39 Supplier A N/A 11
Mechanical Bolt in FA39 N/A 3
TOTAL 14
TOTAL 985
Some of the bolt types shown in Table 3.7 could have been further subdivided, however inconsistent
recording of precise bolt configuration made it difficult to distinguish between these subdivisions. For
example, many FRSs were noted to be galvanized. However, in a large number of cases, it was not
noted whether bolts were galvanized, and there was a small sample size of bolt explicitly note as non-
galvanized. Given the size of the non-galvanized sample, it proved to be impossible to separate the
influence of galvanization from other factors. A similar situation exists with Swellex bolts being uncoated,
versus having various plastic coatings. In these cases, bolts are grouped and these distinctions are not
incorporated into the analysis.
3.3.2 Comparison to Other Pull Test Databases

Traditionally, pull tests are performed for specific purposes, such as corroborating the supplier’s claims
of load capacity for a bolt. There are exceptions, and similar pull test databases have been previously
assembled for large-scale analysis. Tomory et al. (1998) built a database of over 900 pull tests on two
diameters of Split Set (SS33 and SS39), and analysed their performance in terms of load capacity and
how it related to various factors associated with their installation. Soni (2000) collected 309 pull tests
performed on Swellex bolts, and also attempted to correlate performance with installation parameters.
The database assembled for the purposes of this thesis is different for several reasons. The first is that
multiple types of bolt are investigated; both Tomory et al. (1998) and Soni (2000) focus on one type of
bolt (Split Sets and Swellex respectively). This database includes not only different types of bolt, but
also similar bolts from different suppliers. While Tomory et al. (1998) compare two diameters of Split
Set, the database assembled for this thesis has a significant amount of pull test data for three diameters
of both FRS A and FRS B bolts.
As all pull tests were performed for one company (Vale) in the Sudbury Basin (i.e. in relatively close
proximity to one another), there is some degree of consistency in the products delivered to the mine
sites, as well as installation, testing and reporting procedures. All tests were conducted in only 6 mines
in similar geological settings (compared to over 50 mines in the analysis of Tomory et al; 1998, and
mine sites across North America and Europe in the case of Soni; 2000), lending further consistency to
the testing conditions. Finally, a significant difference between the database assembled for this thesis
and those of Tomory et al. (1998) and Soni (2000) is the inclusion of displacement data. While the
previous analyses were performed on the load capacities of the investigated rock bolts, this thesis seeks
to also address bolt head displacement behaviour with load in order to develop guidelines of expected
behaviours and input parameters for more advanced design methodologies.
3.3.3 Specific and General Limitations of the Pull Test Database

Despite the large amount of data collected, there were inconsistencies and shortcomings that should be
noted. Although collecting pull test data from six mines provides the undeniable advantage of large data
volume, each mine has different equipment, equipment operators, ground control personnel, and ground
conditions. All of these have the potential to add variability to the process of installing a bolt, and thus
possibly its performance when subject to a pull test. On the other hand, with all six mines located
in the same region, only lithologies present in and around the Sudbury Basin are represented in the
database. In addition, as each supplier generally performs their own pull testing, different apparatuses
and practices were used to conduct the pull testing, introducing another source of variability and possible
bias.
An omission of many pull test reports was a the use of a standardized method of rock mass char-
acterization. While even one to two word descriptors such as “good” or “heavily fractured” were used,
such terms are part of a non–standard and very subjective terminology. While rock mass classification
schemes such as RMR or Q often include qualitative measures, they are less subjective than such broad
descriptors of quality. As such it is seen as a significant shortcoming that no standardized methodology

of assessing, or even language describing, rock mass quality was available from the pull test reports or
the mine sites themselves.
As a result of Vale’s Sudbury Operations motivations for performing pull tests (quality control,
product interaction and investigation of new reinforcement elements), almost all pull tests were performed
on bolts that had been installed hours or minutes before testing. As certain time–related effects may
affect performance, such as corrosion and exposure to vibrations resulting from seismicity and blasting,
this is a significant area of study that is not addressed. Bolts that had been installed before the test
date were usually randomly selected, with an unknown or unnoted installation date and no assessment
of corrosion.
Due to safety concerns, bolts were not loaded until failure during testing. While working capacity is
a valuable design metric, an investigation into the full behaviour of the bolt until it reaches its ultimate
capacity and/or failure could not be undertaken for most types of bolt in the database.
It must be acknowledged that the database represents pull tests over a period of 4 years, or longer
for some mines. In this time, the design of the reinforcement elements as well as pull testing procedures
may evolve. For example, Supplier B transitioned from supplying FRS B with a crimped head to one
with a steel ring, and the possibility of reducing the diameter of certain FRS A configurations was under
investigation during this time frame. As such, the analysis performed is representative of the specimen
population as a whole during this window, and not necessarily of current or future bolt performance.
3.4 Summary
The six mines for which pull test data was compiled are all situated in or near the Sudbury Igneous
Complex. A wide range of rock units are present as a result of the complex geology of the area, a
challenge compounded by inconsistent geotechnical data logging between the mines.
While the bolt types discussed have different operational principles behind them, the provided spec-
ifications between suppliers of the same bolt configuration generally agree with one another. Although
suppliers do not provide an explicit value of strength to be used for the design of an excavation, they do
often provide minimum and typical material strengths in terms of both yield and ultimate load.
Databases of pull tests have been previously assembled, however the data collect for this thesis
originates from 6 mines in relative proximity to one another. More types of rock bolt are included than
in other databases, and bolt behaviour as well as load capacity is examined.
Chapter 4 details the pull testing process in the campaigns that constitute the database and compares
the methods used in practice with those suggested by ISRM or prescribed by ASTM.
Chapter 4
Review of Implemented Pull Test

Methods
Chapter 2 provided a description of the ASTM Standards for in situ pull testing of rock bolts, as well
as the ISRM suggested methods for pull testing. This chapter provides a commentary on pull tests as
implemented in the reported database. It is based on all pull test reports in the database, and witnessing
a number of pull test campaigns performed by different suppliers at different mine sites. This chapter will
also discuss the significance of any deviation from the ASTM standards and ISRM suggested methods.
4.1 Implementation of Pull Tests in Practice

Standard procedure at Vale’s Sudbury operations, as in most Ontario mines, is to have at least one
representative from both the rock bolt supplier and the mine’s ground control staff present at the test.
As the pull tests that constitute the database were generally performed by the supplier of the bolt
being tested, there are variations in the apparatuses and procedures used to perform the pull tests.
The pull test reports generally have a generic procedure outlined therein, in which significant deviations
may be recorded. The author was present to witness two campaigns of pull testing; MCB33s tested by
Mansour at Garson Mine, and 22 mm D-Bolts tested by Normet at Creighton Mine. Figure 4.1 shows
the apparatus used by Normet set up to test a 22 mm D-Bolt.
A bolt extension, also known as a pulling rod, comprised of a thick threaded steel bar is attached
to the bolt being pulled with a threaded adaptor. A loading frame is mounted and made flush with the
rock, if necessary by inserting plates between the rock and the loading frame. This may also orient the
apparatus to ensure near-axial application of load. A hydraulic ram is then mounted on the assembly,
followed by a wing nut to secure the system and transmit load from the ram to the pulling rod and
rock bolt. A Vernier calliper with an electronic display is affixed to the apparatus, which measures the
relative displacement between the bolt extension and the loading frame (i.e. ram travel).
28
Chapter 4. Review of Implemented Pull Test Methods 29
Figure 4.1: Normet’s pull test apparatus mounted on a 22 mm D-Bolt
Load is applied by pressurizing the hydraulic ram with a hand pump, and measured from a cali-
brated pressure gauge. Measurements are made by reading displacement off of the Vernier calliper at
predetermined load intervals (for the 22 mm D-Bolt, these intervals were generally one reading every
two tons of load up to 10 tons, and one per ton above that, although this may vary with the type of
bolt being tested). Testing is generally performed until the bolt reaches its working capacity, although
tests may be stopped before this is reached. In contrast, an FRS is tested until it slips (i.e. its ultimate
capacity), although displacement is not measured for the majority of pull tests on this type of bolt.
While suppliers employ different apparatuses, this procedure was the one most widely used to con-
tribute to the database, with manual application of load and data recording. In general, Supplier A, and
on occasion other suppliers, used a more digitized apparatus which logs data electronically. A displace-
ment sensor measures displacement between the pulling rod and the lower part of the hydraulic ram
(essentially the same displacement measurement as that shown in Figure 4.1), and load is measured using
a load cell. Recordings are made at a certain frequency, as opposed to intervals of load or displacement.
Load may be applied with either a manual or an electric pump.
4.2 Deviations from ASTM Standard D4435-13 and ISRM Sug-

gested Methods for Rockbolt Testing
ASTM D4435-13 (Standard Test Method for Rock Bolt Anchor Pull Test) dictates with great detail
the apparatus and procedure used for an in situ pull test. Although some aspects of ISRM’s suggested
methods are not as rigorous, it is still a thorough methodology. Differences between the pull test as
practised at the mine sites discussed and the standard and suggested methods are described herein.
4.2.1 Deviations in Apparatus

The loading systems and transducers of the various suppliers generally meet the standard and suggested
methods. The loading systems are as described in ASTM D4435-13, and have travel ranges exceeding
the specified 50mm, and the pressure gauges/electronic transducers have the specified resolution of 445
N (although it is not clear whether this includes the effects of friction “and the like”; ASTM D4435,
2013). However, the apparatus for the measurement of displacement is often quite different to what is
specified. While a calliper mounted on the loading system is used in practice, the standard specifies a
dial gauge (or another displacement transducer that may still comply with the standard) that is either
supported independent of the rock face, or 0.9 m from the reaction frame if supported by the face
(ASTM D4435, 2013). ISRM also suggests a dial gauge, and specifies that it must be supported on a
stable surface (ISRM, 1981). This means that fundamentally different displacements are being measured
– while ASTM and ISRM pull tests measure the displacement between the bolt head and a stable datum
(i.e. an unaffected part of the excavation surface), the pull test as practised measures displacement that
occurs between the pulling rod and the loading frame, or ram travel. This may result in the incorporation
of displacements incurred on the surface of the excavation beneath the loading frame in addition to those
attributed to the movement or deformation of the rock bolt.
ASTM additionally mandates that a thermometer be used to measure temperature, a parameter
that may be relevant for resin or cement grouts. No recording of temperature was made in any pull test
report collected for the database.
4.2.2 Deviations in Procedure

Both ASTM and ISRM require bolt installations representative of typical operational procedures. ASTM
suggests 10 to 12 pull tests should be performed for every combination of factors (such as installation
equipment, orientation relative to anisotropy, etc.), and ISRM suggests at least five. The size of the pull
test campaigns varies in the database; some include three tests, some over 20. Generally, campaigns are
performed on five bolts for a set of parameters, such as installation in ore versus waste.
Both ASTM and ISRM also demand measurements of borehole dimensions (ASTM specifies diameter,
ISRM diameter and length). Borehole diameter is occasionally recorded for the tests collected, although
the methodology used to conduct the measurement is not always clear (i.e. the number and location of
measurements in the drill hole). Similarly, the measurement of bolt diameter (in practice only performed
for FRSs) may be a single value, or an average of several measurements along the bolt’s length. ISRM
also suggest drill hole straightness, cleanness, dryness and orientation be recorded, none of which are
noted in the pull test reports.
As is the case with the sections relevant to the apparatus set up, a portion of both ASTM and
ISRM’s procedural guidelines are concerned with ensuring that bolt installation is performed using
standard operational practices. The principal motivation for regular testing at most mines is quality
control, so typical installation of the bolts is performed. However, this may mean that certain aspects
of the ASTM and ISRM procedures are not observed, such as cleaning the drill hole before the bolt is
installed.
Only ISRM’s suggested methods refers to the implementation of a pre-load. A pre-load is the limited
loading of the bolt before recording displacement data in order to tighten the apparatus mounted on
the bolt. A 5 kN maximum is suggested, although the typical pre-load used in practice was 2 tons
(17.8 kN) and could be as high as 4 tons (35.6 kN). While ASTM does not make reference to pre-load,
it does describe quite a detailed and extensive loading procedure. For at least half of the bolts, three
loading/unloading cycles in 10 equal increments are specified, loading the bolt up to 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 of the
estimated failure load. This guideline did not appear to have been followed in any pull test campaign,
and bolts were fully loaded in the first and only loading cycle. Unloading and reloading only occurred
when significant movement of the apparatus resulted in a loss of load on the bolt. ASTM specifies that
non-cycled bolts are to be loaded to failure in 20 equal increments or increments of 2.2 kN, whichever is
less (ISRM suggests increments no greater than 5 kN), but in general increments of 1 ton (8.9 kN) were
used when increments were recorded manually. There are also guidelines regarding failure of the bolt;
ASTM specifies the bolt must be pulled to failure (defined by ASTM as the peak load, or a deflection
of 12.7 mm), and then pulled an additional 12.7 mm, with load recorded every 1 mm. ISRM specifies
testing to be performed until either 40 mm of displacement, yield or failure of the anchor. In general,
pull tests were performed until the working capacity (i.e. the point at which a significant increase in
the displacement observed per load increment; ASTM, 2013c) of the element was surpassed. Peak load
(ultimate capacity) or failure load was not generally found for bolts besides the FRS, as there are safety
concerns associated with energy release when failing a bolt.
There are several calculations mandated by ASTM which are either not performed, or are not included
in the pull test report. These include stress, elastic deformation and corrected bolt head displacement.
It should be recognised that these calculations are not straightforward for all bolt types; for example,
elastic deformation in a grouted bolt is difficult to calculate unless one makes the assumption that all
displacement before the bolt yields may be attributed to elastic deformation.
4.2.3 Practical Considerations in Pull Testing

The ISRM suggested methods for pull testing rock bolts have not been updated since 1974, and in fact
are only “suggested methods”, not requiring compliance. ASTM in itself has no part in requesting or
enforcing compliance to its standards. Unless it is a contract requirement, the use of ASTM standards
in not required.
Pull testing is a time–consuming process that poses logistical challenges and requires the co-ordination
of multiple parties. It can interfere with operations, involves the transportation of a significant amount of
equipment to and from the site of the tests, and can only be performed when at least one representative
of the supplier, their test equipment, one member of the ground control staff, bolt installation equipment
and its operator are available. Combining these challenges with a demanding working environment, pull
testing is a slow process that may take weeks to organize. While minor improvements, such as the
recording of temperature, could perhaps be made on the tests as performed relatively easily, ASTM’s
standard is difficult to fully implement on a routine basis. The testing campaigns collected were typically
performed on 5 bolts, or on occasion 10. In all campaigns, one loading cycle with increments of at least
1 ton (if loaded manually) were performed on each bolt. Had the ASTM standard been followed, at least
four times as many measurements at 500 lbf (2.2 kN)increments would have been made. Additionally,
half of the bolts would have been loaded three times in addition to the full test. This would result in
perhaps two to three bolts being tested in the same time frame, an unacceptably low number for a quality
control investigation. ISRM’s suggested methods are more forgiving, especially in terms of procedure,
however are somewhat dated. They pre-date the introduction of FRSs, expandable bolts and yielding
bolts to the industry, and as a result are focused on cement-grouted rebar and mechanical bolts, which
must be seen as a significant shortcoming of the procedures described.
4.3 Pull Test Data

A pull test measures two variables; load and displacement. From these measurements, certain proper-
ties of the bolt-anchor-rock mass system may be inferred or calculated, and act as quantifiers of bolt
performance. The two types of metric this thesis primarily focuses on are working capacity (or ultimate
capacity for an FRS) and measures of stiffness.
4.3.1 Working Capacity and the Measurement of Load

While the ultimate capacity of the element is arguably the best reflection of reinforcement strength, pull
tests in which the bolt is pulled until total failure are rarely conducted, as there are significant safety
hazards associated with the amount of elastic energy released from a failing bolt. Working capacity is
a safer and more easily achievable alternative for most bolts, representing a value at which relatively
large, permanent displacements occur with little additional application of load.
The use of working capacity as a design value over ultimate capacity is in part related to the objective
of a ground support system. For such a system to be successful, the excavation must be stable, safe, and
operational. Working capacity signifies the beginning of increasing displacement per unit load, which
may be at least in part attributable to plastic deformation of some types of rock bolt. This increase
in displacement could result in closure of the excavation, and/or unravelling. Both of these effects may
result in conditions that interfere with regular operations and may require rehabilitation. In this case the
support system may not be considered successful; even though individual elements have not necessarily
failed, displacements resulting from loads exceeding the working capacities of the rock bolts in the system
result in a non-operational excavation condition. How a reinforcement element may react to dynamic
loading resulting from seismicity may also depend on whether its working capacity has been exceeded.
Figure 4.2 shows the results of laboratory static (left) and dynamic (right) loading tests of a 22 mm
D-Bolt. In both cases, the bolt failed.
300 300 Impact load
250 250
Load (kN)
200 200
Load (kN)
150 150
100 100
Plate load
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 50 100 150 200 250
Plate End Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.2: Static laboratory pull test on a 22 mm D-Bolt 2.1 m in length (left; Doucet & Voyzelle,
2012) and dynamic impact test on a 22 mm D-Bolt 1.5 m in length (right; Li & Doucet, 2012)
The results of static and dynamic tests cannot be directly compared, as the difference in loading rate
results in the reinforcement element assuming different properties. For example, in Figure 4.2, impact
testing results in a higher yield load and larger ultimate displacement than a static laboratory pull test on
a longer 22 mm D-Bolt. However, by indirectly comparing the tests it can be demonstrated why working
capacity may be used as a design value for static scenarios. The energy capacity of a rock bolt is equal to
the area under the load–displacement curve (Li et al, 2014). The D-Bolt absorbs energy by distributing
strain across a length between two anchors, allowing for larger deformations at equivalent loads than
reinforcement elements continuously bonded to the rock mass, such as rebar, where strain is concentrated
on a relatively short section of the element. If a D-Bolt bears a load less than its working capacity, most
of the D-Bolt’s energy capacity is conserved as little deformation has been incurred. However, if the
working capacity is surpassed, the energy capacity of the bolt diminishes much more significantly as the
magnitude of plastic deformation per unit load is greater than that of elastic deformation. As a result,
if a D-Bolt (or other reinforcement elements that physically yield without slipping) is subject to static
loads greater than its working capacity, it will have significantly less capacity to absorb energy under
dynamic loading.
In most pull test reports, the working capacity is referred to as “yield” for all bolt types. Yield
strength is defined as “the engineering stress at which, by convention, it is considered that plastic elon-
gation of the material has commenced” (ASTM E6, 2009). Figure 4.3 shows two methods of determining
yield strength according to ASTM Standard E6-09b.
Figure 4.3: Methods of determining yield strength: halt of the pointer method (left) and offset method
(right; ASTM E6, 2009)
In Figure 4.3, the yield strength (Sy ; UYS and LYS are upper and lower yield strength respectively)
are determined at either a perfectly plastic response to load (i.e. an increase in displacement without
a corresponding increase in load), or at a predefined offset in strain from linear elastic behaviour. The
resolution of recorded load values for the data collected is variable and in some cases quite poor. If load
is recorded manually, increments of 0.5, 1 or even 2 tons (4.45, 8.9 or 17.8 kN) are used in different
tests. Digital recording is frequency-based, resulting in variable load resolution which is a function of
loading rate and measurement frequency. Neither of the methods of determining yield strength presented
in Figure 4.3 are practical when applied to the data collected. Perfectly plastic behaviour is seldom
observed since displacement is recorded in increments of load and defining a strain offset to determine
yield when bolt behaviours may be non-linear and highly variable is not feasible.
The working capacity was determined for the purposes of this thesis as the greatest load measured
before a softening of the bolt response attributed to plastic deformation of the reinforcement element
material or movement of the entire element is observed, as demonstrated in Figure 4.3.
Working Capacity
Load
Displacement
Figure 4.4: Determination of working capacity from a pull test
The working capacity may be indicative of a lower bound of yield strength for some bolts, however
some bolt types may reach their working or ultimate capacity before the bolt material itself actually
yields. For example, an FRS will generally slip rather than yield or fail if pull testing is performed
soon after installation, and its ultimate capacity will be defined by the maximum load sustained by the
bolt without slipping. As working and ultimate capacity are generally applicable measures of bolt load
capacity, they are the primary load metrics discussed in this thesis.
4.3.2 Recording Displacement During a Pull Test

Elastic deformation of the bolt contributes to the bolt head displacement observed during a pull test.
However, other sources of displacement may be included in the measurement, especially if using a dis-
placement measuring system mounted directly on the rock bolt loading apparatus. These displacements
may include compression or fracturing of the rock mass and surface support system, movement of the
entire bolt relative to the rock mass, or shifting of the testing apparatus, among others. This is demon-
strated in Figure 4.5.
db represents the displacement of the bolt head resulting from bolt deformation (as in Figure 4.5),
movement of the bolt relative to the toe of the hole, or a combination of the two as load is applied. ds
is the displacement of the excavation surface in direct contact with the pull test apparatus relative to
the excavation surface unaffected by the testing, defined by the extent of the rock mass or any surface
support, as elements such as mesh or liners may deform as load is applied. In the case of Figure 4.5,
ds is a result of fracture compression and generation, and movement of the resulting blocks. da is the
apparent displacement, equal to the summation of db and ds . This is the value that is measured by a
pull test apparatus that measures total displacement induced by the apparatus (as in Figure 4.1), as
opposed to the reaction of the bolt. The use of a dial gauge mounted independently of the face in which
the bolt is installed per ASTM D4435-13 and ISRM’s suggested methods minimizes the effect of the
rock mass response by measuring bolt head displacement relative to a stationary reference point, such
as the floor or a stable portion of the wall (i.e. displacement db ).
db = displacement attributable to bolt deformation or movement

ds = displacement induced on the surface of the excavation
da = db + ds = apparent displacement
ds
da
db
Figure 4.5: Measurement of displacement for a pull test on a generic reinforcement element
The measurement of da may not accurately reflect the performance of the bolt alone if the objective
of testing is solely the investigation of the bolt response to load, however it could still be representative
of certain loading scenarios. Figure 4.6 shows a representation of a generic rock reinforcement system
(Thompson et al, 2012).
Figure 4.6: Generic reinforcement system (Thompson et al, 2012)
A pull test using an independently mounted dial gauge measures two of the interactions shown in
Figure 4.6: element–internal fixture, and internal fixture–rock. By recording the displacement of the
loading system as was practised in all cases used to build the pull test database, a third interaction
is simulated. The pull test apparatus acts as an external fixture, and its interaction with the rock is
recorded as well as the element-internal fixture and internal fixture-rock interactions. This results in a
loading scenario analogous to the one presented in Figure 4.7.
Figure 4.7 presents a simplified scenario in which a point-anchored bolt is loaded axially by a wedge.
The excavation surface around the face plate of the bolt compresses as it would during a pull test,
displacing by an amount ds relative to the rest of the wedge’s surface. The bolt deforms, resulting in a
displacement db at the bolt head. The summation of these two displacements, da , is the displacement
undergone by the surface of the wedge relative to the surface of the stable excavation. In the case of a
point–anchored reinforcement element, the da of a pull test may reflect the da of such an axial loading
scenario, depending on factors such as plate size relative to the footprint of the pull test apparatus on
the surface of the excavation, use of surface support, wedge size, etc. For other types of reinforcement
elements, the agreement depends on where along its length a bolt is loaded, how load attenuates to the
head of the bolt (influencing ds ), and the length of bolt that will deform (influencing db ).
da = d b + d s
da
ds
db
Figure 4.7: Measurement of displacement for axial loading of a point anchored rock bolt
The rock mass is an integral part of the system, but its complexity makes its role relatively difficult
to monitor during a pull test. Shearing of a bolt may occur across one or a series of joints, especially if
the bolt is not tested immediately after installation, which may affect its behaviour. Loss of resin into
fractures in the rock mass may impact the volume of effective resin and its mixing, thereby potentially
affecting the performance of any resin-grouted bolt. The drillability of the rock influences the diameter of
a drill hole relative to the size of a drill bit and could impact the performance of frictionally coupled bolts.
The strength and degree of fracturing of the rock mass and surface support may affect the measured
displacements, as shown in Figure 4.5. It follows that the behaviour of a rock bolt during a pull test is
influenced by the condition and properties of the rock mass in which it is installed.
4.3.3 Rock Bolt Stiffness

When designing a ground support system, very little deformation of an excavation may be desirable,
in which case stiffer bolts are preferred. In other instances (such as squeezing ground conditions),
a more ductile ground support system may be implemented to allow deformation of the rock mass
while preventing reinforcement elements from surpassing their ultimate tensile strain capacity (Potvin &
Hadjigeorgiou, 2008). A conceptual example is provided by Brady & Brown (2006), as the convergence–
confinement method of support system design (shown in Figure 4.8). Inward radial displacement occurs
at a point in a tunnel as a result of stress in the rock mass and a diminishing support effect provided
by the face as it advances away from the point in question. In order to mitigate radial displacement,
a ground support system is installed, which provides a certain support pressure. An equilibrium is
reached when the ground reaction curve and the support reaction curve intersect. As more displacement
occurs, less support pressure is generally required to establish an equilibrium. Figure 4.8 shows various
support systems installed after different degrees of radial displacement. It can be seen that a stiff support
system installed promptly when little radial displacement has occurred (System 3) must provide a large
support pressure relative to either a more ductile system (System 4), or systems installed once more
radial displacement has occurred (i.e. the face has advanced further; Systems 1, 2 and 5).
Figure 4.8: Design of support systems using the ground reaction curve (Brady & Brown, 2006)
Stiffness is measured in terms of load per unit displacement, kN/mm. The calculation of stiffness
is a way of investigating how stress attenuates down the bolt. Continuously coupled bolts will not
have an even load distribution along their lengths, and their stiffness may describe how well they are
bonded or coupled to the rock mass. It would appear that “stiffness” is reported in several forms in
technical literature. The two principal measures discussed in this thesis are illustrated in Figure 4.9.
Secant stiffness is the average relationship between displacement and load from initial loading up until
the working capacity (i.e. a secant stiffness at the working capacity). Stiffness calculated along a linear
portion of the load–displacement relationship is the tangent stiffness (Bieniawski et al, 1978). The former
will incorporate displacement effects not necessarily directly related to the behaviour of the rock bolt
such as fracturing of the rock mass, compression of pre-existing fractures and movement of the loading
rig among others. The tangent stiffness was used in an attempt to minimize the influence of these sources
of displacement, and may potentially provide a better description of bolt performance.
160
140
120 SecantcStiffness
100
Load (kN)
80
60
TangentcStiffness
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.9: Calculation of secant and tangent stiffness from a pull test
This thesis also uses the metric “unloading stiffness”, which is calculated by examining the recovery of
displacement (recorded as negative) when the bolt is unloaded, representing elastic recovery of the bolt.
This should further reduce the effect of elements of the testing system extraneous to the rock bolt being
tested. In some cases, the pull test report would explicitly state that unloading was examined, qualifying
the data. For the tests in which unloading was recorded but was not an explicit objective of testing, two
clearly visible recordings of load and displacement in the unloading phase must be visible (see Figure
4.10); as logging was frequency based, loading may have continued beyond the maximum displacement
recorded, affecting the slope of the unloading line. Similarly, when a load of 0 kN is reached, the pull
test apparatus and rock mass are no longer held together in compression, and large displacements not
associated with elastic recovery of the bolt may occur as the system loosens. Figure 4.10 shows a testing
campaign in which only Test 6 provides acceptable data as measurements of load and displacement are
recorded twice between the beginning and the end of unloading (circled in red).
Figure 4.10: Pull test campaign results for partially encapsulated Rebar A from November 16th , 2012
at Coleman Mine (Mainville et al, 2012)
In addition to the metrics discussed, load and stiffness metrics applicable only to the Modified Cone
Bolt are introduced in Chapter 5. As the MCB33 is designed to plough through the resin column (unlike
any other bolt presented in this thesis), it has a unique behaviour for which the metrics of performance
discussed are not satisfactory.
4.3.4 Limitations of the Metrics Measured in a Rock Bolt Pull Test

It is acknowledged that the presented measures of performance are not free of bias. It may be difficult to
establish whether a bolt is in fact yielding, or if displacement from another source is occurring near the
expected working capacity. In cases that are particularly difficult to interpret, the working capacity is
simply not included in the analysis. As a result, the data that is included in the analysis is of reasonable
quality. The introduction of human judgement results in a degree of subjectivity of the working capacity
value, and as a result the secant stiffness. Similarly, the linearity of portions of the load–displacement
response used to calculate the tangent stiffness was not quantified, but determined from the test. The
linear section generally include at least 4 measurements or 3 segments (as in Figure 4.9) for manually
recorded tests, and if two such sections were present the longer one would be recorded. It was more
difficult to adhere to these data limitations on the instrumented tests as many of the stiffness calculations
were based on a graphic of the load–displacement behaviour, but linearity was only evaluated for segments
greater than 2.5 tons. As a result of these limitations not all data was found to be compliant and used
for further analysis.
4.4 Summary
Pull tests as performed at Vale’s Sudbury operations deviated from the standard laid out by ASTM and
the methods suggested by ISRM. Perhaps the most significant difference in implemented apparatus and
procedure is the method of measuring displacement. While both ASTM and ISRM suggest independently
mounted displacement measurement systems, all suppliers use an instrument mounted on to the loading
system itself. This results in measurement of the response of the rock mass surface immediately adjacent
to the bolt tested, and does not solely represent how the bolt and its anchoring system perform.
This thesis uses metrics of load capacity and stiffness to quantify bolt performance. Data was carefully
interpreted in order to attribute observed displacements to certain effects or mechanisms. Despite the
identified limitations, there is great value gained from pull tests conducted by experienced personnel
that employ engineering judgement in collecting and interpreting the pull test data.
In Chapter 5, the behaviour of rock bolts subject to a pull test is interpreted, and statistics on the
performance metrics described in this chapter are presented for a series of bolts.
Chapter 5
Summary Statistics and

Interpretation of Pull Test Data
This chapter provides a description of the statistics and analyses used to characterise the behaviour of
rock bolts when subjected to a pull test. It also explores the variation in performance of rock bolts as
predicted by field data and a series of conceptual assumptions.
5.1 Summary Statistics and Statistical Techniques

The construction of a large database of rock bolt pull tests in the Sudbury Basin has allowed for a
statistical analysis on all test data collected for a given time frame. Contrarily, the entities responsible
for testing usually treat individual campaigns independently of one another, and use pull tests as a tool
to demonstrate compliance with supplier specifications.
Various methods of characterizing a dataset and investigating correlations exist. In this section,
the statistical measures used to summarize the performance of the rock bolts are described, as are the
statistical tools used for analysis.
5.1.1 Summary Statistics

The mean of a dataset is the arithmetical average, expressed as x̄ for a data set {x1 , x2 , ..., xi }, and is
calculated as
n
1
P
x̄ = n xi
i=1
where n is the number of samples. The sample standard deviation (s) is also routinely quantified to
describe dispersion, calculated as
r Pn
− x̄)2
i=1 (xi
sx =
n−1
Both of these metrics are used to calculate the coefficient of variation for the sample (ĉv ) as a way
of describing the size of the sample standard deviation relative to the mean of the data (Baecher &
Christian, 2003). This allows for the direct comparison of dispersion between variables with different
magnitudes of mean.
40
Chapter 5. Summary Statistics and Interpretation of Pull Test Data 41
sx
cˆv =
x̄
The shape of a distribution may be described by skewness and kurtosis. The measure of skewness
elected for use is the adjusted Fisher-Pearson standardized moment coefficient (G1 ).
n n x − x̄
i
)3
P
G1 = (
(n − 1)(n − 2) i=1 s
Skewness is a measure of the tendency of the mean of a dataset to be on one side of the median as
the result of the distribution exhibiting a tail. A positively (or right) skewed distribution has a mean
greater than the median (and a tail pointing right), and will have a positive G1 . A normal distribution is
described by G1 = 0 (Doane & Seward, 2011). The second statistic used to describe distribution shape
is a measure of excess kurtosis, referred to as kurtosis herein, calculated as
4 !
3(n − 1)2
n

n(n + 1) P xi − x̄
Kurtosis = −
(n − 1)(n − 2)(n − 3) i=1 s (n − 2)(n − 3)
Kurtosis is a measure of peakedness of the distribution, or more accurately a measure of weighting

of the shoulders of the distribution relative to the centre. In the format shown, a normal distribution
has a kurtosis value of 0; kurtosis greater than 0 indicates a peakedness of the distribution, and kurtosis
below 0 indicates a flatness or evenness of the distribution (Balanda & MacGillivray, 1988).
Percentiles are calculated using the method recommended by NIST. For a set of N measurements
sorted in increasing rank {Y|1| , Y|2| , ..., Y|N | }, the value of the pth percentile (Yp ) is calculated by setting
p(N + 1) = k + d
where k is an integer value and d the remaining decimal. There are three ways Yp is subsequently
calculated:
1. If 0 < k < N , Yp = Y|k| + d(Y|k+1| − Y|k| )

2. If k = 0 , Yp = Y|1|
3. If k >= N , Yp = Y|N |
Note that the 50th percentile is the median of the data (NIST-SEMATECH, 2003).
5.1.2 Statistical Techniques

Various methods of analysis are used to investigate relationships in the data. The first of these is
least-squares linear regression. For a bivariate analysis, least-squares linear regression is expressed as
yi = β0 + β1 xi + i
where
Pn
Sxy (x − x̄)(yi − ȳ)
β1 = = Pn i
i=1
2
Sxx i=1 (xi − x̄)
and
β0 = ȳ − β1 x̄
and i is a random error term. The output for a bivariate analysis is a line for which the mean
distance between the regression line and all data points is minimized. The coefficient of determination
(R2 ) may be calculated for a linear regression, as
Pn
RSS (yˆi − y¯i )2
2
R = = Pi=1
n 2
T SS i=1 (yi − ȳ)
where yˆi is the fitted value for the term β0 + β1 xi . The coefficient of determination assesses the level
of correlation between y and x; R2 = 1 describes a perfectly linear relationship, and R2 = 0 indicates
no linear relationship is present (Fox, 2008).
Two methods are used to determine if a statistically significant difference in means of two or more
sets of data exists, given the null hypothesis that the means of two populations are equal (µ1 = µ2 ).
The first method, used to compare only two datasets, is the studentized t-test. Various configurations of
this test exist, all of which assume distribution normality. The two used for the purposes of this thesis
are the t-test for data sets Y1 and Y2 with equal variance, and the t-test for populations with assumed
unequal variance. For the former, the t-statistic is calculated as
Ȳ1 − Ȳ2
t= q
sY1 Y2 n11 + 1
n2
where
s
(n1 − 1)s2Y1 + (n2 − 1)s2Y2
sY1 Y2 =
n1 + n2 − 2
Accounting for the degrees of freedom, calculated as
v = n1 + n2 − 2
the t-statistic is compared to the t-distribution. A level of significance is chosen (5% is used in this
thesis). If the t-statistic calculated is greater than the t-value that corresponds to the degrees of freedom
and significance level chosen (tcrit ), the null hypothesis is rejected, suggesting a significant difference
between population means. In addition, a p-value is estimated. If t > tcrit , the p-value will be less than
the significance level chosen (NIST-SEMATECH, 2003).
If samples are assumed to have unequal variance, the same procedure is followed but the calculation
of t and v are as follows:
Ȳ1 − Ȳ2
t= p
s1 /n1 + s22 /n2
2
(s21 /n1 + s22 /n2 )2

v=
(s1 /n1 ) /(n1 − 1) + (s22 /n2 )2 /(n2
2 2 − 1)
Single factor, one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) is used to determine whether a significant
difference in mean exists between three or more sets of data (although it may be used for two datasets
as well). Table 5.1 shows the general format of an ANOVA table, comparing J groups, each containing
I entries.
Table 5.1: General One-Way ANOVA table (NIST-SEMATECH,2003)
Source Sum of Squares DoF Mean Square F0

SSF = J (ȳi. − ȳ.. )2
P
Factor I −1 M SF = SSF /(I − 1) M SF/M SE
(yij − ȳi. )2
PP
Residual SSE = I(J − 1) M SE = SSE /(I(J − 1))
(yij − ȳ.. )2
PP
Total SST = IJ − 1
where
1 PJ
ȳi. = yij
J j=1
and
1 PI P J
ȳ.. = yij
IJ i=1 j=1
Similar to the t-test, the F0 value calculated is compared to the F -distribution, accounting for degrees
of freedom (DoF) and significance level. If F0 > Fcrit , the null hypothesis is rejected and a difference
between means is suggested at a predetermined level of significance (NIST-SEMATECH, 2003).
Although many more sophisticated methods of data analysis exist, their application was limited due
to the nature of the database. The database was assembled from independent pull test campaign reports
that inconsistently record a variety of parameters. As a result, large gaps in data exist; for example, of
545 pull tests performed on various configurations of FRS, rock mass quality was recorded for only 126
of those tests. Such a data set is incompatible with some methods of analysis, such as the assembly of a
generalized linear model. Other statistical analyses are suitable for an incomplete dataset, for example
principal component analysis (PCA). However, due to the often limited frequency and widely varying
combinations of parameters recorded, PCA was found to be an ineffective method of analysis for this
database. As such, analysis is limited to the methods that have been discussed in this section.
5.2 Friction Rock Stabilizers

There are six configurations of FRS discussed in this thesis; three diameters of FRS (35, 39 and 46 mm)
from two suppliers (A and B) are compared. A discussion on theoretical and observed behaviour follows.
5.2.1 Theoretical Behaviour of a Frictional Rock Stabilizer

Li & Stillborg (1999) present analytical models for various types of rock bolt, including frictionally
coupled bolts (such as the FRS; Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1: Shear stress distribution along a frictionally coupled bolt subject to axial load (Li &
Stillborg, 1999)
The interface between the rock mass and the rock bolt is assumed to have constant shear strength
s. Once the strength of the interface is overcome, the bolt is said to have “decoupled” at that point
and cannot resist further application of load. A decoupling front develops (x2 ), beyond which the shear
stress on the interface decreases following function τb (x). Once the decoupling front has reached the end
of the element, the entire bolt is free to slip (Li & Stillborg, 1999). Figure 5.2 shows how load attenuates
down the bolt. Although the figure presented is modelled off of a Swellex bolt, the concept is similar for
an FRS. The shear strength of the interface between a Swellex bolt and the rock mass is greater than
that of an FRS due to the mechanical interlock of the bolt and rock, otherwise they are presented as
the same.
Figure 5.2: Shear stress and axial load along a Swellex rock bolt (Li & Stillborg, 1999)
Load decreases linearly in the decoupled length of bolt, and then continues to decrease at a rate
proportional to the shear stress (i.e. the load in the bolt is proportional to the integral of the shear
stress on the interface). As the decoupling front proceeds along the length of the bolt, a progressively
longer portion of the bolt is subject to higher loads. This results in an apparent softening of the bolt
behaviour, as total deformation is proportional to the integral of function P (x), representing load in the
bolt.
5.2.2 Observed Behaviour of Friction Rock Stabilizers

Figure 5.3 shows the load-displacement behaviour of an FA39 tested at Garson Mine. Six discrete loading
phases are observed.
90
80 A B C D
70
E F
60
Loadm(kN)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacementm(mm)
Figure 5.3: Pull test performed on an FA39
In Phase A load is built on the bolt, although significant displacement occurs. Most displacement
may be attributed to the loading rig adjusting position as it becomes fully flushed with the surface of
the rock mass, as well as the result of the initial rock mass and surface support response to pressure
from the pull test apparatus. To eliminate this phase, a pre-load may be applied to rock bolts during
a pull test before displacement is recorded. Phase B shows a response with decreasing stiffness as the
decoupling front progresses and a larger length of bolt is subject to higher axial load, until limited slip
of the bolt appears to occur in Phase C (i.e. the decoupling front has progressed along the entire length
of the bolt). Once slip stops, the decoupling front regresses which results in a stiffer reaction observed
in Phase D before slip occurs again entering Phase E. Load is then repeatedly built before slip occurs
again and load is released. The test is stopped once pull testing personnel are satisfied that higher loads
will not be reached, and Phase F shows unloading of the bolt as it re-couples with the rock mass and
some elastic deformation is reversed (although there will still be elastic energy stored in the bolt due to
frictional resistance acting against elastic recovery).
Displacement data from the test in Figure 5.3 was collected by a data logger; load intervals are
dictated by a frequency at which data is collected, and are inconsistent due to a variable loading rate.
This results in a load-displacement graph that may appear different from one for which data is manu-
ally collected. In a manually-recorded pull test, testing personnel will generally wait for the load and
displacement readings to stabilize before recording them and will seldom record two displacements for
a single load, which makes perfectly plastic behaviour difficult to observe. Manual recordings of load
and displacement also generally do not incorporate the pre-loading (Phase A) and unloading (Phase F)
portions of a pull test for any bolt type.
5.2.3 Characterization of Performance Metrics for Friction Rock Stabilizers

Ultimate Capacity
Most types of rock bolt in the database were only tested until their working capacity is observed.
However, FRS pull tests are performed to determine ultimate capacity. As the failure mechanism of a
recently installed FRS is slip, there are fewer safety concerns associated with loading to ultimate capacity
than exist for a bolt for which ultimate capacity is dictated by bolt failure. Additionally, most FRS pull
test reports do not fully record the load–displacement behaviours of the tested bolts and only note a
maximum load. As such, ultimate capacity is investigated as opposed to working capacity for this bolt
type.
Figure 5.4 shows the distributions of the ultimate capacities for FRS A and B bolts. Bolts are
separated by supplier and nominal diameter, and loads are recorded per unit length of anchorage (kN/m).
The length of bolt providing anchorage is assumed to be 6” (0.152 m) less than the total length of the
bolt, as the tapered end and the section of bolt to which the pull test apparatus is attached are not in
contact with the rock mass.
Table 5.2 shows summary statistics for the maximum loads for the six bolt variants. The average
measured diameter of the bolts is also noted. Diameter measurements were not performed using a
consistent method between campaigns (although most reports mention the use of Vernier callipers);
some diameters are an average of 3 or 5 measurements along the length of the bolt, some are a single
measurement at the midpoint, and some are not explained.
Table 5.2: Statistics regarding the ultimate capacities of FRSs
Variant n x̄ s ĉv Skewness Kurtosis Average Diameter

FA35 81 40.0 kN/m 10.3 kN/m 0.26 −0.18 −0.49 36.02 mm
FA39 30 38.3 kN/m 7.2 kN/m 0.19 0.97 −0.05 39.11 mm
FA46 50 39.1 kN/m 11.1 kN/m 0.28 0.12 0.88 45.23 mm
FB35 92 40.0 kN/m 13.7 kN/m 0.34 −0.21 −0.24 34.89 mm
FB39 83 37.9 kN/m 13.3 kN/m 0.35 0.46 −0.29 38.30 mm
FB46 106 37.8 kN/m 10.8 kN/m 0.28 −0.36 −0.22 45.99 mm
ALL 442 38.9 kN/m 11.7 kN/m 0.30 0.00 -0.04 N/A
There appears to be no statistically significant difference between the ultimate capacities of bolts
with different nominal diameters, or between bolts from either supplier. ANOVA was performed on
the data sets composed of FRS A bolts, FRS B bolts, and across all FRS configurations. Failure to
reject the null hypothesis occurred for both the FRS A and B (p = 0.745 and 0.405 respectively), as
well as for the ANOVA of all configurations (p = 0.695). This indicates that there is not a statistically
significant difference in the ultimate capacity between configurations within or across supplier. While a
larger diameter FRS will have greater surface area in contact with the rock mass on which to generate
friction, it would appear that the larger diameter bolts do not generate the equivalent stress normal to
the bolt-rock mass interface as the smaller bolts. This is demonstrated as resistance to pull is essentially
the same between the different diameters of FRS. In fact, the 35 mm nominal diameter FRSs had the
highest average ultimate capacities (although the difference is marginal and not statistically significant).
This implies that if immediate resistance to axial loading is the main objective of bolt installation,
there is apparently no advantage gained in the selection of a larger diameter FRS. Amalgamating all
FRS configurations into one dataset results in a distribution of ultimate capacities that is very close to
20 100% 16 100%
18 14
16 Frequency 80% 80%
12
Cumulative
Cumulative5Frequency
14
12 60% 10 60%
Frequency
Frequency
10 8
8 40% 6 40%
6
4
4 20% 20%
2 2
0 0% 0 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Ultimate5Capacity5(kN/m) Ultimate5Capacity5(kN/m)
(a) FA35 (b) FB35

12 100% 18 100%
16
10 80% 14 80%
8 12
60% 60%
Frequency
Frequency
10
6
8
40% 40%
4 6
20% 4
20%
2
2
0 0% 0 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(c) FA39 (d) FB39

12 100% 25 100%
10
80% 20 80%
8
Frequency
60% 15 60%
Frequency
6
40% 10 40%
4
20% 5 20%
2
0 0% 0 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
(e) FA46 (f) FB46
Figure 5.4: Ultimate capacity per unit length distributions for FRSs with nominal diameters of 35, 39
and 46 mm
normal, with very low values of both skewness and kurtosis.

Although the FA39 has the lowest ĉv , this is likely the result of the low number of tests performed
on it. One would expect similar standard deviations for this number of tests of a normally distributed
random variable, however this is complicated by the fact that testing is conducted in campaigns. 30 pull
tests performed on the FA39 are present in the database, but these are conducted in only 6 campaigns,
i.e. 6 sets of conditions. The other diameters of FRS had a greater number of campaigns performed,
and thus were potentially exposed to a wider range of conditions, resulting in larger standard deviations.
This may also be the cause of the relatively high skew, as it is possible that the FA39 may have been
tested more often in conditions that would result in marginally lower ultimate capacities.
Kurtosis values are generally consistent. The exception is the FA46, with a kurtosis of 0.88, indicating
a peakedness of the distribution. In Figure 5.4e, two outliers are observed: one in the 5-10 kN/m bin,
and one in the 70-75 kN/m bin. This is the only distribution in Figure 5.4 that has single outliers this
obvious. As a result, the shoulders have a lower weight than the centre of the distribution, elevating the
value of kurtosis. With a greater sample size, this may be expected to reduce as the distribution fills in.
Tomory et al. (1998) found that the 33 mm nominal diameter Split Set (SS33) and the 39 mm Split
Set (SS39) also performed very similarly. The average ultimate capacity of their dataset of over 900
pull tests was 1.09 tons/ft, or 31.9 kN/m, with ĉv = 0.42. Although the mean ultimate capacity is
significantly lower than those observed in Figure 5.2, much of their database was composed of Split Sets
installed using jacklegs, while the emergence of bolters since 1998 and their use at Vale’s operations in
Sudbury may explain the higher capacities observed in more recent times. It should also be noted that
Tomory et al. collected data from over 50 mine sites. This means it is likely the pull tests contained
therein were performed across a wider range of installation and ground conditions, and possibly testing
methods/equipment. As a result, the higher coefficient of variation is expected.
Overall, it does not appear as though one FRS configuration significantly outperforms any other in
terms of either ultimate capacity or consistency of performance. Although there are irregularities in
values of the coefficient of variance, skewness and kurtosis, these would likely be addressed by expanding
the database.
Stiffness
Only campaigns of FA35 and FA39 bolts recorded the bolts’ load–displacement behaviour in its entirety.
As such, an analysis of stiffness is limited to these two bolt configurations. Figure 5.5 shows how two
measures of stiffness are calculated for an FRS.
70
60
FirstmDropmStiffness
50
Loadm(kN)
40
30
20
SecantmStiffness
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacementm(mm)
Figure 5.5: Stiffness metrics for an FRS

Measuring the stiffness of an FRS is made difficult by the constantly changing coupling length and
the occurrence of slip before maximum load is achieved. The “first drop stiffness” outlined in Figure
5.5 represents the stiffness of the bolt at the displacement at which the first drop in load is observed.
Whenever the bolt slips, a drop in load is expected. This drop is not consistently captured in the data
recording due to the logging frequency. Slip distance appears to often be relatively short (less than 1
mm) before the bolt reaches a position with a higher frictional state at loads below the ultimate capacity.
Where the first drop in load is observed is where it takes the bolt a greater period of time than the
data logging frequency to reach this position and rebuild an equivalent load, and can thus be assumed
to be a greater slip distance than any previously observed slip. The secant stiffness is representative
of the displacement at which the maximum load is achieved. Both measures have their drawbacks,
however they are satisfactory as broad descriptors of behaviour; the resolution of the data recorded is
not sufficient to build a more robust model of bolt response. Figure 5.6 shows the distribution of stiffness
for the FA35 and FA39. Table 5.3 summarizes the data.
6 100/ 7 100/
5 6
80/ 80/
CumulativeSFrequency
CumulativeSFrequency
Frequency 5
4 Cumulative
Frequency
Frequency
60/ 60/
4
3
3
40/ 40/
2
2
20/ 20/
1 1
0 0/ 0 0/
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FirstSDropSStiffnessS(kN/mm) FirstSDropSStiffnessS(kN/mm)
(a) FA35 first drop stiffness (b) FA39 first drop stiffness
6 100% 10 100%
9
5
80% 8 80%
CumulativekFrequency
7
4
Frequency
Frequency
60% 6 60%
3 5
40% 4 40%
2
3
20% 2 20%
1
1
0 0% 0 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SecantkStiffnessk(kN/mm) SecantkStiffnessk(kN/mm)
(c) FA35 secant stiffness (d) FA39 secant stiffness
Figure 5.6: Stiffness distributions for the FA35 and FA39
The difficulties of assessing FRS performance emerge; standard deviations calculated for the distri-
butions are very large relative to the means of the data (ĉv > 1 in the case of first drop stiffness of the
FA39). The heavy skew of the data calls into question the use of statistics such as standard deviation
and kurtosis in these circumstances, as the distribution does not appear to be normal. The FA35 seems
to have a higher secant stiffness than the FA39, however given the similarity of the first drop stiffnesses
Table 5.3: FRS stiffness summary statistics
Stiffness Bolt n x̄ s ĉv Skewness Kurtosis

First drop FA35 25 28.8 kN/mm 26.0 kN/mm 0.90 1.32 0.97
FA39 24 25.3 kN/mm 26.0 kN/mm 1.03 1.88 2.72
Secant FA35 25 19.7 kN/mm 18.1 kN/mm 0.92 2.66 3.14
FA39 24 9.9 kN/mm 4.7 kN/mm 0.47 0.72 0.00
between the bolts and the high coefficient of variations, it is unclear whether this is indicative of a
consistent difference in responses. It is reiterated that these metrics are used as broad observational
descriptors of behaviour. They are heavily influenced by several parameters unrelated to the bolt or how
it interacts with the rock mass, such as data logging frequency and how much displacement the personnel
conducting the test allow before stopping the pull test. As such, no further analysis was performed on
the stiffness of FRSs although the information gained will be used to describe the expected behaviour
of the bolts in a pull test.
5.3 Rebar Rock Bolts

5.3.1 Theoretical Behaviour of a Rebar Rock Bolt
As with frictional bolts such as the FRS, rebar offers resistance to pull along its length. Unlike the
FRS, it is bonded to the rock mass with a continuous column of grout, the behaviour of which must be
considered in a rebar model. Figure 5.7 shows a model of shear stress along a rebar rock bolt subject to
a pull test.
Figure 5.7: Model of the shear stress profile in a grouted rock bolt (Li & Stillborg, 1999)
In this model, a length of bolt (x0 ) is fully decoupled from the rock mass. Between x0 and x1 , the
bolt is partially decoupled with the shear stress along the interface between the bolt and the grout (τb )
equal to the residual strength of the interface (sr ). Beyond point x1 , the grout is less damaged and has
higher strength, with the peak strength (sp ) occurring at point x2 . Beyond this point, the full strength of
the grout is not mobilized, and shear stress attenuates down the remainder of the bolt following function
τb (x). Figure 5.8 shows a similar shear stress profile, but shows function P (x), representing tensile load
in the bolt (Li & Stillborg, 1999).
Figure 5.8: Model of tensile load and shear stress profile for a rebar (Li & Stillborg, 1999)
As in the case of the FRS model, load (and thus stress) in the bolt decreases at a rate proportional
to the shear stress. As x2 (the location of sp , the maximum strength) progresses down the bolt, an
increasing length of the element is subject to higher stresses, and a decrease in measured stiffness is
expected. Should x2 reach the end of the bolt, the rebar would be pulled out through the grout. However,
all pull tests in the database displayed behaviour suggesting P (x) exceeds the working capacity of the
bolt at x = 0, i.e. at the bolt’s threads.
5.3.2 Observed Behaviour of Rebar Rock Bolts

Figure 5.9 shows the load–displacement relationship for a pull test performed on a 20 mm Rebar B.
These tests have a relatively straightforward interpretation; elastic deformation of the debonded portion
of the rebar and rock mass compression result in the displacements observed in Phase A, before the
rebar reaches its working capacity, and yields into Phase B.
160
140 A B
120
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.9: Pull test performed on a 20 mm Rebar B
The stiffness of a 1.8 m 400W steel bar with a diameter of 20 mm and an elastic modulus of 200
GPa (as is used to manufacture Rebar B; Lamothe, November 2014) is 34.9 kN/mm. The stiffness for
the 1.8 m rebar shown in Figure 5.9 with an approximately linear response between 26.7 and 115.6
kN (R2 = 0.998) is 34.2 kN/mm. If displacement is interpreted as equal to the deformation of the
rebar, this would suggest that stress is distributed uniformly along its length. However, this may in
fact demonstrate the degree to which sources of displacement beyond elastic deformation of the bolt
interfere with the measurement displacement during a pull tests. As very small displacements are being
measured, displacements on the scale of one millimetre attributed to the rock mass or surface support
will strongly affect the stiffness calculation. This may also explain why no progressive softening of the
bolt response is observed.
Figure 5.10 shows the same relationship for a 20 mm Rebar A, and perhaps a more typical pull test,
where adjustments and rock fracturing are observable on the load–displacement graph.
160
140
120
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.10: Pull test performed on a 20 mm Rebar A
A tangent stiffness of 59.3 kN/mm is calculated for the linear portion of the graph, circled in red
2
(R = 0.999). The minimum elastic modulus of Rebar A, like Rebar B, is 200 GPa (Mainville-Beach,
October 2014), and thus also has a stiffness of 34.9 kN/mm if subject to constant axial stress along its
length. This stiffness calculation agrees more closely with the analytical model of fully grouted rock bolts
(Li & Stillborg, 1999; Martı́n et al, 2010), suggesting that stress and strain is not evenly distributed
along the length of the bolt. In any case, it is apparent by contrasting these two examples that the
properties of the rebar material are not the only factors influencing the stiffness of the bolt system.
It is noted that if the load were to be evenly distributed along a bolt’s length, a longer bolt would
appear less stiff. Although different lengths of rebar are present in the database, length–normalized
stiffness metrics are not used as the degree of deformation the bolt undergoes is much better described
by the location of maximum shear stress on the bolt (x2 in Figure 5.7) than by the overall length of
bolt.
5.3.3 Characterization of Performance Metrics for Rebar Rock Bolts

Working Capacity
Figure 5.11 shows the distribution of working capacities for rebar supplied by Suppliers A and B. The
rock bolts were typically installed using the proprietary resins of each manufacturer.
12 100% 14 100%
Frequency 12
10
Cumulative 80% 80%
10
8
Frequency
Frequency
60% 60%
8
6
6
40% 40%
4
4
20% 20%
2 2
0 0% 0 0%
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145
Working5Capacity5(kN) Working5Capacity5(kN)
(a) 20 mm Rebar A (b) 20 mm Rebar B
Figure 5.11: Working capacity distributions for rebar
Working capacity appears to be distributed normally, although data resolution poses a problem for
pull tests conducted by Supplier B. Although the Rebar B working capacities are not as well distributed
as those of Rebar A, this may be the result of differing data recording methods. Tests performed by
Supplier B typically are performed in loading increments, with manual recording of displacement, while
pull tests conducted by Supplier A generally log data digitally. As loading increments in a manual test
are usually one ton, working capacity may only be calculated to the nearest ton (8.9 kN). As such, no
working capacities may be recorded for Rebar B between 14 and 15 tons (124.6 kN and 133.5 kN), thus
the lack of entries in the 125 kN to 130 kN bin and the resulting appearance of the distribution. On
the other hand, Supplier A’s load recordings are distributed according to loading rate and measurement
frequency. As such, the variance of the distribution observed is dependent not only on the variability in
rebar material properties, but also the variability in loads recorded by the apparatus. This introduces
a type of error that is also distributed normally as a random variable. Table 5.4 provides the summary
statistics for the working capacities of the rebar.
Table 5.4: Summary statistics for the working capacity of rebar
Supplier n x̄ s ĉv Median Skewness Kurtosis

A 34 123.8 kN 7.5 kN 0.06 124.1 kN 0.12 -0.12
B 23 120.9 kN 7.4 kN 0.06 123.1 kN -0.79 1.48
The average working capacities of the two rebar are very similar. The small discrepancy between the
two averages may be a result of the difference in the method of data recording rather than performance
of the elements themselves. A 1 kN difference in the medians of the two datasets also suggests that little
difference would exist between the two, if the same method of data recording were used for both rebar.
It may also be concluded that the negative skew and high kurtosis observed for the Rebar B distribution
is the result of the rounding of working capacity down to the nearest ton.
Stiffness
Tangent and secant stiffness were calculated for the results of the pull tests on rebar. A large portion of
the pull tests performed were partial encapsulation tests. In these tests, a limited length of active resin
(usually one 12” or 18” cartridge of fast setting resin) is used in tandem with two or three cartridges
of “dummy” or inert resin used to simulate typical mixing conditions for the active cartridge. These
tests are performed to verify the competence of a limited length of resin. While this test configuration
should not affect the working capacity of the rebar, it may influence the load–displacement behaviour
of the bolt. As such, a distinction is made between the fully and partially encapsulated tests in Figures
5.12 and 5.13, which show the secant stiffness and tangent stiffness respectively of both rebar. Table 5.5
shows summary statistics for the stiffness of the two brands of rebar.
12 100p 7 100%
10 6
80p 80%
CumulativeNFrequency
PartiallyNEncapsulated
5
8 FullyNEncapsulated
60%
Frequency
60p
Frequency
Cumulative 4
6
3 40%
40p
4
2
20p 20%
2 1
0 0p 0 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
SecantNStiffnessN(kN/mm) SecantNStiffnessN(kN/mm)
(a) Rebar A secant stiffness (b) Rebar B secant stiffness
Figure 5.12: Secant stiffness for 20 mm rebar
9 10) 7 1009
8
6
80) 809
CumulativesFrequency
Cumulative(Frequency
PartiallysEncapsulated 5
6 FullysEncapsulated
Frequency
Frequency
Cumulative 60) 609

5 4
4 3
40) 409
3
2
2 20) 209
1
1
0 0) 0 09
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TangentsStiffnessspkN/mmd Tangent(Stiffness((kN/mm)
(a) Rebar A tangent stiffness (b) Rebar B tangent stiffness
Figure 5.13: Tangent stiffness for 20 mm Rebar

Table 5.5: Summary statistics for the stiffness of rebar
Stiffness Supplier n x̄ s ĉv Skewness Kurtosis

Secant A 43 27.87 kN/mm 13.40 kN/mm 0.48 1.18 3.09
B 21 27.38 kN/mm 14.19 kN/mm 0.52 0.52 0.37
Tangent A 36 43.43 kN/mm 25.68 kN/mm 0.59 2.90 11.05
B 21 30.90 kN/mm 10.23 kN/mm 0.33 0.62 0.20
70% of the rebar pull tests in the data base were performed on 1.8 m, 20 mm diameter rebar with
an elastic modulus of 200 GPa, and thus a stiffness of 34.9 kN/mm when non-grouted. This is a very
conservative lower bound of stiffness in which recorded displacement can only be attributed to the
deformation of the rebar, as it assumes an even distribution of stress along the bolt. Figures 5.12a
and 5.12b show that a large number of secant stiffness calculations fall below this value. This is likely
due to the incorporation of sources of displacement besides deformation in the measurements. It is
interesting to see that the tangent stiffness also frequently falls short of 34.9 kN/mm, suggesting that
these alternate displacement mechanisms may in some cases have linear load–displacement responses at
the load resolutions in question, making it difficult to isolate the bolt/resin response from that of the
rock mass. High values of skewness and kurtosis are calculated for Rebar A in particular. Although
these are calculated for a dataset that incorporates both partially and fully encapsulated bolts, it can
be observed in Figures 5.12a and 5.13a that high stiffness outliers exist which are responsible for these
values. Table 5.6 separates stiffness statistics by encapsulation length.
Table 5.6: Comparison of stiffness between partially and fully encapsulated rebar
Variable Supplier Encapsulation n x̄ s ĉv

A Full 23 29.2 kN/mm 17.1 kN/mm 0.59
Secant stiffness Partial 27 23.4 kN/mm 9.0 kN/mm 0.39
B Full 21 27.4 kN/mm 14.2 kN/mm 0.52
Partial 7 15.3 kN/mm 4.2 kN/mm 0.28
A Full 21 50.6 kN/mm 31.2 kN/mm 0.62
Tangent stiffness Partial 22 29.9 kN/mm 9.3 kN/mm 0.31
B Full 21 30.9 kN/mm 10.2 kN/mm 0.33
Partial 8 17.6 kN/mm 4.7 kN/mm 0.27
Interestingly, the secant stiffness of fully encapsulated rebar from both suppliers are quite similar
(averages of 29.2 kN/mm and 27.4 kN/mm respectively), with similar dispersions (coefficients of variation
equal to 0.59 and 0.52). However, Rebar A have greater values of tangent stiffness (an average of 50.6
kN/mm compared to 30.9 kN/mm). Comparing the distributions presented in Figures 5.12 and 5.13, the
fully encapsulated Rebar B appear to have a much more defined distribution shape for both tangent and
secant stiffness, suggesting the sample size of Rebar A is too small to adequately define these statistics,
despite being the same size as the Rebar B dataset. This may be the result of the difference in data
recording methods. While the displacements measured by Supplier A are taken instantaneously at loads
defined by loading rate and data logging frequency, it is common practice in manual data recording
of pull tests to wait for displacement measurements at a certain load to stabilize before reading them,
potentially resulting in what appears to be lower stiffness. The reason the secant stiffness measurements
are similar for the two brands of rebar despite the disparate distributions of tangent stiffness may lie in
the pre-loads used. Relatively large displacements may be observed at low loads while the rock mass
and pull test apparatus tighten up. 80% of the pull tests on fully encapsulated Rebar A were performed
without a pre-load, compared to only 11% of pull tests performed on Rebar B. This can explain both
the ragged distribution shape of the stiffness metrics’ distributions (as the amount of displacement at
low loads is highly variable), and the high tangent stiffness relative to the secant stiffness calculated for
Rebar A.
In addition to tangent and secant stiffness calculations, a total of 10 unloading stiffness measurement
were calculated from the available data, including both partially and fully encapsulated Rebar A. Figure
5.14 compares the stiffness of the unloading phase with the corresponding tangent and secant stiffness
calculated for that rock bolt.
70 70
Fullmencapsulation
Partialmencapsulation
60 60
Fullmencapsulationmregression y/=/0.5356x/+/1.543
R²/=/0.7528
Tangent/Stiffness/(kN/mm)
Partialmencapsulationmregression
SecantmStiffnessmukN/mmp
50 50
All
ym=m0.199xmrm13.34 y/=/0.511x/+/1.4277
40 40
R²m=m0.2884 R²/=/0.7503
30 30
y/=/0.3272x/+/7.2054
20 20 R²/=/0.9949
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
UnloadingmStiffnessmukN/mmp Unloading/Stiffness/(kN/mm)
(a) Secant stiffness (b) Tangent stiffness
Figure 5.14: Comparison of Rebar A unloading stiffness to secant (a) and tangent (b) stiffness
As shown in Figure 5.14, a positive correlation exists between unloading stiffness and both secant
and tangent stiffness. However, the relationship has a much higher coefficient of determination for the
unloading stiffness–tangent stiffness relation. Note that this relationship appears to show that tangent
stiffness overestimates the amount of displacement attributable to the elastic deformation of the bolt
by a factor of 2 for partially encapsulated pull tests, and a factor of 3 for the fully encapsulated tests.
This demonstrates that tangent stiffness may be used as an indicator of the quality of the bond between
rebar and rock mass, although not necessarily a direct quantifier of elastic deformation of a rebar rock
bolt subject to a pull test.
5.4 Modified Cone Bolts

5.4.1 Theoretical Behaviour of a Modified Cone Bolt
The Modified Cone Bolt is a yielding support element designed primarily to absorb energy resulting
from dynamic loading scenarios imposed by seismicity. As such, analysis of its behaviour in static or
quasi-static conditions is generally considered secondary. Laboratory testing of the cone bolt has shown
that the displacement of the head of a cone bolt is strain rate–dependant; in dynamic scenarios plough
of the bolt contributes significantly to displacement, while in static loading scenarios displacement is
mostly a result of deformation of the bolt itself (Simser et al, 2006). This is illustrated in Figure 5.15.
20
18 17 mm
cone
16 plow
14
12
(tonnes)
6 mm cone plow
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
(mm)
Figure 5.15: Laboratory pull test of an MCB33 (Simser et al, 2006)
Around 50 mm of displacement occurred before strain hardening is induced. Only 17 mm of this was
attributed to cone plough. Of the remaining 170 mm of displacement recorded, just 6 mm is attributed
to plough. This suggests that there is no constant load in a quasi-static loading scenario at which plough
occurs consistently before the bolt fails, although plough does occur as load increases. A conceptual
depiction of the behaviour is shown in Figure 5.16.
Steel stretching
Load
Eventual failure
of the bolt
Limited plow of the
cone (~ 20-40 mm)
Deformation
Figure 5.16: Conceptual load–displacement behaviour of a cone bolt subject to quasi-static loading
(Simser et al, 2006)
5.4.2 Observed Behaviour of Modified Cone Bolts

The pull tests on cone bolts in the assembled database appear to generally react to pull testing in one of
two ways. Figure 5.17 shows a typical load–displacement relationship for the first of these behaviours,
representative of 83% of the MCB33 pull test data.
This relationship is split into four phases. A pre-load of 3 tons (27 kN) is applied before displacement
is recorded. Phase A is a stiff initial response, which softens into Phase B. Phase C shows displacement
that is close to perfectly plastic, before the system stiffens again in Phase D. The stiff initial response
of the bolt may be primarily attributed to elastic deformation of the bolt tendon before plough occurs
at the A–B transition. Subsequently, displacement is attributed to both plough and elastic deformation
of the bolt as load increases, until the tendon yields into Phase C. Displacement observed in Phase C is
likely primarily a result of plastic deformation; as the bolt tendon is a 2.4 m smooth bar, load should be
evenly distributed along its length, particularly as plough cannot occur before it is entirely decoupled
from the resin. This means that the 30-40 mm of plastic deformation observed in Phase C corresponds
to a strain of about 1.5% before strain hardening seems to occur at the C–D transition. A strain of this
magnitude occurring between yield and strain hardening may be observed for a carbon steel, depending
on composition and manufacturing process (ASM International, 2002). It should be noted that testing
on the bolt shown in Figure 5.17 was stopped before failure occurred.
160 2
140
0
120
A B C D0
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.17: Pull test performed on an MCB33 with plough
The linear plough–elastic deformation phase of the bolt was not observed in all pull test on the
MCB33. 17% of the tests exhibited a behaviour that suggested that the bolts responded to load with
relatively little plough, although they may exhibit a progressive softening of the bolt/grout system.
Figure 5.18 illustrates an example of such behaviour.
160
140
120
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.18: Pull test performed on an MCB33 without a linear plough response
The dashed red line in Figure 5.18 represents the linear elastic behaviour of a bar of equivalent length,
diameter and elastic modulus (200 GPa) as the tested bolt. Figure 5.19 focuses on the initial response
recorded for the same bolt, which seems to closely follow a second order polynomial trend between the
start of the test and the yield of the tendon (R2 = 0.9992). This gradual deviation from the elastic
response of the tendon suggests that as load increases, there is movement of the cone and the resin is
becoming more damaged at an accelerating rate, but is competent enough to resist a linear plouging
response until the bolt tendon yields.
160
140
120
R2t=t0.9992
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.19: Close-up of the bolt response shown in Figure 5.18
Examining both of these divergent displacement behaviours highlights the difficulties associated with
assessing the performance of a bolt. Cone bolts are designed to plough through resin under dynamic
loads, so from one perspective it may be considered proof of concept and a successful pull test if the
bolts plough under static conditions (as in Figure 5.17). However, if the cone bolt is loaded in static
conditions it is possible that as little deformation as possible is desirable (as in Figure 5.18), and signif-
icant displacements should ideally only occur during dynamic events if a bolt is to be said to perform
well in both loading conditions (although there is no widespread methodology used to test the dynamic
capabilities of a rock bolt in situ).
5.4.3 Proposed Interpretation of Modified Cone Bolt Behaviour

Figure 5.20 provides a slightly modified interpretation of the conceptual behaviour for the cone bolt,
based on a review of the undertaken pull tests. It must be noted that this model only applies in
quasi-static axial loading scenarios.
At low loads, displacement is primarily due to elastic deformation of the bolt tendon. At a certain
load threshold, the cone begins to plough through the resin. A new load response is established, for
which displacement is attributed to both elastic deformation of the bolt (as load continues to increase),
and plough of the cone through the resin. Note that at the resolution data was collected for most
MCB33 pull tests, this behaviour appeared linear. At higher resolutions repeated load build and drop
may be observed if the bolt ploughs incrementally. The tendon subsequently yields and deforms in a
perfectly plastic manner while little to no plough occurs. The tendon then strain hardens, load on the
bolt builds, and as a result plough resumes. In the case presented, there does not appear to be a single
threshold of load at which plough is sustained. Dynamic loading of the MCB33 results in very different
load–displacement behaviour (St-Pierre et al, 2009; Doucet & Voyzelle, 2012) as the properties of both
the steel of the cone bolt tendon and the encapsulating resin vary with loading rate.
This behaviour of the cone bolt may be broken down into 5 parameters (Figure 5.21). While length
lt
Strain hardening of bo
Yield of bolt tendon ilure
To fa
Plastic deformation of tendon, limited plough

Elastic deformation and plough
Load
Plough begins
Elastic deformation of bolt tendon
Displacement
Figure 5.20: Amended conceptual load–displacement behaviour of a cone bolt
of the bolt will be a controlling factor on any stiffness metric dependent on the deformation of the bolt
tendon, all MCB33s in the database were the same length. As a result, stiffness is not normalized to
length, and is expressed in kN/mm.
160
140 SteelkYieldkStrength
120
PloughkStiffness
100
Load (kN)
80
SecantkStiffness
60
PloughkPoint
40
InitialkStiffness
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.21: Performance metrics measured from a cone bolt pull test
The initial response to loading is measured by the initial stiffness. The plough point is the load at
which behaviour deviates from the initial stiffness, and plough begins. The plough stiffness measures the
gradient of the combined plough/elastic deformation response, until the steel yield strength. The secant
stiffness is the average stiffness between the first measurement of load and displacement and yield of the
bolt. The term “working capacity” is not used to describe the capacity of a cone bolt as its determination
in this context is somewhat ambiguous. Unlike the other grouted bolts discussed, the response to load
consistently deviates from linearity before the tendon yields. As such, the working capacity could be
defined as the plough point, but this neglects the fact that substantially more load may be borne by the
element at larger displacements. This also results in a potential complication if the bolt ploughs from
the beginning of a pull test, as the plough response becomes the linear response from which deviation
defines working capacity. Values of cone bolt capacity used in the design of a support system should
depend on the design methodology, chiefly whether or not displacement is taken into account. As such,
the term “working capacity” will not be used in the context of cone bolts, and either the plough point
or the yield strength will be specified.
5.4.4 Characterization of Performance Metrics for Modified Cone Bolts

Load Metrics
Figure 5.22 shows the distributions of plough point and yield strength. Table 5.7 shows the summary
statistics calculated for these two metrics.
14 100% 100%
14
12
80% 12 80%
Cumulative Frequency
Cumulative)Frequency
10
10
Frequency
Frequency
60% 60%
8
8
6 40% 6 40%
4 4
20% 20%
2 2
0 0% 0 0%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Plough Point (kN) Yield)Strength)(kN)
(a) Plough Point (b) Yield Strength
Figure 5.22: Load metric distributions for the MCB33
Table 5.7: Summary statistics of MCB33 load metrics
Variable n x̄ s ĉv Skewness Kurtosis

Plough Point 63 53.2 kN 22.7 kN 0.43 0.48 −0.45
Yield Strength 52 117.2 kN 16.3 kN 0.14 −1.51 2.55
The observed distributions can be explained with a careful review of the pull tests compiled. The
initial peak in Figure 5.22a and the resulting heavy skew of the MCB33 yield strength distribution is
attributed to one testing campaign from 2006 which contributed 5 of the 7 values in the 80 - 90 kN bin
for the yield strength, and as a result is excluded from the calculation of statistics. The yield strength
is the variable with the lowest coefficient of variation, which is to be expected as it should be heavily
dependant on the properties of the steel as opposed to the resin. The plough point appears to be
normally distributed about an average of 53.2 kN, less than half of the yield strength of the bolt. There
are a large number of bolts that plough between 20 and 30 kN, which may be representative of bolts
where ploughing began during pre–loading.
Stiffness Metrics
Distributions for initial stiffness, plough stiffness and secant stiffness are shown in Figure 5.23. Summary
statistics are presented in Table 5.8.
10 100% 7 100a
9 6
8 80% 80a
CumulativemFrequency
5
Cumulative(Frequency
7
Frequency
6 60% 4 60a
Frequency
5
3
40a
4 40%
3 2
20a
2 20% 1
1
0 0a
0 0% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Initial(Stiffness((kN/mm) PloughmStiffnessm(kN/mm)
(a) Initial Stiffness (b) Plough Stiffness

14 100%
12
80%
Cumulative Frequency
10
Frequency
60%
8
6 40%
4
20%
2
0 0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Secant Stiffness (kN/mm)
(c) Secant Stiffness
Figure 5.23: Stiffness metric distributions for the MCB33
Table 5.8: Summary statistics of MCB33 stiffness metrics
Variable n x̄ s ĉv Skewness Kurtosis

Initial Stiffness 51 10.4 kN/mm 4.1 kN/mm 0.40 1.63 4.64
Plough Stiffness 50 2.23 kN/mm 0.90 kN/mm 0.41 0.59 −0.37
Secant Stiffness 58 4.95 kN/mm 3.51 kN/mm 0.71 1.49 1.90
The stiffness of a 200 GPa, 2.4 m bar with a diameter of 17.2 mm is 19.3 kN/mm. As the initial
reaction of the MCB33 to load is though to be a result of elastic deformation of the tendon, one would
expect the initial stiffness to be approximately equal to 19.3 kN/mm. However, very few bolts exhibit a
response this stiff. As seen in Section 5.3.3, a linear measure of stiffness may overestimate displacement
attributable to bolt deformation by a factor of 2 to 3, which could explain why so few bolts exhibit a
stiffness of 19.3 kN/mm. The secant stiffness of the MCB33 has a strong right skew and high coefficient of
variation; as it is a function of the four other parameters, non-normality is not unexpected. The plough
stiffness is quite evenly distributed between 1 and 3 kN/mm as indicated by the negative kurtosis,
showing that the cone–resin interaction appears to be highly variable. This could suggest that the in
situ dynamic performance of the cone bolt may be subject to a similarly variable energy capacity. It
must be noted that the pull test is strictly analogous to static or quasi-static loading of a bolt. The
dynamic performance of a reinforcement element may be assessed using impact testing (as reported in
Hadjigeorgiou & Potvin, 2011), or using passive monitoring in situ (as in Morissette et al, 2014). The
MCB33 has been demonstrated to perform significantly differently when subject to impact loading versus
quasi-static (Doucet & Voyzell, 2012), as such the results of one loading rate may not indicate a similar
effect for another.
5.5 D-Bolts
5.5.1 Theoretical Behaviour of a D-Bolt
D-Bolt performance is difficult to evaluate from a conventional pull test. The principle behind the
design of the bolt is to evenly distribute load across the length of the smooth bar between two anchors,
potentially resulting in significant differences in load between two adjacent smooth sections. Published
laboratory static testing was performed across a simulated joint, where load is applied at the midpoint
between two anchors (Li, 2012). Figure 5.24 shows the apparatus and test set-up used for this test, and
Figure 5.25 shows the results.
Figure 5.24: Apparatus for a simulated joint laboratory test on a D-Bolt (Li, 2012)
Figure 5.25: Results of simulated joint laboratory tests on 20 mm D-Bolts (Li, 2012)
The test shown in Figure 5.25 is performed on two bolts grouted in cement: OP1 and OP2. OP2 has
a shrink sleeve on the test section while OP1 does not, otherwise the bolts are identical (Li, 2012. The
D-Bolts used by Vale do not have sleeves, and are grouted in resin). Bolt load is very similar for both
tests, and shows typical steel stress-strain behaviour. For test OP1, the plate experiences an increase
in load around when the “test section” or tendon starts to yield, while OP2’s plate is loaded slightly
before. With such a small sample size, it is difficult to determine whether this difference in behaviour
may be attributed to the difference in bolt surfaces. In any case, it is apparent that load does appear
to propagate past the anchors into adjacent smooth sections, insinuating that there is some limited
movement of the anchors through the grout.
The D-Bolts in the database are 2.4 m in length with three 0.12 m long anchor sections, at 0.34
m, 1.14 m and 2.14 m along the length of the bolt. Although an in situ pull test is different from the
procedure shown in Figure 5.24 as load is applied to the head of the bolt, possible behaviour may be
hypothesised. Load could be limited to the first, 0.34 m segment of the bolt between the head and the
first anchor assuming good resin encapsulation, resulting in a very stiff response (the test sections for the
bolts shown in Figure 5.25 were 0.9 m in length; Li, 2012). If load does propagate past the first anchor,
a drop in stiffness would be observed as the adjacent smooth section will also be strained. Table 5.9
shows the stiffness that would be expected of both the 20 and 22 mm D-Bolts used at Vale’s Sudbury
operations, depending on the length of bolt exposed to load. This is defined by the anchor at which no
movement occurs, and thus prevents load from further propagating down the bolt. The steel used in the
manufacture of D-Bolts has an elastic modulus of 200-210 GPa (Charette, 2014).
Table 5.9: D-Bolt stiffness by anchor stability
Stable Anchor Length 20 mm D-Bolt 22 mm D-Bolt

1st 0.34 m 184 kN/mm 227 kN/mm
2nd 1.14 m 55 kN/mm 68 kN/mm
3rd 2.14 m 28 kN/mm 34 kN/mm
The calculations shown in Table 5.9 should be used only as a rough guideline. An assumption is
made that the anchor sections are of equivalent diameter to the smooth sections. It also assumes that
if, for example, the second anchor is stable, the first bears no load and the same magnitude of stress
is present in both smooth sections on either side of it. If the first anchor were to be load-bearing, the
stiffness of the element as a whole would be dependent on the magnitude of that borne load.
5.5.2 Observed Behaviour of D-Bolts

Figure 5.26 shows two typical load–displacement relationships for a 22 mm D-Bolt pull test. The dashed
lines represent the expected stiffness for a 22 mm D-Bolt assuming different lengths defined by anchor
placement are subject to the applied load (see Table 5.9).
The progressive stiffening of the bolt in Figure 5.26 tested at Creighton in the “elastic” phase is not
an isolated case in the data collected. As with other bolts, compression of the rock mass may account
for displacement in some circumstances. The fact that this effect is observed consistently in D-Bolt pull
tests may indicate that D-Bolts are usually installed in ground susceptible to rockbursts, which can be
heavily fractured (and thus more compressible) as a result of high stresses. It appears, examining only
the stiffness, as though the bolt is not acting as would be expected if load was isolated solely between
the testing jack and the first anchor, but as if load were evenly distributed along its length. This could
indicate movement of one or more anchors through the resin as they “seat” in place, or if the anchors
are not properly encapsulated (possibly due to the aforementioned fractured ground).
250
200
150 Creighton,C2014
LoadC(kN) CopperCCliff,C2009
BeforeCfirstCanchorC(0.34Cm)
100
BeforeCsecondCanchorC(1.14Cm)
BeforeCthirdCanchorC(2.24Cm)
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
DisplacementC(mm)
Figure 5.26: Pull tests performed on 22 mm D-Bolts
An insight into how load is distributed along the bolt is provided by the displacement attributed to
plastic deformation of the bolt before strain hardening occurs. Laboratory testing performed on D-Bolts
by Li (2012; Figure 5.25) exhibited slightly more than 10 mm of perfectly plastic deformation between
yield and strain hardening on a smooth section of 0.8 m, corresponding to a strain of around 1.3%. The
bolt pulled at Creighton in 2014 shown in Figure 5.26 exhibits about 2.5 mm of near perfectly plastic
deformation before strain–hardening. Assuming similar steel was used for the manufacture of this bolt
as was used for the bolts tested by Li (2012), 2.5 mm of deformation representing a strain of 1.3%
corresponds to a deformation length of about 190 mm. The distance between the end of the threaded
section of the D-Bolt head and the first anchor is 215 mm. This calculation is complicated by the fact that
the 22 mm D-Bolt uses an M24 x 3.0 thread (Normet, 2014). This thread has a major (i.e. maximum)
diameter of 24 mm and the thread crests are 3 mm apart. The minor (i.e. minimum) diameter for
an M24 x 3.0 thread is 20.7 mm for flat form threads (ASME, 2005). Assuming the threading process
does not significantly alter the yield strength of the bolt material, the lowest diameter part of the bolt
(the 20.7 mm minor thread diameter) will yield first, about 20 kN before the bar as cross-sectional area
is proportional to yield load. The thread is by definition of varying diameter, so yield will be a more
protracted response (as observed in Figure 5.26) in comparison to the yield of the smooth bar section
alone in Figure 5.25. As the major (maximum) diameter is 24 mm, the 22 mm smooth section will
yield before the entire threaded section does. As a result, it can be concluded that the near perfectly
plastic response observed in Figure 5.26 is attributed to the first smooth section between the thread and
the first anchor, implying that although the bolt acts in a manner soft enough to suggest little to no
anchorage provided by the first two anchors, the first section bears the most load. This does not agree
with the findings of an analysis solely of secant and tangent stiffness, thus demonstrating the value of
measuring displacement beyond the working capacity and analysing bolt behaviour.
However, the measured stiffness of the bolts should not be ignored. D-Bolts are often pulled until
just after, or even before, their working capacity. Figure 5.27 shows the results of three 20 mm D-Bolts
installed in the same rock mass at the same location during one testing campaign. These bolts were
installed at angles between 15◦ and 30◦ off of perpendicular from the wall face. It is not clear how this
affects the results, although the appearance of a working capacity of about 120 kN was attributed to
movement of the testing rig (the minimum yield load of a 20 mm D-Bolt is 140 kN).
160
140
120
100
Loadl(kN)
Boltl1
80 Boltl2
Boltl3
60
Beforelfirstlanchorl(0.34lm)
40 Beforelsecondlanchorl(1.14lm)
Beforelthirdlanchorl(2.24lm)
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacementl(mm)
Figure 5.27: Pull tests performed on 20 mm D-Bolts
As in Figure 5.26, the expected stiffness of varying length of smooth bar in tension is displayed, in
this case the diameter of which is 20 mm. Bolt 1 has the least stiff response, on average performing
very similar to what would be expected if only the third anchor was stable. Bolt 2 is the most stiff,
its behaviour indicating that strain in the bolt is largely concentrated before the first anchor. After an
initially softer response, Bolt 3 develops a stiffness that almost exactly matches the expected deformation
of a 1.14 m bar. The initial response could be explained by rock mass compression, or perhaps by the
second anchor fully seating after limited displacement and preventing further development of load on
the third anchor. With these three pull tests, assuming the installation and ground conditions are near-
identical between them, it is clear that a variety of behaviours can be expected from the D-Bolt in a
pull test.
Limited unloading data for D-Bolts was also present in the database. The results of a single campaign
on 22 mm D-Bolts are shown in Figure 5.28. Ground conditions at the location of the pull tests (which
were performed in the back) are described in the pull test report as “broken”, and the large displacements
observed during loading are likely a result of this. As was the case with rebar, the unloading phase is
used as a way to measure elastic deformation of the bolt. Unlike the rebar pull tests, the unloading
phase was explicitly targeted by the personnel conducting the pull test, and data was recorded manually.
As such, the stiffness may be calculated with the maximum and minimum load values recorded. Table
5.10 shows the unloading stiffness calculated for the three pull tests.
Table 5.10: Unloading stiffness calculated for pull tests performed on 22 mm D-Bolts
Test Stiffness
1 635 kN/mm
2 54 kN/mm
3 36 kN/mm
160
140
120
100
Load (kN)
80
Test 1
60 Test 2
Test 3
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.28: Pull tests performed on 22mm D-Bolts
Each of the three tests exhibits different degrees of elastic recovery during the unloading phase,
implying variable load distributions between the three bolts. Comparing the stiffness calculated for these
bolts with the different values of stiffness expected of a 22 mm D-Bolt (Table 5.9), certain similarities are
observable. Test 1 exhibits very little displacement during unloading, resulting in a very high stiffness
value. It must be acknowledged that for such high values of stiffness, the measured displacements will be
correspondingly very small, and any error in measurement will be magnified. Test 3 unloads in a manner
that would be similar to that of a bolt with an even load distribution along its length until the third
anchor, and Test 2 as if the bolt were subject to a reduced load between the second and third anchors.
The fact that different bolt behaviours are characterized over limited testing agrees with the conclusions
drawn from Figure 5.27; the stiffness of the D-Bolt is dependent on the mobility of its anchors, which is
apparently subject to change between bolts even if installed in very similar conditions.
5.5.3 Characterization of Performance Metrics for D-Bolts

Working Capacity
An in-depth analysis of working capacity is omitted due to an insufficient amount of data, with a total
of 6 reliably observed working capacity values (to the nearest ton) between the two D-Bolt diameters.
As too few measurements of working capacity exist in the database to reliably characterise dispersion,
all values of working capacity for the D-Bolt present in the database are shown in Table 5.11.
Table 5.11: Working capacities obtained from all D-Bolt pull tests
Diameter Working Capacity

142 kN
20 mm 160 kN
142 kN
196 kN
22 mm 196 kN
196 kN
Stiffness
Figure 5.29 shows the distribution of stiffness for the two diameters of D-Bolt. Refer to Table 5.9 for
the anticipated stiffness of each bolt for different distributions of load along its length.
9 Histogram 100) 9 100%

120.00%
8 8
100.00%
7 80) 7 80%
CumulativesFrequency
80.00%
6 60.00% 22smm
6
60) 60%
Frequency
Frequency
5 20smmFrequency 5
40.00%
Cumulatives)
Cumulative %
4 20.00% 4
40) 40%
3 0.00% 3
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
More
30
35
2 20) 2 20%
Bin
1 1
0 0) 0 0%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
TangentsStiffnesss(kN/mm) SecantkStiffnessk(kN/mm)
(a) Tangent Stiffness (b) Secant Stiffness
Figure 5.29: Distributions of stiffness for 20 and 22 mm D-Bolts
These figures show that in most of the pull tests performed, either all bolts acted in a manner that
would suggest that the load distribution extended beyond the first anchor (and the second anchor for
the majority of bolts), or rock mass compression played a large role in the tests. Two 20 mm bolts have
tangent stiffnesses that strongly suggest the second anchor is firmly held in the resin, and although there
is one test with higher stiffness, none of the tests approach the stiffness that would be observed if there
were no movement in the first anchor. Table 5.12 shows summary statistics for the D-Bolts.
Table 5.12: D-Bolt summary statistics
Stiffness Bolt Diameter n x̄ s ĉv Skewness Kurtosis

Tangent 20 mm 12 31.2 kN/mm 22.3 kN/mm 0.72 1.18 1.34
22 mm 15 19.2 kN/mm 8.3 kN/mm 0.43 -0.10 -1.57
Secant 20 mm 12 24.6 kN/mm 18.1 kN/mm 0.73 1.20 1.58
22 mm 19 13.4 kN/mm 8.8 kN/mm 0.65 0.53 -1.35
The undertaken analysis is to be interpreted carefully. A very small volume of data is available, and
in reality there are three possible clusters of bolt stiffness, one for each anchor. Normal distributions
are not to be expected with such variable behaviour. Insufficient data was obtained to examine each
of these clusters on an individual basis. The data appears to portray the 20 mm D-Bolts as generally
acting stiffer than the 22 mm equivalent. This is likely misleading; two thirds of the 20 mm D-Bolt pull
tests were performed at Copper Cliff Mine, on 3550 and 3710 Levels (1,080 and 1130 m), while over half
of the 22 mm D-Bolt pull tests were performed at Creighton Mine at twice that depth, between 7680
and 7940 Levels (2340 and 2420 m) in rock masses noted to be fractured. While the quality of the rock
was not noted for the shallower Copper Cliff tests, the lower far field stresses may correlate to a less
intensely damaged rock mass in which the bolts were installed.
5.6 Expandable Bolts

5.6.1 Theoretical Behaviour of an Expandable Bolt
In theory, the concepts that dictate the behaviour of an expandable bolt should be similar to those of
an FRS as both are friction bolts. Figure 5.2 shows the load and shear stress distributions for a Swellex
bolt subject to a pull test, and was used to explain the behaviour of an FRS in Section 5.2. The main
difference between the behaviour of an FRS and an expandable bolt is the higher shear strength of the
bolt–rock mass interface. This is provided by the mechanical interlocking of the bolt and the rock mass
once the bolt is inflated (Li & Stillborg, 1999). As a result, an expandable bolt is more likely to reach
its yield or ultimate tensile strength before it slips entirely out of the hole, although this depends on the
length of bolt embedded in the rock mass.
5.6.2 Observed Behaviour of Expandable Bolts

Although several brands of expandable are available from suppliers, the analysis was performed on four
types of Swellex: the Pm12, Mn12, Pm24 and Mn24. There are four typical behaviours for a pull test
on an inflatable bolt observed in the database. Figure 5.30 shows examples of three, with ideal elastic
stiffness shown for bolts of equivalent length, cross–sectional area and elastic modulus (200 GPa). Note
that although the Mn bolt is a yielding reinforcement element, both the Pm and the Mn bolts have
very similar elastic moduli; the additional deformation capacity of the Mn line is a result of its plastic
behaviour (Bureau, 2005).
120
WorkingWCapacity
100
Pm12W(2.4Wm)
80
PcPm12W(1.8Wm)
Load (kN)
60 PcMn12W(2.4Wm)
1.8WmWStiffness
40 2.4WmWStiffness
20
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)
Figure 5.30: Pull tests performed on Pm12 and Mn12 expandable bolts
Some expandable bolts exhibit an extremely stiff response before gradually softening as load increases,
implying that a limited section of the bolt is initially deforming and the decoupling front mobilizes as
load increases (Li & Stillborg, 1999). Conversely, some bolts have a very soft initial response before
stiffening. This may be due to the response of the rock mass, but may potentially also indicate bolt
movement. The third behaviour is simply a linear response of uniform stiffness, and the fourth behaviour
is highly variable, with no discernible pattern in response to load.
A number of partial embedment tests are included in the database. In these tests, the bolt is inserted
into a steel tube with a diameter less than that of the installation hole, and a limited length left exposed
(in the cases present in the database, this is usually 1’, or .3048 m). When the bolt is inflated, only the
exposed part of the bolt comes in contact with the rock mass and provides anchorage. Table 5.13 shows
bolt behaviour by bolt type, omitting partial embedment tests. Acknowledging very limited data, it is
interesting to note that the Pm12 bolts appear to soften or displace in a uniform manner more often
than the other bolt types, although it must be noted that all pull tests on the Pm12 were performed in
sandfill or paste.
Table 5.13: Swellex behaviour breakdown
Variant n Softening Uniform Stiffening Variable

Pm12 19 42% 32% 5% 21%
Mn12 8 12.5% 25% 25% 37.5%
Pm24 15 13% 27% 12% 47%
Mn24 9 22% 22% 11% 44 %
If the objective of a pull test on an expandable bolt was to determine the strength of the bolt–rock
interface (as it is for an FRS), then a length–normalized value of capacity would be adopted as capacity
would be dependent on the surface area (and thus length) of the interface. However, Swellex bolts in the
database generally yield before slipping extensively. The working capacity of the bolt is thus dependent
on the cross-sectional area of the steel, and independent of the bolt’s length. As such, load is expressed
in absolute terms (i.e. kN). In these cases it is only possible to calculate a minimum strength of the
bolt–rock interface.
Bolts subject to a partial embedment pull test usually fail by slip, in which case the shear strength
of the interface can be calculated in terms of load per length. While a limited number of fully embedded
pull tests on both Pm12 and Pm24 did fail by slipping, all tests were performed in sandfill. Table 5.14
summarizes all slipped tests. Insufficient data is available to distinguish between bolt configurations.
Table 5.14: Coupling strength of partially embedded and slipped Swellex pull tests
Embedment Installation medium n Minimum Maximum Average

Partial Rock or ore 11 131 kN/m 263 kN/m 228 kN/m
Full Sandfill or paste 12 14 kN/m 66 kN/m 39 kN/m
It is worth noting that 8 of the 12 slipped fully embedded Swellex bolts came from only 3 testing
campaigns, suggesting that slip in fill generally occurs when there is an underlying issue with either bolt
installation or the fill itself. It is acknowledged that for the fully embedded tests, there does exist an
upper bound on the value of couple strength calculable, as it is not possible to determine for tests that
do not slip. As such this should not be seen as representative of all bolts, while the partial embedment
tests may be a better approximation. With an average coupling strength of 228 kN/m, the mechanical
interlocking of an inflatable bolt with the rockmass seems to greatly contribute to the strength of this
interface; as seen in Section 5.2, an FRS tends to reach its ultimate capacity (i.e. fully decouple) at 40
kN/m.
Contrasting the number of tests where Swellex bolts slipped in the current database with the number
of slipped tests in a pull test database previously assembled by Soni (2000) shows a large difference in the
proportion of slipped tests relative to what Soni terms as “destructive” or “non-destructive” tests. 12 out
of 111 tests (excluding partial embedment tests and tests performed with malfunctioning equipment) in
the database assembled for this thesis are known to have slipped. Soni’s database included 173 “slipped”
tests out of 304 entries in the data set (Soni, 2000). This is a result of a fundamental difference in the
definition and interpretation of a “slipped” test. Tests in which 15 mm of displacement or more was
observed were classified as “slipped” by Soni (2000). For the purposes of this thesis, a “slipped” test
occurs if the pull tester is unable (and acknowledges their inability) to build further load on the bolt
as it continues to displace at loads that do not suggest plastic deformation of the bolt. Soni is not
necessarily incorrect; it is possible that slip is the displacement mechanism that contributes to the low
stiffness calculated for the bolts in the database, but it would be slip comparable in observed effect to
cone plough, only occurring as load increases rather than the sustained slip at constant load observed
in the case of an FRS.
5.6.3 Characterization of Performance Metrics for Expandable Bolts

Working Capacity
Figure 5.31 shows the distributions of working capacity for the Pm12 and Mn12, with further information
in Table 5.15. Working capacity is measured to the nearest 1 ton (8.9 kN), as this is generally the
resolution used for pull tests performed by Atlas Copco. In general, pull tests on the Pm24 and Mn24
bolts were verification tests, likely due to the large loads involved, and very rarely were the bolts
loaded until they yielded. Load resolution for these tests was 2 tons (17.8 kN), further complicating the
interpretation of the data. As such, an analysis on the working capacity of the Pm24 and Mn24 bolts
was not performed.
13 100P
12
11
80P
10
CumulativepFrequency
9
8 Mn12
60P
Frequency
Pm12
7
Cumulative
6
5 40P
4
3
20P
2
1
0 0P
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
WorkingpCapacityp(kN)
Figure 5.31: Working capacities of Swellex Pm12 and Mn12
Table 5.15: Summary statistics of Swellex Pm12 and Mn12 working capacity
Bolt n x̄ s ĉv
Pm12 15 88.4 kN 5.5 kN 0.06
Mn12 5 96.1 kN 7.4 kN 0.08
Mn12 bolts appear to have a higher working capacity than the Pm12 bolts. This is attributed to one
outlier and the low number of tests on the Mn12. As expected, the coefficients of variation are relatively
low, as the working capacity is dependent on the material properties of the bolt.
Stiffness
Figure 5.32 shows the distributions of bolt secant stiffness for all variants, and Table 5.16 shows summary
statistics of secant stiffness.
14 100% 7 100%
12 6
80% 80%
10 5
Mn12 Mn24
Frequency
60% 60%
Frequency
8 Pm12 4 Pm24
Cumulative Cumulative
6 40% 3 40%
4 2
20% 20%
2 1
0 0% 0 0%
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Secant3Stiffness3(kN/mm) SecantNStiffnessN(kN/mm)
(a) Pm12, Mn12 (b) Pm24, Mn24
Figure 5.32: Secant stiffness of Swellex variants
Table 5.16: Swellex secant stiffness summary statistics
Variant n x̄ s ĉv Skewness Kurtosis Cross-sectional area

Pm12 37 7.60 kN/mm 2.71 kN/mm 0.36 0.14 -0.67 2.45 ∗ 10−4 mm2
Mn12 10 6.54 kN/mm 3.31 kN/mm 0.51 0.77 -0.36 2.45 ∗ 10−4 mm2
Pm24 24 12.40 kN/mm 7.22 kN/mm 0.58 0.76 0.15 4.81 ∗ 10−4 mm2
Mn24 16 12.37 kN/mm 7.17 kN/mm 0.58 0.80 -0.02 4.81 ∗ 10−4 mm2
The average secant stiffness for the Pm24 and Mn24 bolts is significantly greater that of the Pm12
and Mn12 bolts. This corresponds to the larger cross-sectional area of the Pm/Mn24 configurations.
However, the values of secant stiffness are well below what would be expected if the only displacement
mechanism were to be axial deformation. Using a maximum bolt length of 2.44 m for the Pm12 and
Mn12, a stiffness of 20.1 kN/mm would be observed for pure axial deformation spread evenly across
the length of the bolt, and for the Pm24 and Mn24 with a maximum length of 3.6 m, a stiffness of
26.7 kN/mm would be observed. If a deformation model similar to that of an FRS is considered with a
decoupling front marking the onset of steel deformation as postulated by Li & Stillborg (1999), higher
stiffness should be observed considering the strength of the couple appears to be in the region of 200
kN/m (Table 5.14). Of the Pm12 and Mn12 bolts, none approached this stiffness, and only one Pm24
and one Mn24 bolt surpassed their respective minimum anticipated stiffness. Of the few values of tangent
stiffness recorded (16 across all bolts), none reached their minimum anticipated values. This strongly
suggests a displacement mechanism beyond axial elastic deformation is being mobilised.
Within bolt sizes, the Pm and Mn variants seem to perform quite similarly to one another. It is
also noted that the skew value of the Pm12 is significantly less than that of the other 3 bolts; the other
distributions appear more log-normal in nature, although the sample size seems to be too small to be
definitive. The Pm12 also has the lowest coefficient of variation. This may be the result of installation
only in backfill, a relatively controlled substance when compared with the variety of rock masses that
may be encountered in the Sudbury Basin. Figure 5.33 shows the secant stiffness for the different bolt
types sorted by the medium in which they were installed, and Table 5.17 shows summary statistics.
t-tests are performed assuming unequal variances (the properties of sandfill and of various lithologies
are not assumed to be equally variable), and the p-value is calculated for a two-tailed test.
35 35

30 30 35
14
25 25 30
12 Pm24
Pm12
20 20 Mn24
25
10 Mn12
15 15 20
8
10 10 15
6
5 5 10
4
0 0 5
2 Sandfill Rock/Ore Sandfill Rock/Ore
0
(a) Pm12 and Mn12 (b) Pm24 and Mn24
Figure 5.33: Secant stiffness of Swellex sorted by installation medium
Table 5.17: Secant stiffness summary statistics on Swellex sorted by installation medium
Bolt Medium n x̄ s ĉv p

Pm12 & Mn12 Sandfill 34 7.3 kN/mm 2.5 kN/mm 0.34
Rock/ore 10 6.5 kN/mm 3.3 kN/mm 0.51 0.524
Pm24 & Mn24 Sandfill 19 10.1 kN/mm 5.7 kN/mm 0.56
Rock/ore 14 16.2 kN/mm 8.7 kN/mm 0.53 0.027
As the Mn variants of Swellex are designed as yielding bolts, they are generally not installed in
backfill, and very few of the Pm bolts tested were installed in rock or ore. The Pm12 bolts installed
in sandfill appear to react with similar stiffness as the Mn12s installed in rock or ore; with a p-value of
0.524, the null hypothesis is not rejected. However, both the Pm24s and Mn24s installed in rock or ore
seem to react significantly stiffer than the Pm24s installed in sandfill (from the t-test, p=0.027). This
discrepancy in observed effect of the installation medium may be due to a lack of data, be it volume or
the testing of Pm12s exclusively in sandfill, and Mn12s only in rock and ore. Having observed that in
the assembled database slipping failure of the entire length of a Swellex bolt only appears to occur in
sandfill, it does appear that inflatable bolt performance in rock and in backfill is not equivalent. This is
attributed to the difference in material properties between the two installation media.
5.7 Other Reinforcement Elements

Not all reinforcement elements pull tested by Vale in Sudbury since 2011 are to be discussed at length.
Some rock bolts had insufficient data available to perform a more extensive analysis on performance.
Their behaviour is discussed herein, but the discussion must be kept in the context of a small available
data set.
5.7.1 Yield-Lok
Two pull test campaigns were performed on Yield-Lok bolts by Vale’s Sudbury operations between 2011
and 2014, both at Totten Mine. A total of 9 bolts were tested, one of which is discarded as the data
is incongruous with the other tests. One campaign was a verification test, and bolts were not pulled
to their working capacity (in the case of the Yield-Lok defined by the yield strength of the tendon),
resulting in very limited data. A summary of the working capacity and secant stiffness of the bolts is
shown in Table 5.18.
Table 5.18: 8’ (2.44 m) Yield-Lok pull test result summary
Campaign Working Capacity Secant Stiffness

148 kN 18.6 kN/mm
Totten - August 4, 2011 151 kN 12.3 kN/mm
149 kN 17.6 kN/mm
N/A 9.6 kN/mm
N/A 17.6 kN/mm
Totten - April 9, 2013 N/A 36.6 kN/mm
N/A 18.1 kN/mm
N/A 16.0 kN/mm
Although only three working capacities were recorded, they were all around 150 kN. The 2013 testing
campaign stopped testing at about 16 tons (142 kN) without observing yield. The expected stiffness of
a 3/4”, 8’ (19 mm, 2.44 m) bar is 23.4 kN/mm. One test acts in a stiffer manner, although the bolt was
unloaded midway through the test and then reloaded, which may have affected the result. The lower
stiffness of the other tests suggests that there is some degree of movement of the upset head through the
polymer in static conditions, although it is possible that this is the rock mass response being measured.
5.7.2 Fibreglass Rebar

One testing campaign of 1” (25 mm), 66” (1.68 m) fibreglass rebar was undertaken at Creighton with
different combinations of resin types, for a total of 8 tests. Although they were not tested until yield,
laboratory tests were provided by the supplier (FiReP) on 5 samples 21 mm in diameter. The failure loads
of these samples were between 345.6 kN and 371.1 kN, averaging 358.2 kN, corresponding to an average
ultimate tensile strength of 1035 MPa. Unlike steel rebar, fibreglass rebar, or more specifically fibreglass
reinforced plastic (FRP) rebar, does not exhibit large plastic displacements, but deforms elastically until
sudden failure (Duthinh & Starnes, 2001). As such, working capacity is essentially synonymous with
ultimate capacity in the case of FRP reinforcement.
Another aspect of FRP behaviour that is different from that of steel is a significantly lower elastic
modulus. While the steels discussed in this thesis have elastic moduli of around 200 GPa, the laboratory
testing of the FRP rebar resulted in an average elastic modulus of 57.7 GPa. For a 71” (1.80 m), 25
mm bar this would be equivalent to a stiffness of 15.7 kN/mm. 6 of the 8 pull tests performed exhibited
consistent stiffness between 19.2 and 20.1 kN/mm (the two outliers were 18.3 kN/mm and 13.5 kN/mm).
This shows that despite the variance in resins used, performance was generally consistent and load was
being effectively transmitted to the resin. Having said this, most tests were only performed until around
19 tons (169 kN), with one test reaching the 25 ton (222 kN) capacity for the pump. This falls well short
of the FRP rebar failure loads anticipated, so resin performance was not verified for higher loads.
5.7.3 DS Bolt
One testing campaign was performed on 4 DS Bolts (now known as the VersaBolt; Lamothe, September
2014). Comparable to the D-Bolt, it is a smooth bar punctuated by oval anchors along its length. 20.5
mm bolts were pulled at Totten on April 19th , 2013. Load and displacement data was recorded for 3
of these tests. Working capacity and tangent and secant stiffness are shown in Table 5.19. It should be
noted that all bolts exhibited a very gradual yielding behaviour in comparison to the D-Bolt.
Table 5.19: DS Bolt campaign summary
Bolt Working Capacity Tangent Stiffness Secant Stiffness

2 124.3 kN 22.0 kN/mm 19.5 kN/mm
3 116.4 kN 36.9 kN/mm 24.5 kN/mm
4 125.7 kN 22.8 kN/mm 18.3 kN/mm
The typical thread and bar yield strengths of the 20.5 mm DS Bolt are 125 kN and 138 kN respectively
(courtesy of Mansour), indicating yield of the thread.
5.7.4 Other Expandable Bolts

Although Swellex were by far the most tested expandable bolts, three other configurations were tested.
One campaign of Jennmar’s Midi (160 kN ultimate capacity) Python bolt was performed at Creighton
in 2010, although the only data recorded is the maximum load exerted on the bolt during the pull test.
Additionally, one campaign of DSI’s Omega Bolt (both 12 Tonne and 24 Tonne configurations) was also
performed at Creighton in 2013. The results of the pull tests are shown in Table 5.20.
Table 5.20: Summary of expandable bolt campaigns not including Swellex
Bolt Configuration n Embedment Working Capacity Secant Stiffness

Python Midi 5 N/A N/A N/A
Omega 24t 1 Full 178 kN 10.2 kN/mm
Omega 12t 4 Partial N/A N/A
Table 5.20 shows that the data collected for these bolts is of insufficient quality for the purposes of
this thesis. As such, no further analysis was performed.
5.7.5 MD Bolt
A campaign testing 14 MD Bolts, supplied by Sandvik, was conducted at Copper Cliff mine. Only “peak
load” and displacement at that peak load were recorded. It was not apparent how peak load was defined
in the report for this trial, potentially denoting slip, yield, failure or an arbitrary load at which the test
was stopped. Additionally, without intermediate displacements recorded during loading, the behaviour
of the bolt cannot be fully assessed from this dataset. As a result, the MD bolt was not investigated
further.
5.8 Summary
Performance metrics have different degrees of variability for the reinforcement elements discussed. Met-
rics that are dependant primarily on the material properties of the bolt itself (i.e. working capacity as
defined by the yield strength of the steel) tend to have relatively low variance. Larger variance observed
for other metrics (such as measures of stiffness, or ultimate capacities defined by frictional as opposed
to mechanical properties) may be attributed to variable installation conditions as a result of a number
of potentially influential factors, as will be discussed in Chapter 6.
The ultimate capacity of an FRS appears to be independent of the nominal diameter of the bolt.
FRS A and FRS B bolts perform similarly, with average ultimate capacities of about 40 kN/m. The
stiffness of FA35 and FA39 bolts was found to be similar, although displacement is comprised of various
degrees of limited slip and elastic deformation of the bolt. Consequently, stiffness as calculated in this
thesis is a somewhat arbitrary descriptor of how an FRS behaves.
The rebar rock bolts tested yielded in a relatively consistent manner, although stiffness is much more
variable. In most cases, stiffness values are below the minimum that would be expected of an equiva-
lent non-grouted steel bar. Investigating the unloading of the rebar shows that while the stiffness (in
particular tangent stiffness) of the bolt may be proportional to the elastic deformation, it overestimates
deformation by a factor of at least 2. Partial encapsulation tests show that even a limited bond length
between the rebar and the rockmass has sufficient strength to surpass the yield strength of the rebar.
For the cone bolts, five performance metrics were identified to describe behaviour. The bolt head is
displaced with an initial stiffness while the cone remains anchored in the resin. The cone then begins to
displace at the plough load, and a new linear relationship between load and displacement is developed.
This was dubbed “plough stiffness,” and accounts for simultaneous bolt movement and deformation.
This linear displacement behaviour occurs until the bolt tendon yields, at which point the test is usually
stopped as large plastic deformation of the bolt tendon is induced. This sequence of events is not
universal; a fraction of the pull tests show that the MCB33 may potentially yield before any significant
plough occurs.
Divergent behaviours appear to be characteristic of D-Bolt pull tests for the collected data set.
Although relatively little data was available, it could be observed that stiffness of the bolt may be a
function of the length between the point of load application and the first, second or third anchor on
the bolt, or a value in between or even beyond any of the anchors. The anchors have the potential to
prevent load transmission down the entire bolt length. However, movement of one or more anchors on
the bolt results in stress transmission and a less stiff response.
A large variety of expandable bolt test data was collected; bolts manufactured with different steels,
coatings and capacities were tested at Vale’s Sudbury operations. Limited data volume resulted in the
analysis of four types of Swellex: the Pm12, Mn12, Pm24 and Mn24. These bolts also had several
possible behaviours: the bolt may displace linearly with load, but may also stiffen, soften, or displace in
a non-uniform manner. This resulted in variable stiffness, although the stiffness generally reflected the
capacity of the bolt used; higher capacity bolts are made with thicker, larger tubes resulting in stiffer
behaviour. As there exist four bolt configurations split between installation in backfill and rock, and
such divergent behaviours are consistently observed, meaningful analysis is difficult.
Bolts for which a small amount of data is available include the Yield-Lok, FRP rebar, the DS Bolt,
one Python bolt configuration, two Omega Bolt configurations and the MD Bolt. Further discussion of
these bolts in this thesis is limited.
The interpretation of the pull tests was consistently hindered by displacements attributed to rock
mass or surface support compression, which did not represent a reaction of the bolt or its anchoring
mechanism. This led to stiffness calculations resulting in lower-than-anticipated values. This could be
addressed by implementing an alternative method of measuring displacement, such as that described in
ASTM D4435-13. However, stiffness as measured in the creation of the database may still be used as a
relative metric, albeit requiring slightly more interpretation.
Table 5.21 summarizes the findings of this chapter. Note that in the case of the FRS, ultimate
capacity as opposed to working capacity is shown, with capacity given per metre of anchorage length.
In the case of the MCB33, the yield load is shown.
Table 5.21: Summary of working capacities for all bolts pull tested
Bolt type Bolt name n Working capacity s ĉv

FA35 81 40.0 kN/m 10.3 kN/m 0.26
FA39 30 38.3 kN/m 7.2 kN/m 0.19
FA46 50 39.1 kN/m 11.1 kN/m 0.28
FRS* FB35 92 40.0 kN/m 13.7 kN/m 0.34
FB39 83 37.9 kN/m 13.3 kN/m 0.35
FB46 106 37.8 kN/m 10.8 kN/m 0.29
All 442 38.9 kN/m 11.7 kN/m 0.30
Grouted (Static) Rebar A (20 mm) 34 123.8 kN 7.5 kN 0.06
Rebar B (20 mm) 23 120.9 kN 7.4 kN 0.06
MCB33* 52 117.2 kN 16.3 kN 0.14
D-Bolt (20 mm) 3 148 kN N/A N/A
Grouted (Yielding) D-Bolt (22 mm) 3 196 kN N/A N/A
Versabolt 3 122 kN N/A N/A
Yield-Lok 3 149 kN N/A N/A
Expandable Swellex Pm12 15 88.4 kN 5.5 kN 0.06
Swellex Mn12 5 96.1 kN N/A N/A
Recognizing the limitations of the testing methods, the statistical analysis provides useful indicators
of the working capacity of several bolt types in underground hard rock conditions. Chapter 5 focuses
on how factors related to the installation of the bolt, the rock mass in which the bolt was installed in
and the characteristics of the bolt itself affect the performance of reinforcement elements in underground
hard rock mines.
Chapter 6
Factors Influencing Pull Test

Performance
The behaviour of rock bolts as recorded by a pull test is influenced by a number of factors, some of
which may be specific to a particular type of bolt. These can be grouped into three categories: those
pertaining to the bolt itself, those that are specific to the installation of the bolt, and factors associated
with the rock mass in which the bolt is installed. As the behaviour and performance of different bolt
types is dictated by different mechanisms, the influence of various factors are examined for each type of
bolt individually.
The nature, quantity, and quality of information recorded varied between rock bolt suppliers and
was also dependent on the type of bolt being tested. Sufficient data was recorded only for an analysis
on factors that affect the performance of FRS bolts, rebar rock bolts, and MCB33s. This chapter will
describe these analyses.

The FRS was the most tested type of bolt in the database, and generally had the most thoroughly
documented trials. This is likely due to the recognition that ultimate capacity is closely tied to param-
eters that dictate how tight the fit of the bolt in the hole is, and friction between the bolt and the rock
mass. A total of 7 factors were closely examined: bolt length, method of installation, drive time, drill
bit diameter, bolt diameter, geology and rock mass quality.
6.1.1 Influence of Length

The ultimate capacity of an FRS is expressed in a load per unit length basis. As a continuously frictionally
coupled bolt, the typical failure behaviour is slip, and the bolt’s capacity is thought to be dependant
on the cumulative shear strength of the bolt/rock mass interface over the entire length of the bolt. In
general, a limited number of FRS lengths are found in the database. Only one length of the FA39 and
FA46 were tested, and other bolts generally had a large majority of testing performed on a single length
of bolt, indicating the maturity of ground support standards in use at the mines from which data was
acquired. Analysis results are presented in Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1.
78
Chapter 6. Factors Influencing Pull Test Performance 79
120
100
Ultimate Capacity (kN)

80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Anchorage Length (m)
Figure 6.1: Relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FA35
Table 6.1: Statistics on the relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FA35
Anchorage length 1.37 m 1.52 m

n 10 71
x̄ 49.82 kN 61.68 kN
s 13.17 kN 15.82 kN
ĉv 0.26 0.26
t0 −2.595
p 0.0111
As only two treatments (lengths) are present in the FA35 data, a t-test was performed to compare
their means. The critical t- and the p-values shown in Table 6.1 are for a one-tailed t-test assuming
unequal variance (α = 0.05). As the p-value is 0.0111, the null hypothesis is rejected, implying a
significant difference between the two means. It is acknowledged that there was very little data for the
bolt with 1.37 m of anchorage (10 data points from 2 testing campaigns), especially considering the wide
range of installation conditions that may be encountered. This is addressed to some extent by assuming
unequal variances when performing the t-test, but it should also be taken into account that there is
only a 0.15 m difference in length. It seems unlikely that this relatively small additional length of the
bolt/rock mass interface has a strength of 79 kN/m, while the entire interface length of the 1.37 m bolt
has an average strength of 36 kN/m.
The same statistical test (one-tailed, unequal variance, α = 0.05) is performed for the FB35. A third,
intermediate length of bolt was pull tested, but with only four tests performed it was omitted from the
analysis, and the t-test was performed on the 1.52 m and 1.83 m bolts (presented in Figure 6.2 and
Table 6.2).
120
100

80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 6.2: Relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FB35
Table 6.2: Statistics on the relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FB35
Length 1.52 m 1.83 m 1.68 m

n 68 20 4
x̄ 63.4 kN 69.4 kN 40.0 kN
s 22.6 kN 10.2 kN 17.4 kN
ĉv 0.36 0.15 0.43
t0 1.681
p 0.049
The null hypothesis was rejected, albeit marginally, which once again suggests a length–dependency
of performance. Although the data set was larger for this test, it was still limited and the results of the
t-test are difficult to interpret. In Figure 6.3 and Table 6.3, the equivalent graph and table for the FB39,
the opposite trend seems to be present for the larger bolt diameter.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Figure 6.3: Relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FB39
Table 6.3: Statistics on the relationship between ultimate capacity and length for the FB39
Length 1.52 m 1.65 m 2.13 m

n 64 10 11
x̄ 61.8 kN 56.9 kN 46.4 kN
s 20.1 kN 10.4 kN 20.5 kN
ĉv 0.33 0.18 0.44
Three lengths of FB39 were tested, so the t-test must be abandoned in favour of ANOVA. For the
purposes of this analysis, single factor ANOVA using a fixed effect model was used. Single factor ANOVA
on a fixed effect model is to be applied when one factor has been isolated. As the database is composed
of different testing campaigns which have variable installation, rock mass and bolt parameters, it is very
difficult to isolate a single factor when comparing two or more campaigns. As such, the results of the
analysis presented in the Table 6.4 are to be interpreted cautiously, as the degree of confidence calculated
is calculated under the assumption that a single factor is varied between the datasets.
Table 6.4: Single factor ANOVA performed on the relationship between ultimate capacity and length
for the FB39
Source of Variation SS df MS F p-value F crit

Between Groups 4614.4 2 2307.2 6.1628 0.0032 3.1079
Within Groups 30699 82 374.37
Total 35313 84
A p-value of 0.0032 was calculated, thus the null hypothesis was rejected. This analysis implies that
the capacity of an FB39 in fact decreases with length, in direct contradiction to the findings of the
analyses on the FA35 and FB35 datasets, the model proposed by Li & Stillborg, and a conventional
understanding of friction. This shows the shortcomings of this type of analysis on data sets with high
potential variability not necessarily captured by the low volume of data. As a result, the confidence in
the findings of similar analyses on the length–dependency of the FA35 and FB35 is affected.
In order to address the problem of a lack of data volume, datasets composed of each bolt configuration
were combined. Table 6.5 shows that all 1.52 m bolts were either 35 or 39 mm nominal diameter,
and almost all 1.83 m bolts were 46 mm nominal diameter. As such, this analysis is only valid if the
assumption is made that there is no difference in performance between different diameters and suppliers of
FRS. Although from Section 5.2.3 this does appear to be the case, it must be a considered a shortcoming
of the analysis. The overall dataset is shown in Figure 6.4.
Table 6.5: Breakdown of bolts contributing to major sets of anchorage length
1.52 m 1.83 m
FA35 30.5% 0%
FA39 12.9% 0%
FA46 0% 31%
FB35 29.2% 12.7%
FB39 27.5% 0%
FB46 0% 56.3%
Distribution/p10/kN/m/binsc
0a 10a 20a 30a 40a 50a
160
L=1.52m
140
L=1.83m
Ultimate/Capacity/pkNc
120 y/=/14.947x/h/39.486
R²/=/0.0207
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Anchorage/Length/pmc
Figure 6.4: Relationship between ultimate capacity and anchorage length for all FRS bolts
As seen in Figure 6.4, the coefficient of determination for the linear regression performed was very
low. However, as the majority of the data is for bolt lengths of 1.52 m and 1.83 m, these two subsets were
further analysed. The distributions for both are shown in Figure 6.4. The longer bolt does appear to
generally have a larger load capacity as it not only has a larger mean, but the overall distribution occurs
at higher loads. Table 6.6 directly compares the two data sets, including the results of a one-tailed t-test
assuming equal variances (α = 0.05).
Table 6.6: Comparison of 1.52 m and 1.83 m of anchorage length for all FRS bolts
Anchorage Length n x̄ s ĉv t tcrit p

1.52 m 233 61.8 kN 18.7 kN 0.30
1.83 m 158 70.3 kN 18.6 kN 0.26 -4.413 1.649 0.0000
The results of the t-test performed in Table 6.6 strongly suggest a difference between the mean
ultimate capacities of the two FRS lengths. The low coefficient of determination calculated as part of
the linear regression may be explained by the high variability in ultimate capacity. This limitation is
overcome by the t-test through sheer volume of pull test results, allowing a thorough characterisation of
distributions for two lengths of bolt.
Tomory et al. (1998) do not discuss the relationship between capacity and FRS length. However,
Tomory (1997) found no observable trends in an analysis that spanned a larger variety of bolt lengths
than is presented here. This analysis was performed on 475 39 mm Split Sets, over a much wider range of
installation conditions (over 50 mines participated in the study), and it was hypothesized that a variety
of factors obscured any potential relationship between bolt length and ultimate capacity (Tomory, 1997).
Similar conclusions must be drawn for the unsuccessful linear regression presented in Figure 6.4. However,
on both the bases of the analysis presented in Table 6.6, as well as existent theoretical justification (Li
& Stillborg, 1999), a load per unit length basis of performance evaluation will be used for the remainder
of the FRS analysis in this chapter.
6.1.2 Installation Method

A parameter recorded on a relatively frequent basis in pull test reports was whether the FRSs were
installed using a bolter or a jackleg. A large majority of pull test reports that note the method of
installation were for testing campaigns in which a MacLean bolter was used to install the bolts (58.7%
of pull tests were performed on FRSs installed with bolters, 7.7% on FRSs installed with jacklegs, and
no method of installation was recorded for the remaining 33.6%). Pull tests performed on the FA35
are the exception. 31 FA35 bolts were explicitly noted as installed using jacklegs, compared to 44 FA35
bolts installed using a bolter. Figure 6.5 compares the two installation methods, and Table 6.7 compares
statistics. A two-tailed t-test assuming unequal variances is performed (α = 0.05).
70
60
UltimatedCapacityd(kN/m)
50
Bolter-installed
40 Copper Cliff 04/27/2012

Copper Cliff 05/11/2012
30 Totten 04/22/2010
Stobie 05/28/2014
20
10
0
Jackleg Bolter
Figure 6.5: Comparison of ultimate capacities between jackleg and bolter installations of the FA35
Table 6.7: Ultimate capacity statistics for jackleg and bolter installations of the FA35
Jackleg Bolter
n 31 44
x̄ 32.60 kN/m 46.25 kN/m
s 8.49 kN/m 7.47 kN/m
ĉv 0.26 0.16
t0 −7.2
tcrit 2.001
p 6 ∗ 10−10
There is a significant difference between the means of the two data sets, with bolter-installed FRSs
exhibiting almost 50% more capacity than a jackleg-installed bolt. The jackleg bolts represent four
testing campaigns in different conditions, and 90% of the bolter-installed bolts outperform 65% of the
jackleg-installed bolts. The t-test strongly suggests that installation method is a critical factor in regards
to FRS performance. In Figure 6.6 and Table 6.8, the dataset is expanded to compare installations of
all FRS configurations.
30%
25%
MacLean
20% Jackleg
Frequency
15%
10%
5%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Ultimate Capacity (kN/m)
Figure 6.6: Comparison of ultimate capacities between jackleg and bolter installations of all FRS bolts
Table 6.8: Ultimate capacity statistics for jackleg and bolter installation of all FRS bolts
Jackleg Bolter
n 39 289
x̄ 31.8 kN/m 39.8 kN/m
s 7.83 kN/m 11.59 kN/m
ĉv 0.25 0.29
t0 5.56
tcrit 1.67
p 0.0000
While relatively few bolts are added to the jackleg-installed dataset, many more bolter-installed bolts
are incorporated into the analysis. The conclusions are similar, although Table 6.7 seems to overstate
the difference in bolt performance. A bolter-installed FRS appears to have approximately 25% greater
capacity than an FRS installed with a jackleg. This may be due to the stability that a bolter provides
during drilling. A steadier drill would result in a smaller, more accurately drilled hole. This would in
turn result in a tighter fitting FRS with higher radial stresses, and greater frictional resistance to pull.
In addition to the productivity and safety benefits of mechanized bolting, it also appears to result in a
higher quality FRS installations.
In Section 5.2.3, it was found that the average FRS ultimate capacity was greater than that found by
Tomory et al. (1998) for the Split Set (38.9 kN/m versus 31.9 kN/m). Tomory et al. (1998) state that
the jackleg was “commonly used” for bolt installation, while for the database assembled for this thesis,
bolter installation is much more common. In fact, comparing the average ultimate capacity of Split Sets
pull tests collected by Tomory et al. (1998) and the average capacity of pull tests on jackleg-installed
FRS in this thesis, very similar capacities are observed (31.8 kN/m in the current database versus 31.9
kN/m found by Tomory et al; 1998). As such, the discrepancy in average load values is attributed to
the modern methods of bolt installation used at Vale’s Sudbury operations.
6.1.3 Influence of Drive Time

Drive time refers to the time it takes to fully insert an FRS into a borehole. The FRS is mounted on the
head of the drill, and then hammered into the hole. Figure 6.7 shows the relationship between drive time
and ultimate capacity for various FRS configurations. Data points regarded to be outliers are shown
in red, and are excluded from the regression. As they are on the boundary of the data set, they are
termed as having “high leverage,” (Fox, 2008), and have the potential to greatly influence the regression.
They are not seen as representative of the majority of FRS installations, and it is assumed that factors
extraneous to a typical installation influenced the drive times of these bolts. Note that absolute values
of ultimate capacity (kN) were used as it was assumed that a longer bolt will have a lengthier drive time.
160 160
140 yI=I1.4847xI+I38.407 140
UltimatenCapacityn(kN)
UltimateICapacityI(kN)
R²I=I0.5252
120 120 yn=n0.4436xn+n56.484
100 100 R²n=n0.03
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
InstallationITimeI(s) InstallationnTimen(s)
(a) FA35 (b) FB35

160 160 yI=I2.4483xI+I25.055
140 140
R²I=I0.3946
120 yI=I1.119xI+I46.415 120
R²I=I0.1513
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
InstallationITimeI(s) InstallationITimeI(s)
(c) FA39 (d) FB39

160 160 yn=n1.2072xn+n48.476
yI=I1.5842xI+I40.991
140 140
R²n=n0.2298
R²I=I0.5517
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(e) FA46 (f) FB46
Figure 6.7: Relationship between drive time and ultimate capacity for all FRS bolts
Most configurations of FRS appear to show a trend between installation time and ultimate capacity.
The two exceptions are the FB35 and the FA39. In the case of the FA39, there are relatively few data
points, and those present are concentrated in a narrow band of installation times. In the case of the
FB35, the low coefficient of determination appears to be due to different installation methods. Figure
6.8 distinguishes between the bolts known to have been installed with a MacLean bolter (black), and
those installed with either a jackleg or with equipment not noted in their respective pull test report
(red).
160
140 yn=n2.2248xn+n44.69
R²n=n0.4931
UltimatenCapacitynukNw
120
100
80 Bolter
Jacklegnornunknown
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
InstallationnTimenusw
Figure 6.8: Relationship between drive time and ultimate capacity for FB35, distinguishing between
installation methods
Separating the MacLean-installed FB35 bolts results in a clearer relationship (R2 = 0.493, compared
to 0.030 for the full data set). This shows that although jackleg–installed FRS bolts have lower load
capacities, they require a similar amount of time for installation. Figure 6.9 and Table 6.9 show the
results of analysing data only from pull tests known to have been installed with a MacLean Bolter.
Table 6.9: Description of relationships between drive time and ultimate capacity for FRSs installed
with a MacLean Bolter
Variant n Average Ultimate Capacity Average Drive Time Regression Coefficient R2

FA35 36 73.6 kN 19.5 s 0.86 kN/s 0.70
FA39 23 60.5 kN 11.7 s 0.98 kN/s 0.11
FA46 38 65.7 kN 16.7 s 1.53 kN/s 0.41
FB35 58 71.6 kN 11.9 s 2.25 kN/s 0.49
FB39 34 65.8 kN 15.0 s 3.05 kN/s 0.55
FB46 19 68.5 kN 18.1 s 1.80 kN/s 0.54
160 160
140 140
yI=I0.8646xI+I56.744 yn=n2.2248xn+n44.69
120 R²I=I0.6984 120 R²n=n0.4931
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
(a) FA35 (b) FB35

160 160 yI=I3.052xI+I19.913
140 140 R²I=I0.5455
120 yI=I1.119xI+I46.415 120
R²I=I0.1513
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
InstallationITimeI(s) InstallationITimeI(s)
(c) FA39 (d) FB39

160 160
y)=)1.7974x)+)36.01
140 140
Ultimate)Capacity)(kN)
R²)=)0.5383
120 yI=I1.5291xI+I40.25 120
100 R²I=I0.4127 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
InstallationITimeI(s) Installation)Time)(s)
(e) FA46 (f) FB46
Figure 6.9: Relationship between drive time and absolute ultimate capacity for all FRS configurations
installed using a bolter
From Table 6.9, it appears as though different bolt configurations have different degrees of sensitivity
to the relationship between drive time and ultimate capacity; regression coefficients range from 0.86
kN/s for the FA35 to 3.05 kN/s for the FB39. This may be the result of an over-simplification of the
relationship illustrated by performing a linear regression. Both the FB35 and FB39 have a large number
of high leverage data points with installations less than 10 seconds. If the relationship were logarithmic
or a power function as opposed to linear in nature (as is perhaps hinted for the FB35 and FA46 in Figure
6.9 and the fact that such a relationship should pass through the origin), data sets with concentrations
of low values would have higher gradients than those without. Datasets of individual FRS configurations
do not clearly capture this behaviour, and it is unclear whether these datasets may be combined. Figure
6.10 shows a power function fit to the data from all FRS configurations.
160
140
y = 1.4801x + 45.695
UltimatenCapacityn+kN)
120 R² = 0.3641
FA35
100 y = 23.661x0.3904 FA39
R² = 0.4217
80 FA46
FB35
60
FB39
40
FB46
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
InstallationnTimen+s)
Figure 6.10: Relationship between installation time and ultimate capacity for all bolter-installed FRS
fit with linear and power functions
Figure 6.10 shows that a linear regression has a lower coefficient of determination than a power
function fit to the same dataset, although neither correlation is very strong. The FB35 appears to develop
high ultimate capacities with relatively low installation times. The FB39 has longer installation times for
low ultimate capacity bolts, but the high regression coefficient results in relatively low installation times
for high ultimate capacity bolts. The FB46 and FA46 display similar relationships between ultimate
capacity and installation time. The FA35 develops high capacities at relatively low installation times, but
has a low regression coefficient so only relatively long installation times exhibit higher capacities. Overall,
it would appear that as trends between ultimate capacity and installation time are quite different between
FRS diameters as well as suppliers, this relationship should be defined on the basis of an individual FRS
configuration. A larger number of tests that cover a wider range of installation times for individual
configurations are necessary in order to determine whether these trends may be characterised as linear
or power functions. Tomory et al. (1998) fit linear functions to their dataset which, when extrapolated,
intercepted the origin. This is not the case of the data presented in Figure 6.10, possibly due to the fact
that Tomory et al. were primarily investigating bolts installed using a jackleg, while the data presented
in Figure 6.10 is for bolts installed using a bolter.
It is clear that there is a relationship between drive time and the ultimate capacity of an FRS.
However, drive time is not an independent factor, but is just as dependent on installation conditions as
the performance of the FRS itself. As such, its relationship with ultimate capacity is not particularly
elucidating in terms of explaining how the performance of an FRS relates to its installation conditions.
Having said this, tracking installation time could be a useful quality control tool. If the operator of
the equipment installing the bolts consistently achieves drive times of less than 10 seconds, it may be
prudent to implement a denser bolting pattern. Conversely, a 30 second drive time for any bolt suggests
the bolt will perform well in a loading scenario analogous to a pull test.
6.1.4 Influence of Drill Bit Diameter

The diameter of the drill bit is one of the factors that dictate the size of the hole drilled. Hypothetically,
all other conditions remaining the same, one would expect to observe greater ultimate capacities with
smaller drill bit diameters due to higher radial stresses induced in the bolt as a result of a tighter fit.
Figure 6.11 shows the relationship between ultimate capacity and drill bit diameter for the different
configurations of FRS.
80 80
UltimateDCapacityD(kN/m)
60 60
R²D=D0.093
40 40 R²D=D0.0053
20 20
0 0
29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 37.0 29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 37.0
DrillDBitDDiameterD(mm) DrillDBitDDiameterD(mm)
(a) FA35 (b) FB35

80 80
60 60
40 R²D=D0.1082 40 R²D=D0.0009
20 20
0 0
31.0 33.0 35.0 37.0 39.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 37.0 39.0
(c) FA39 (d) FB39

80 80
60 60
R²D=D0.0809 R²D=D0.3651
40 40
20 20
0 0
39.0 41.0 43.0 45.0 47.0 39.0 41.0 43.0 45.0 47.0
(e) FA46 (f) FB46
Figure 6.11: Relationship between drill bit diameter and ultimate capacity for all FRS configurations
From Figure 6.11 there initially does not appear to be a substantive relationship between drill bit
diameter and ultimate capacity, and the weak relationships that do exist for the smaller diameter bolts
appear to be positive, defying the expectation of a negative relationship. The exception to this is the
FB46, the data for which has the largest span in drill bit diameters tested. In order to further investigate
this, two of the largest campaigns on pull tests in which the drill bit diameter was varied were examined,
both on the FB46. These are shown in Figure 6.12.
80
70
CreightonD9/12/2005
60
CreightonD4/28/2008
50
40
R²D=D0.2482
30
20
R²D=D0.8044
10
0
39.0 40.0 41.0 42.0 43.0 44.0 45.0 46.0 47.0
DrillDBitDDiameterD(mm)
Figure 6.12: Relationship between drill bit diameter and ultimate capacity for two testing campaigns
performed on the FB46
Both of the campaigns presented in Figure 6.12 show negative relationships between drill bit diameter
and ultimate capacity. This implies that while individual campaigns may reflect differences in bolt
performance when a wide range of bit diameters are used, there are other factors that strongly influence
the way bit diameter translates to hole size, and thus tightness of bolt fit and ultimate capacity. Results
were filtered by installation method for further examination. There were no further findings for the
FA39, FA46, FB39 or FB46 bolts. FA35 and FB35 pull tests (Figure 6.13) further clarify the relationship
between ultimate capacity, drill bit diameter and installation method.
80 80
UltimateDCapacityDgkN/m)
MacLeanDBolter MacLeanDBolter
Jackleg R²D=D0.2354 Unknown
60 60
R²D=D0.0342
40 40
20 R²D=D0.4411 20 R²D=D0.0169
0 0
29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 37.0 29.0 31.0 33.0 35.0 37.0
DrillDBitDDiameterDgmm) DrillDBitDDiameterD(mm)
(a) FA35 (b) FB35
Figure 6.13: Relationship between drill bit diameter and ultimate capacity for FA35 and FB35,
separated by installation method
Although no correlation between ultimate capacity and drill bit diameter is observed for bolts installed
by a bolter in Figure 6.13a, bolts installed using a jackleg show a negative relationship between ultimate
capacity and drill bit diameter (R2 = 0.4411). In Figure 6.13b, no relationship is observed for bolts
installed using an unknown method, but a weak relationship seen for bolts installed with a bolter
(R2 = 0.2354). The relatively low coefficient of determination calculated for either regression suggests
that while ultimate capacity does appear to be influenced by the diameter of the drill bit, it is heavily
influenced by other factors that obscure the relationship. These factors are likely associated with the
translation of drill bit size to hole size, and could include the equipment operator’s skill, or how the
strength and quality of the rock mass influences the size of the hole drilled. It is thus difficult to describe
a universally applicable model of FRS performance dependant solely on the diameter of the drill bit
used.
6.1.5 Influence of Bolt Diameter

There is insufficient variation in bolt diameter for specific FRS sizes for its effects to be reliably deter-
mined. However, an analysis is possible if bolt diameter and drill bit size are combined. A ratio between
the diameters of the bolt and the bit used in the installation is calculated – a higher ratio would indicate
a tighter fit, should the drill bit accurately reflect the hole diameter. Figure 6.14 shows the nature of this
relationship for the various bolts, and summary statistics provided in Table 6.10. The average ultimate
capacities in Table 6.10 are calculated from the same data set used for the calculation of the bolt to drill
bit diameter ratios.
1.18
1.16
Bolt Diameter/Bit Diameter
1.14
1.12
1.10
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1.00
0.98
FA35 FB35 FA39 FB39 FA46 FB46
Bolt Configuration
Figure 6.14: Bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratios for all FRS variants
Table 6.10: Summary statistics for bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratios for all FRS variants
Variant n x̄ s ĉv Average Ultimate Capacity

FA35 58 1.109 0.024 0.022 41.4 kN/m
FB35 26 1.068 0.012 0.011 41.6 kN/m
FA39 25 1.100 0.025 0.023 39.0 kN/m
FB39 28 1.061 0.023 0.021 35.5 kN/m
FA46 43 1.061 0.039 0.037 41.0 kN/m
FB46 48 1.057 0.036 0.034 34.1 kN/m
Figure 6.14 and Table 6.10 suggest that for the given data set, FRS A bolts are larger relative to the
drill bit than the equivalent FRS B. However, it must be recognized that this is not representative of the
entire database (only 228 of 545 FRS pull tests), and as seen in Section 6.1.4 this does not necessarily
translate directly into performance. Table 6.10 reinforces both of these points; although the FA35 and
FB35 have quite different bolt to drill bit diameter ratios, the average ultimate capacities for the two
data sets are similar. Conversely, the bolt to drill bit diameter ratios of the FA46 and FB46 are similar,
but the FA46 dataset has a much higher average ultimate capacity. Only a comparison of the 39 mm
nominal diameter bolts shows the expected effect. The FA39 dataset has a larger bolt diameter to
drill bit diameter ratio, and a larger ultimate capacity than the FB39 dataset. Figure 6.15 shows the
relationship between bolt to drill bit diameter ratio and ultimate capacity.
80 80
UltimateoCapacityo(kN/m)
60 60
R²o=o0.0945 R²D=D0.0306
40 40
20 20
0 0
0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18 0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13
Bolto/oDrilloBitoDiameter BoltD/DDrillDBitDDiameter
(a) FA35 (b) FB35

80 80
60 60
R²D=D0.0091
40 R²D=D0.0019 40
20 20
0 0
0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18 0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13
BoltD/DDrillDBitDDiameter BoltD/DDrillDBitDDiameter
(c) FA39 (d) FB39

80 80
UltimateoCapacityo(kN/m)
60 60
R²o=o0.0253
40 40 R²D=D0.2289
20 20
0 0
0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18 0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13
Bolto/oDrilloBitoDiameter BoltD/DDrillDBitDDiameter
(e) FA46 (f) FB46
Figure 6.15: Relationship between bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratio and ultimate capacity
Figure 6.15 appears to indicate that the relationship between the bolt diameter/drill bit diameter
ratio and ultimate capacity is weak; coefficients of determination are generally low, and gradients are both
positive and negative for different bolt configurations, when positive relationships would be expected. In
an attempt to address this, as in Section 6.1.4, Figure 6.16 trims the data, sorting by test campaign in
which multiple drill bit sizes are used (to increase the range of bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratios
covered). Linear regressions are shown for data sets with 10 or more data points.
80 80
UltimateBCapacityBhkN/mO
UltimatenCapacityn(kN/m)
60 60
40 40
Totten,B04/22/2010
Totten,B4/4/2014
20 Creighton,B4/29/2014BhOreO 20 Totten,n2014/11/19
Creighton,B4/29/2014BhNoriteO
Totten,B9/23/2010 R²B=B0.4567
0 0
0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18 0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18
BoltB/BDrillBBitBDiameter Boltn/nDrillnBitnDiameter
(a) FA35 (b) FB35

80 80
UltimatenCapacityn(kN/m)
UltimatesCapacitys(kN/m)
60 60 Coleman,n3/7/2014
40 40
Garson,s9/30/2013
20 Coleman,s4/2/2014s(Ore) 20
Coleman,s4/2/2014s(Granite)
0 0
0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18 0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18
Bolts/sDrillsBitsDiameter BoltnDiametern:nDrillnBitnDiameter
(c) FA39 (d) FB39

80 UltimatefCapacityf(kN/m) 80
UltimategCapacitygXkN/m)
Creighton,g6/10/2014gXOre) CopperfCliff,f2014/1/31f(QuartzfDiorite)
Creighton,g6/10/2014gXSubX) CopperfCliff,f2014/1/31f(Ore)
60 60
Totten,f2014/12/3
40 40
20 20
0 0
0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18 0.98 1.03 1.08 1.13 1.18
BoltgDiameterg:gDrillgBitgDiameter BoltfDiameterf:fDrillfBitfDiameter
(e) FA46 (f) FB46
Figure 6.16: Relationship between bolt diameter to drill bit diameter ratio and ultimate capacity for
all FRS configurations by testing campaign
Figure 6.16 shows that there is no clear relationship for the data sets with 5 or fewer entries, and
only one data set (Totten, 4/22/2010) shows a positive relationship between bolt to bit diameter ratio
and ultimate capacity. This data set is the largest and also has the widest ratio range, so while it does
make a case for the existence of a relationship when testing campaigns are evaluated individually, this
is not validated with any other data in the database.
6.1.6 Geology
Rock types in the pull test database broadly fall into five categories: ore, igneous rocks (norite, quartz
diorite, granite, etc.), metamorphosed igneous rocks (greenstone, amphibolite and mafic gneiss), brec-
cias (Sudbury and granite breccias), and metasedimentary rocks. Additionally, some pull tests were
performed on bolts installed in sand fill. Figure 6.17 separates test results by these lithological cate-
gories. Drill bit diameter is indicated in this figure, with green indicating a smaller drill bit diameter, and
red larger. Note that all bolts for which the data could be found are included, regardless of installation
method.
80 80
UltimatekCapacityk(kN/m)
UltimateUCapacityU(kN/m)
60 60
40 40
LargeUdrillbitUdiameterU(relative)U
20 20
SmallUdrillbitUdiameterU(relative)
0 0
Ore Igneous neous Breccia etased andfill Ore Igneous neous Breccia etased andfill
ig S ig S
Meta M Meta M
(a) FA35 (b) FB35

80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
ig S ig S
Meta M
Meta M
(c) FA39 (d) FB39

80 UltimatekCapacityk(kN/m) 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
ig S ig S
Meta M Meta M
(e) FA46 (f) FB46
Figure 6.17: FRS ultimate capacity by lithology
Despite ore in Sudbury being a generally weaker and softer material than the host rock (lower
UCS and modulus of elasticity), it is difficult to see any category of lithology consistently over- or under-
perform relative to the others, potentially due to other factors or measures of rock mass characterization.
Figure 6.18 shows ultimate capacity plotted against the UCS of the rock in which the bolt is installed.
Performing linear regression on the UCS–ultimate capacity data results in no obvious relationship
for any bolt, except the FA35. The likely cause of this relationship, however, is the fact that the bolts
installed with a jackleg prior to pull testing were all in the relatively strong host rock and not the weaker
ore, resulting in a misleading relationship with rock strength. As part of Vale’s quality control program,
pull test campaigns covered more than one rock unit in some cases (usually ore and host rock). These
serve to isolate the effect of the properties of the intact rock as much as possible. Usually, the same
equipment, operator and drill bit (or set of drill bits) were used to install the bolts, and testing in one
area reduces the variability of rock mass conditions between the two rock units. A direct comparison of
the results from ore and waste rock is presented in Table 6.11.
80 80

UltimatePCapacityP(kN/m)
60 60
R²P=P0.3039
40 40
R² = 0.0201
20 20
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
UCSP(MPa) UCS (MPa)
(a) FA35 (b) FB35

80 80

60 60
40 40
R²P=P0.0356 R² = 0.0262
20 20
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
UCSP(MPa) UCS (MPa)
(c) FA39 (d) FB39

80 80
60 60
40 R²P=P0.0027 40
20 20 R² = 0.0611
0 0
0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300
UCSP(MPa) UCS (MPa)
(e) FA46 (f) FB46
Figure 6.18: Relationship between UCS and ultimate capacity
Table 6.11: Comparison of average ultimate capacities for pull tests performed in ore and waste rock in
the same campaign
Campaign U CSore Element nOre nW aste x̄Ore x̄W aste

FA35 3 3 36.4 kN/m 27.2 kN/m
FA39 3 3 34.2 kN/m 34.6 kN/m
Creighton, 5/16/2011 130 MPa FA46 4 5 44.1 kN/m 48.9 kN/m
FB35 3 3 31.2 kN/m 30.2 kN/m
FB46 3 3 42.5 kN/m 32.8 kN/m
Garson, 11/24/2011 91 MPa FB39 5 5 26.5 kN/m 27.9 kN/m
Stobie, 10/15/2012 155 MPa FB39 5 5 34.3 kN/m 31.2 kN/m
Copper Cliff, 1/31/2014 110-150 MPa FB46 4 5 30.2 kN/m 28.3 kN/m
Coleman, 4/2/2014 130 MPa FA39 5 5 37.4 kN/m 36.9 kN/m
Copper Cliff, 3/3/2015 110-150 MPa FB35 5 5 44.9 kN/m 53.12 kN/m
FB39 5 5 54.9 kN/m 58.4 kN/m
In general, very little difference in ultimate capacity is observed between installations in ore versus
waste, as 7 of the 13 campaigns listed show a difference of less than 2 kN/m between the average ultimate
capacities installed in the two rock types. In order to further investigate, the data from each campaign
is normalized with respect to the average ultimate capacity for the pull tests performed in waste, set
to equal 1. This reduces variability across different testing campaigns, while preserving the contrast
between the ultimate capacities measured in ore and waste rock within individual campaigns. Figure
6.19 and Table 6.12 show the results. Table 6.12 also shows the results of the reverse analysis, where the
average result of the bolts installed in ore in a campaign are equal to 1. The t-tests performed assume
unequal variances, and the tcrit and t values are two-tailed (α = 0.05).
Distribution
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
1.8
Normalized Ultimate Capacity
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Ore Waste
Figure 6.19: Distributions of FRS bolts installed in ore and waste rock normalized to the campaign
average ultimate capacity for bolts installed in waste rock
Table 6.12: Comparison of FRS bolts installed in ore and waste rock
Medium n x̄ s ĉv t tcrit p

Ore 56 0.995 0.206 0.207
Waste 56 1.000 0.124 0.124 0.167 1.987 0.868
Ore 56 1.000 0.181 0.181
Waste 56 1.021 0.173 0.169 0.618 1.982 0.538
Table 6.12 shows that while pull test results for bolts installed in ore do appear to be more variable
than those installed in the waste rock, there is on average no significant difference between their ultimate
capacities immediately after installation. It should be noted that while the ore is generally weaker than
the waste rock in Sudbury as was shown in Table 3.1, it is still quite strong compared to some rock types
with UCS values between 91 and 170 MPa. The same investigation performed in rock weaker than the
ore found in Sudbury may not yield the same results. Additionally, there are other factors that may
influence how an FRS performs with time between the ore and the waste; as the ore is a sulphide, an
FRS installed in the ore may corrode more quickly than one installed in other rock types. The nature of
structures present in waste rock versus those in ore is another aspect of the rock masses to be considered,
as well as difference in rock quality.
6.1.7 Rock Mass Quality

No standardized quantification of rock mass quality was routinely performed in areas where pull testing
occurred. In some cases, however, pull test reports offered qualitative descriptors of rock mass quality,
usually limited to one or two words, such as “good” or “highly fractured”. As such, two categories of
rock quality are defined: Poor and Good. Poor encompasses descriptors such as “fractured,” “broken,”
and “poor quality,” while Good is used for descriptors denoting competent ground. This is a vast
simplification of rock mass characterization, but it must be recognized that the database includes reports
from several manufacturers at six different mines, each with different personnel that may be contributing
to the report using non-standardized language to describe the rock. Geotechnical data quality varies
between mine sites; RMR is the most widely used classification scheme between them, but values of
RMR are generally applied to a certain lithological unit on a mine-wide basis. Values are typically
between 55 and 80, although may be as low as 45 and as high as 90 in some lithologies. Bieniawski
(1989) distinguishes between “Good” and “Fair” rock at an RMR of 60; as such, it is assumed that
testing performed in rock masses labelled as Poor have an RMR that falls below 60, and Good above
60.
Only one FRS configuration, the FA46, had more than one testing campaign installed in both poor
and good rock. The results of these campaigns are shown in Figure 6.20 and Table 6.13. The t-test
performed is two-tailed (α = 0.05) assuming unequal variances.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Poor Good
Rock Mass Quality
Figure 6.20: Ultimate capacities recorded for FA46 bolts installed in poor and good quality ground
Table 6.13: Comparison of FA46 bolts installed in poor and good quality ground
Ground n x̄ s ĉv t tcrit p

Good 26 39.3 kN/m 12.3 kN/m 0.31
Poor 9 30.6 kN/m 6.3 kN/m 0.21 2.704 2.048 0.012
Performing the t-test results in the rejection of the null hypothesis, thus there appears to be a
significant difference between the means of the data sets; FA46 bolts installed in good ground averaged
30% higher ultimate capacity than those installed in poor ground. Data, however, is limited, especially
for those bolts installed in poor ground. To address this, the analysis is expanded to include all bolt
configurations. Figure 6.21 shows the results. Bolts installed using a jackleg are omitted on the basis of
the findings in Section 6.1.2, where it was shown that an FRS installed using a bolter has 25% greater
capacity than one installed with a jackleg.
Distribution R5 kN/m binsM

0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60,
90
80 Garson, 9/20/2013
UltimateCCapacityCRkN/mM
Poor
70 Good
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
RockCMassCQuality: Poor Good
Figure 6.21: Ultimate capacities recorded for FRSs installed in poor and good quality ground
The highlighted pull tests performed in poor rock are from a campaign of FA39 bolts installed at
Garson, 9/20/2013, and are the obvious outliers in the data set. Further investigation showed that the
report included a photograph of the bolts as installed, shown in Figure 6.22. Although the bolts appear
to be installed along a fracture, only Bolts 1 and 3 appear to be on the fracture on the surface of the
excavation, and registered ultimate capacities of 49.8 kN/m and 29.9 kN/m respectively, two of the three
lowest results of the campaign (Bolt 3 by a large margin). The surrounding rock mass appears to be
intact, and the assessment of this particular testing area as having “fractured” rock, per the report, is
questionable. As a result, Table 6.14 compares the dataset from good quality rock, and poor quality
rock with and without this campaign included.
Figure 6.22: FA39s pulled at Garson, 9/20/2013

Table 6.14: Comparison of all FRSs installed in poor and good quality ground
Ground n x̄ s ĉv t tcrit p

Good 80 39.2 kN/m 9.5 kN/m 0.24
Poor (including Garson, 9/20/2013) 25 34.9 kN/m 9.8 kN/m 0.28 1.926 2.023 0.061
Poor (omitting Garson, 9/20/2013) 19 30.8 kN/m 5.4 kN/m 0.18 5.157 2.011 0.000
If the Garson FA39 test is included, the p-value of 0.061 is calculated, resulting in a marginal t-test
result; strictly speaking, the null hypothesis is not rejected if α = 0.05, and no difference is observed
between the means at 5% significance. However if this campaign is omitted, very similar results are
obtained as when only the FA46 is examined, indicating that the average ultimate capacity of an FRS
installed in good quality rock is 30% larger than that of one installed in poor rock. A larger number
of tests and less variance in the results of the bolts installed in good rock result in a very low p-value,
suggesting a significant difference. As such, it is concluded a difference does exist in the performance of
FRSs installed in poor versus good quality rock.
6.1.8 Summary of Investigation on FRS Pull Tests

The pull tests performed on the FRSs were relatively well documented, with pull testing personnel
recording various installation parameters more often than for any other type of rock bolt. This is likely
due to the recognition that FRS load capacity is much more dependent on these factors than the load
capacity of bolts that fail before being pulled out. The thoroughness of the reporting allowed for a
detailed investigation into the parameters affecting the ultimate capacity of an FRS installed in situ.
An analysis of the effect of length on ultimate capacity showed that while there does appear to be
an influence, it is only apparent when comparing two large populations of data. This implies that other
factors are more influential, as linear regression shows no relationship and analysis of individual bolt
configurations yields contradictory results.
There does appear to be a clear difference in the ultimate capacity of a bolt depending on whether
its hole is drilled and it is installed using a jackleg or a bolter. Bolter–installed bolts seem to have
25% higher capacities than bolts installed using a jackleg. Filtering by installation method also clarifies
other relationships; for example, the coefficient of determination for the relationship between ultimate
capacity and drive time is increased when only examining bolts installed by a bolter, showing a clear
relationship.
While drill hole diameter was seldom noted in the pull test report, drill bit diameter was more
routinely recorded. Once again, installation method heavily influenced the analysis, and trends became
more clear for some bolt configurations when a distinction was made between bolts installed with a bolter
versus a jackleg, or examining individual campaigns that used multiple bits. Comparing the drill bit
diameter to the measured bolt diameter resulted in inconclusive results, implying that drill bit diameter
is not necessarily a precise descriptor of the size of the drillhole.
Various lithologies are present at Vale’s Sudbury Operations, although no trends were visible when
subdividing these lithologies into several categories. For a more focused analysis, only campaigns where
tests were performed in both ore and waste were compared, and showed no systematic difference in bolt
capacity. However, when comparing bolts installed in different rock mass conditions, those installed in
better quality rock appear to outperform those installed in worse quality rock.
Similarities exist between the analysis presented and that of Tomory et al. (1998), as their objective
was to investigate parameters that influence the performance of Split Sets, although there is relatively
little overlap in findings. In Section 6.1.1, a significant difference in performance between FRS bolts of
different lengths was found, which was not touched on by Tomory et al. (1998). While the emergence of
the use of bolters allows for a comparison between installation methods, Tomory et al. (1998) did not
perform an equivalent analysis, presumably due to lack of variation in installation equipment. While both
this thesis and Tomory et al. (1998) examine drive time, this thesis found that it appears as though the
relationship between bolt capacity and drive time is either non-linear, or inconsistent between different
diameters and suppliers of FRS. Tomory et al. (1998) appears to have had greater success analysing
the effect of drill bit diameter on performance, likely due to the larger dataset on fewer configurations.
The findings presented in this thesis only show broad trends in the cases of some individual campaigns,
and relatively little on a consistent basis. Similarly, results comparing different geologies (aside from
ore versus waste rock) were inconclusive for this thesis, while the database assembled by Tomory et al.
(1998) covered a wider range of geologies, and presented more conclusive results. However, no direct
comparison between ore and waste installations of Split Sets was performed, for which there does not
appear to be a difference in FRS ultimate capacity. Rock mass quality is another parameter investigated
that seems to influence ultimate capacity which Tomory et al. (1998) did not discuss extensively. The
factor that was thoroughly investigated by Tomory et al. (1998) but not covered in this thesis was
capacity development with time. It was found that the capacity of the SS33 increased with time after
installation. All pull tests in the database assembled for this thesis were conducted immediately after
bolt installation, so this parameter could not be examined.

As the working capacity of rebar is dependent on the properties of its steel as opposed to factors associated
with its installation, the stiffness of the bolt’s behaviour is primarily analysed. This may provide insight
into how load attenuates down the length of the bar, and how effectively the grout transfers load from
the bolt to the surrounding rock mass.
A significant number of pull tests performed on rebar were partially encapsulated. In these tests
one 12” – 24” cartridge of resin (usually fast setting) was used to anchor the toe of the bolt, while two
cartridges of “inert” resin are used to simulate mixing conditions without providing further anchorage.
Although these tests should not differ from full encapsulation tests in terms of working capacity, a shorter
length of rebar coupled to the rock mass may affect the stiffness of the bolt.
In this section, the influence of length, encapsulation length, spin time, residence time in the ground
and geology on the performance of rebar is examined.
6.2.1 Rebar Rock Bolt Length

Depending on how load is distributed along a rock bolt, a longer bolt may appear less stiff in terms of
load per displacement. However, if the length of bolt that is partially decoupled from the rock mass is
the same for different lengths of bolt, a similar stiffness should be observed. Figure 6.23 investigates this
effect for Rebar A and B.
200 200
Tangent Stiffness (kN/mm)

TangentbStiffnessb(kN/mm)
FullbEmbedment
150 150
PartialbEmbedment
100 100
50 50
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
BoltbLengthb(m) Bolt Length (m)

200 200

150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Bolt Length (m) Bolt Length (m)
(c) Rebar A secant stiffness (d) Rebar B secant stiffness

160 160
Working Capacity (kN)
Working Capacity (kN)
120 120
80 80
40 40
0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Bolt Length (m) Bolt Length (m)
(e) Rebar A working capacity (f) Rebar B working capacity
Figure 6.23: Rebar performance metrics by length
It can be seen that for both suppliers’ rebar, high tangent and secant stiffness occur with the longer
(2.4 m) rebar length. Rebar A data (unlike the Rebar B data) shows two data clusters for the greater
length: one low stiffness, and one high stiffness. It is assumed that the longer Rebar B acts in a stiffer
manner than its shorter counterpart is a result of the low number of tests collected, and is not an effect
that would be systematically observed with further testing. The 2.4 m Rebar A had a lower working
capacity than the 1.8 m rebar. This may be a result of a different steel and/or manufacturing plant or
process used for the production of the longer bolt - these results come from 3 different testing campaigns
at 2 mines, so it is not attributed to bolt or installation quality. 2.4 m Rebar B does have one low
working capacity test, but the others are equivalent to results seen for the 1.8 m bolts.
6.2.2 Encapsulation Length

As suggested in Section 5.3, the stiffness of rebar should be related to its fully coupled (i.e. grouted)
length. Grout length may be quantified in terms of a ratio between the summed length of resin cartridges
and the length of the rebar. Only 1.8 m rebar tests are discussed and are presented in Figure 6.24.
60 60
TangenthStiffnessh(kN/mm)
TangenthStiffnessh(kN/mm)
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
GrouthLengthh:hBolthLength GrouthLengthh:hBolthLength

60 60
SecanthStiffnessh(kN/mm)
SecanthStiffnessh(kN/mm)
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
GrouthLengthh:hBolthLength GrouthLengthh:hBolthLength
(c) Rebar A secant stiffness (d) Rebar B secant stiffness
Figure 6.24: Relationships between stiffness and grout length : rebar length for Suppliers A and B
Large variances and a lack of data between fully encapsulated bolts and bolts with less than one
third of their lengths encapsulated makes an analysis of two data clusters more prudent. Table 6.15
compares stiffness calculated for full and partial encapsulation tests.
Table 6.15: Comparison of partial and full encapsulation test statistics for Rebar A and B
Supplier Stiffness Embedment n x̄ s ĉv

Tangent Partial 22 29.9 kN/mm 9.3 kN/mm 0.31
A Full 10 40.6 kN/mm 13.7 kN/mm 0.34
Secant Partial 27 23.4 kN/mm 9.0 kN/mm 0.31
Full 9 34.0 kN/mm 13.7 kN/mm 0.33
Tangent Partial 8 17.6 kN/mm 4.7 kN/mm 0.27
B Full 12 25.4 kN/mm 5.2 kN/mm 0.20
Secant Partial 8 15.3 kN/mm 4.2 kN/mm 0.28
Full 16 21.7 kN/mm 9.6 kN/mm 0.44
There is a clear difference in tangent and secant stiffness between the partial and full encapsulation
tests, presumably due to a smaller length of rebar coupled to the rock mass in the partial encapsulation
tests. Interestingly, the partial encapsulation tests consistently achieve about 70% of the stiffness of the
fully encapsulated tests, although they employ only 15% to 35% of the resin. To further investigate, the
unloading stiffness of partially and fully encapsulated test are shown in Figure 6.25.
200
Unloading Stiffness (kN/mm)

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Grout coverage
1.8 m 2.4 m
1.8 m Maximum 2.4 m Maximum
Figure 6.25: Unloading stiffness and grout length : rebar length for Rebar A
Figure 6.25 shows the maximum stiffness that may be expected for 1.8 m and 2.4 m bolts, corre-
sponding to grout coverage. This was determined by assuming uniform elastic deformation along the
length of bolt not fully bonded to the rock mass, with no deformation occurring within the bonded
section. At 0% grout coverage, the maximum stiffness is equivalent to the stiffness of the entire length
of rebar, and at 100% grout coverage maximum stiffness is considered infinite. This also assumes that
the length of resin in the hole is equivalent to the length of cartridge, as the cross sectional area of a
20 mm bolt (314 mm2 ) plus a 28 mm resin cartridge (616 mm2 ; combined total of 930 mm2 ) is roughly
equivalent to a 34 mm hole (908 mm2 ) that would be drilled by a 32 to 33 mm drill bit. It is apparent
that for the fully grouted bolts, significant load is distributed down the bolt and/or alternate sources
of displacement greatly influence the results. It is also apparent that the partially encapsulated tests
perform in a relatively stiff manner, even though these tests should also be subject to displacements
extraneous to elastic deformation. This implies that resin may migrate up the bolt into the inert resin
during spinning, resulting in bond length between the rock and the rebar significantly greater than the
length of the cartridge.
6.2.3 Spin Time

When any resin-grouted bolt is installed, it is spun during the installation process to mix and activate
the resin. Under-spinning may result in a poor mix, and an incomplete chemical reaction leading to
reduced resin strength. Over-spinning may induce fractures in the resin as it begins to set, which may
also result in reduced performance. Figure 6.26 shows the relationship between spin time and various
performance metrics for Rebar A. Limited data prevented a similar analysis of Rebar B.
70 70
TangentEStiffnessE(kN/mm)

60 60
50 50
1.8EmEFullEEncapsulation
40 40
1.8EmEPartialEEncapsulation
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SpinETimeE(s) Spin Time (s)
(a) Tangent stiffness (b) Secant stiffness
Figure 6.26: Relationship between stiffness and resin spin time for Rebar A
As the majority of the data is concentrated between 8 and 10 seconds (per typical installation
procedures), no clear trends are observed. There was no description of how the bolt was spun, i.e. how
quickly the bolt was spun or inserted into the hole, or how long spinning continued after the bolt was
fully inserted. A wider range of data would be expected to show a trend in stiffness, however this data
set does demonstrate that there is some limited allowable deviation in spin time for which performance
does not seem to be significantly altered.
6.2.4 Residence Time

The large majority of the pull tests collected were performed on bolts that had been installed on the
same day as they were installed. Occasionally, tests are performed on bolts that were installed before
the date of testing. Figure 6.27 and Table 6.16 compare fully encapsulated Rebar A that were tested on
the day of installation with those that were installed previously.
200 200
TangentlStiffnessl(kN/mm)l
175 175
150 1.8lm 150
2.4lm
125 125
100 100
75 75
50 50
25 25
0 0
Daylofltest Previous Day of test Previous
Installation Installation
(a) Tangent stiffness (b) Secant stiffness
Figure 6.27: Stiffness comparison of Rebar A installed on the day of testing versus previously
Table 6.16: Statistics regarding residence time for Rebar A
Stiffness Installation Length n x̄ s ĉv

Day of installation 2.4 m 5 77.0 kN/mm 49.9 kN/mm 0.65
Tangent 2.4 m & 1.8 m 15 52.8 kN/mm 33.9 kN/mm 0.64
Previously installed 2.4 m 6 45.3 kN/mm 25.2 kN/mm 0.56
Day of installation 2.4 m 5 38.8 kN/mm 24.0 kN/mm 0.62
Secant 2.4 m & 1.8 m 14 35.7 kN/mm 17.3 kN/mm 0.49
Previously installed 2.4 m 9 19.0 kN/mm 11.2 kN/mm 0.59
Recognizing that the dataset is limited, it appears that in some cases rebar stiffness may decay with
time; bearing load and being subject to vibrations from blasting and seismicity may weaken the resin–
rebar bond, allowing a greater degree of stress propagation down the bolt. However, this should not be
regarded as a universally applicable model. Only a very limited sample size was available, and the low
stiffness of the previously installed rebar makes it tempting to assume that no significant shearing has
affected the bolt’s performance. Should shearing occur, higher stiffness could be observed due to locking
of the rebar in place.
6.2.5 Geology
Rebar bolts were pull tested in a variety of lithologies. Due to the relatively low number of tests, the
only lithological distinction made is between ore and host rock. A comparison of stiffness is shown in
Figure 6.28 and Table 6.17.
160 160

140 1.8 m Full 140
120 1.8 m Partial 120
2.4 m Full
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
Ore Waste Ore Waste
(a) Rebar A tangent stiffness (b) Rebar A secant stiffness

160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
Ore Waste Ore Waste
(c) Rebar B tangent stiffness (d) Rebar B secant stiffness
Figure 6.28: Stiffness comparison between lithologies for rebar
It appears that Rebar A react in a more stiff manner in ore versus a stronger and stiffer host rock,
although fully encapsulated 1.8 m bolts are conspicuously absent from the data set. Conversely, Rebar B
react with a higher tangent stiffness in the host rock, although the difference in stiffness is less pronounced
and is quite small in the case of the secant stiffness (based on a smaller sample size). This suggests that
for Rebar A, stress is being transmitted further down the bolt if it is installed in host rock, resulting in
more strain and lower stiffness. The results must be kept in perspective, with a limited number of tests
performed and many potentially influential factors.
Table 6.17: Comparison of stiffness across different lithologies
Manufacturer Stiffness Configuration Rock Unit n x̄ s ĉv

1.8 m Full Ore 0
Host 10 40.6 kN/mm 13.7 kN/mm 0.34
Tangent 1.8 m Partial Ore 15 33.4 kN/mm 8.5 kN/mm 0.25
Host 7 22.4 kN/mm 6.5 kN/mm 0.29
2.4 m Full Ore 7 68.0 kN/mm 44.4 kN/mm 0.65
A Host 4 45.2 kN/m 30.1 kN/mm 0.67
1.8 m Full Ore 0
Host 9 34.0 kN/mm 13.7 kN/mm 0.40
Secant 1.8 m Partial Ore 20 26.3 kN/mm 7.4 kN/mm 0.28
Host 7 15.0 kN/mm 8.4 kN/mm 0.56
2.4 m Full Ore 8 36.6 kN/mm 18.5 kN/mm 0.51
Host 6 12.1 kN/mm 4.9 kN/mm 0.41
Tangent 1.8 m Full Ore 5 20.9 kN/mm 3.7 kN/mm 0.17
Host 7 28.6 kN/mm 3.5 kN/mm 0.12
1.8 m Partial Ore 3 15.7 kN/mm 3.5 kN/mm 0.22
B Host 5 18.8 kN/mm 5.3 kN/mm 0.28
Secant 1.8 m Full Ore 7 22.3 kN/mm 11.9 kN/mm 0.53
Host 9 21.2 kN/mm 8.1 kN/mm 0.38
1.8 m Partial Ore 3 13.3 kN/mm 3.7 kN/mm 0.28
Host 4 16.7 kN/mm 4.4 kN/mm 0.26
6.2.6 Summary of Investigation on Rebar Rock Bolt Pull Tests

Stiffness was the primary metric of study for rebar rock bolts, as various parameters have the potential
to influence how effectively the resin bonds the rebar to the surrounding rock mass. Insufficient data
existed in the database to verify the relationship between rebar length and stiffness, and the observed
effect (length and stiffness being positively correlated) is likely a result of other factors. Comparing
the lengths of rebar encapsulated in resin also yielded surprising results; while fully encapsulated bolts
behaved in a manner less stiff than expected (although this may be associated with the test apparatus
and method as oppose to the bolt itself), the partially encapsulated bolts reacted to load with a greater
than expected stiffness. This implies that the bond length between the rebar and the rock mass is
significantly longer than the length of the cartridge containing the chemically active resin.
As standard operational procedures were followed for the installation of rebar, only a narrow band
of spin times were recorded (all times within 4 seconds of each other). With such a narrow data set,
no relationship was found, although more variable spin times would presumably influence results to a
greater degree.
Pull tests were on some occasions performed on rebar that had been installed prior to the date of
testing. These rebar appeared to behave in a less stiff manner, but it is emphasized that the data set
used to draw these conclusions is very small.
Generally, rock mass compression posed a major challenge to analysing bolt stiffness. Rebar is the
stiffest reinforcement element discussed in this thesis in terms of secant stiffness, so small movements of
the test rig on the scale of a millimetre may have a tangible influence on the results. As such, to conduct
a more substantial analysis, a method of measuring displacement as described by ASTM D4435-13 that
measures only bolt head displacement and excludes rock mass compression is recommended.
6.3 Modified Cone Bolts

Five metrics by which cone bolts may be evaluated from a pull test have been defined: plough point,
initial stiffness, plough stiffness, secant stiffness and yield load. Of these five, the first four depend
directly on how the bolt displaces (or does not displace) through the resin, while the yield load depends
on the properties of the steel.
Residence time, resin type and geology are examined as potentially influential factors. Additionally,
correlations between the five metrics are analysed.
6.3.1 Residence Time

A number of pull tests were performed on Modified Cone Bolts installed before the date of pull testing.
Figure 6.29 and Table 6.18 compare bolts installed the day of testing with those that were installed
previously. The t-tests performed are two tailed, assuming unequal variances (α = 0.05).
30 120
Initial Stiffness (kN/mm)
25 100
Plough Point (kN)

20 80
15 60
10 40
5 20
0 0
Day of test Previous Day of test Previous
(a) Initial stiffness (b) Plough point

7 14
PloughyStiffnessy(kN/mm)
6 12
5 10
4 8
3 6
2 4
1 2
0 0
Dayyofytest Previous Day of test Previous
(c) Plough stiffness (d) Secant stiffness
Figure 6.29: Performance comparison of MCB33s installed prior to and on the day of testing
Table 6.18: Performance comparison of MCB33s installed prior to and on the day of testing
Metric Installation n x̄ s ĉv t tcrit p

Initial Stiffness Day-of 32 10.0 kN/mm 3.2 kN/mm 0.32
Previous 8 11.2 kN/mm 8.2 kN/mm 0.73 0.382 1.860 0.712
Plough Point Day-of 36 61.8 kN 21.0 kN 0.34
Previous 14 45.1 kN 23.9 kN 0.53 2.292 2.080 0.032
Plough Stiffness Day-of 31 2.00 kN/mm 0.69 kN/mm 0.35
Secant Stiffness Day-of 33 3.97 kN/mm 2.63 kN/mm 0.66
MCB33 behaviour appears to evolve with time. The bolts seem to plough at lower loads, although
with higher plough stiffness as indicated by the two relevant t-tests indicating a significant difference in
means (p = 0.032 and p = 0.028 respectively). Note that of the 14 plough point measurements for the
bolts installed before the test date, 5 of them have noted plough points of 26.7 kN. This is an upper
bound, as it represents the pre-load, and it is possible that plough may have already occurred at loads
below this. It should also be noted that the average initial stiffness of the two installation periods is
very similar, implying that the difference in plough stiffness is not due to factors such as the rock mass
compressing.
This difference in behaviour could be a result of exposure to seismicity or blasting that would have
occurred between installation and testing of the bolts. Resin already damaged by vibrations in the rock
mass would offer less resistance to the onset of a consistent plough response. Resin damage may also be
the result of shearing of the bolt. When sheared, cone bolts convert a portion of the shearing load into
axial (Gaudreau et al, 2004), potentially initialising the ploughing process. Simser et al. (2006) found
that shearing of the rock mass can pinch and lock cone bolts in place, resulting in a much stiffer form
of reinforcement. This may be reflected in the higher initial and plough stiffnesses. Of the 9 previously
installed bolts, only 1 did not plough, indicating that the locking in these circumstances was generally
not significant enough to prevent any movement of the bolt, but did appear to affect the displacement
mechanism. Alternatively, it is also possible that the properties of the resin enveloping the bolt evolved
with time, modifying the behaviour of the bolt as it ploughs. A significant shortcoming of this analysis
is that the length of time that the previously installed bolts had been in the ground relative to one
another is unknown. Further investigation could quantify how performance changes with time, as well
as clarify what the underlying cause in the change of behaviour is.
6.3.2 Geology
The Modified Cone Bolts were installed and tested in various lithologies. Figure 6.30 and Table 6.19
show how properties vary between bolts installed in ore, igneous/metaigneous and metasedimentary
rocks. Previously installed bolts are highlighted in red, and omitted from statistical calculations.
Table 6.19: Performance comparison of MCB33 bolts installed previously and on the day of testing
Metric Lithology n x̄ s ĉv

Ore 4 6.4 kN/mm 2.4 kN/mm 0.38
Initial Stiffness Ign/Metaign 14 11.1 kN/mm 3.8 kN/mm 0.34
Metased 7 9.7 kN/mm 1.9 kN/mm 0.20
Ore 4 67.0 kN 16.8 kN 0.25
Plough Point Ign/Metaign 14 45.3 kN 22.3 kN 0.49
Metased 9 61.9 kN 17.2 kN 0.28
Ore 4 1.40 kN/mm 0.46 kN/mm 0.33
Plough Stiffness Ign/Metaign 12 2.12 kN/mm 0.92 kN/mm 0.43
Ore 4 131.2 kN 4.4 kN 0.03
Secant Stiffness Ign/Metaign 15 4.28 kN/mm 3.62 kN/mm 0.85
30 120
DayMofMInstallation
InitialMStiffnessM(kN/mm)
25 PreviouslyMInstalled 100
Plough Point (kN)

20 80
15 60
10 40
5 20
0 0
Ore (Meta)Igneous Metaseds Ore (Meta)Igneous Metaseds
(a) Initial stiffness (b) Plough point

7 16

14
PloughaStiffnessa(kN/mm)
6
12
5
10
4
8
3
6
2 4
1 2
0 0
Ore (Meta)Igneous Metaseds Ore (Meta)Igneous Metaseds
(c) Plough stiffness (d) Secant stiffness
Figure 6.30: Performance comparison of MCB33 bolts installed in ore, igneous/metaigneous and
metasedimentary lithologies
While all comparisons between ore and host rock must be approached cautiously as only one MCB33
test campaign was undertaken in ore, it would appear that these bolts acted in a less stiff manner and
with a higher plough point. It is interesting to note that this is the precise opposite effect of what was
observed for the bolts installed on a date before the pull test, characterised by a low plough point and
high stiffness. Without further data, it is difficult to posit an explanation of this behaviour, or to assess
its reproducibility.
6.3.3 Inter-variable Relationships

The five response variables described are not independent; secant stiffness is a function of the other four
factors. As such correlations will be found between this factor and the others, but this is regarded as
mathematically obvious and not particularly relevant to this thesis. No relationship is found between
any of the other four factors, except for one, shown in Figure 6.31.
Although no trend is seen between plough load and plough stiffness for bolts immediately after being
installed, a relationship seems to develop between the two factors as time progresses. As discussed in
Section 6.3.1, this may be due to shearing of the bolt initialising plough (resulting in a lower plough
point during testing), while simultaneously stiffening the system, or evolving properties of the resin. The
low coefficient of determination is likely a result of the varying conditions to which the bolts in question
were exposed. These not only include installation conditions, but also the time-related effects, such as
ground movement or energy input from seismicity and blasting activities. While the analysis in this
thesis is far from exhaustive, Figure 6.31 shows that not only static performance, but also mechanisms
and correlations for the MCB33 are subject to change with time.
6 Day of/installation
Plough/Stiffness/rkN/mmv
Previously installed
5
R² = 0.3153
4
2 R² = 0.0009
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Plough Load/rkNv
Figure 6.31: Relationship between plough stiffness and plough point for the MCB33
6.3.4 Summary of Cone Bolt Findings

A comparison of the performance of MCB33s installed on a date prior to pull testing with those installed
on the date the pull tests was made. It appears as though as time elapses, plough may be initiated at
lower loads, but the stiffness of the combined plough/elastic deformation response increases. This time-
dependent behaviour also appears when examining correlations between different metrics of performance;
plough load and plough stiffness correlate with one another for the bolts that were installed before the
test date, but not for those that were tested on the date of installation.
The relationship between the plough load and plough stiffness metrics was also apparent when con-
trasting geologies. MCB33s installed in ore appear to plough in a less stiff manner, but with a higher
plough point than those installed in waste rock. Although data is too limited to be conclusive on the
influence of geology, it is interesting to note that these two metrics once again appear to be linked.
Like the rebar rock bolt, metrics of stiffness (along with plough point) were the primary objectives
of investigation of this chapter, the reasoning is very different. Stiffness is examined for the rebar to
understand how load is distributed along the bolt, while load is assumed to be evenly distributed along
the tendon of an MCB33. The metrics examined were indicators of how the cone and the resin interacted
with each other, and what appears to govern their behaviour in quasi-static loading conditions.
It is not clear how these results translate into the dynamic performance of a cone bolt. Gaudreau et
al. (2004) found that after cyclic dynamic loading until failure of two cone bolts in laboratory conditions,
one had a cumulative plough of 127 mm through the resin grout, and the other 177 mm of plough. Even
if a cone bolt were to be pulled until failure as opposed to yield, these plough displacements would not
be observed in static conditions (Simser et al, 2006). As such, it is difficult to assess from quasi-static
testing whether a stiffer bolt response due to the cone not ploughing or ploughing at a reduced rate
would result in a significantly different energy capacity of the bolt in dynamic scenarios, although it may
be an effect worth investigating.
6.4 Summary
The findings of this Chapter are summarized in Table 6.20. The reinforcement elements are shown
with the parameter that influences performance, as measured by a specified performance indicator. The
nature of the relationship is described, along with its strength and confidence in the findings. Generally, a
weak relationship and low confidence is due to a lack or narrow range of data, while a strong relationship
and high confidence is indicative of a large amount of data clearly showing a certain effect.
Table 6.20: Summary of observed relationships of between various factors and performance indicators
for each rock bolt type
Rock Bolt Parameter Performance indicator Relationship Strength Confidence

Nominal diameter Ultimate capacity None None High
Length Ultimate capacity Positive Weak Medium
Installation method Ultimate capacity Higher with bolter, Strong High
lower with jackleg
FRS Drive time Ultimate capacity Positive Strong High
Drill bit diameter Ultimate capacity Negative Weak Medium
Lithology Ultimate capacity None None Medium
Rock mass quality Ultimate capacity Higher in good, Strong Medium
lower in poor
Length All indicators None None Medium
Unloading stiffness Tangent stiffness Positive Strong High
Embedment length Tangent stiffness, Positive Medium High
secant stiffness
Rebar Spin time All indicators None None Low
Residence time Tangent stiffness, Negative Weak Low
secant stiffness
Lithology All indicators None None Medium
Plough stiffness Plough load Negative (previously Medium Medium
installed bolts)
Residence time Plough load Negative Strong High
MCB33 Plough stiffness Positive Strong Medium
Lithology Plough load Higher in ore, Weak Low
lower in waste
Plough stiffness Lower in ore, Weak Low
higher in waste
Only the following relationships met the criterion of high confidence:
• FRS performance is independent of nominal diameter.

• An FRS has a higher ultimate capacity if installed with a bolter.
• An FRS has a higher ultimate capacity if it takes longer to install.
• The tangent stiffness of a rebar rock bolt correlates positively with its unloading stiffness.
• The stiffness of a rebar rock bolt correlates positively with grout coverage.
• The plough load of an MCB33 is lower for a bolt installed prior to the date of testing.
This chapter has discussed performance metrics in terms of working capacity and various measures of
stiffness, although these are single values representing potentially complex responses to load. In Chapter
7, the displacement response of rock bolts subject to a pull test is described in greater detail.
Chapter 7
Characterization of Rock Bolt

Behaviour
Having investigated rock bolt response to load and the influence of various parameters, this chapter
describes bolt behaviour observed during a pull test, defining a distribution of displacement development
with load. Bolt performance is compared to manufacturer specifications and recommendations, and to
that of other bolt types.
7.1 Characterisations of Bolt Behaviour using Laboratory Pull

Tests
Comparisons of the behaviours and capacities of various rock bolts subject to laboratory testing have
been published previously (Stillborg, 1993; Li et al, 2014). Stillborg (1993) conducted a series of tests
on various rock bolts, namely mechanical bolts, 20 mm rebar grouted in both cement and resin, resin-
grouted 22 mm fibreglass rods, 39 mm Split Sets, and EXL Swellex bolts. Figure 7.1 shows the results,
and is a widely used reference in the design of underground support systems. Note that Figure 7.1 is a
composite assembled by Hoek et al. (1995), who labelled the horizontal axis “deformation”. Stillborg
(1993) distinguished between rock bolt displacement and deformation. Displacement induced during tests
on rebar was attributed solely to deformation of the bolt. However, bolts including the SS39, Swellex
EXL and expansion shell anchored bolt exhibited slip, so in these cases, the horizontal axis was labelled
as “displacement”. Throughout this thesis, behaviour has been expressed in terms of “displacement”,
as it was difficult to interpret whether displacement measured by the pull test apparatus was solely
attributable to bolt deformation.
Stillborg’s (1993) testing program consisted of bolts 3 m in length installed across two 1.5 m blocks
of high strength (UCS = 60 MPa) concrete. Holes were drilled using a percussion drill in an attempt to
recreate the roughness of holes drilled in the field. 3 samples of each bolt were tested across a simulated
joint by moving the two concrete blocks apart. The load-displacement behaviours shown in Figure
7.1 are the average of the results from the three tests (Stillborg, 1993). Li et al. (2014) performed a
review of more rock bolts tested using a similar apparatus at the Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU). Bolts were installed in two 950 mm x 950 mm x 950 mm high-strength concrete
112
Chapter 7. Characterization of Rock Bolt Behaviour 113
blocks. Hydraulic jacks exerted a load which pushed the two blocks apart as displacement was measured
(Li et al, 2014). Doucet & Voyzelle (2012) present the results of laboratory static pull tests performed
at the CANMET-MMSL facility using the procedures and apparatus described in ASTM D7401-08,
discussed in Section 2.2.5. Instead of concrete blocks, rock bolts were installed in a steel tube, and load
applied to the bolt head, as in an in situ pull test. The results presented by Doucet & Voyzelle (2012)
are from tests performed between 2006 and 2011, and include the behaviours of a mechanical bolt, resin
grouted rebar, the MCB33, the discontinued MCB38, the Durabar Yieldable Bolt, the discontinued
Roofex Rx8D and Rx20D, 20 mm and 22 mm D-Bolts, the Yield Lok Dynamic and the Yield Lok Static.
Figure 7.1: Average load–displacement behaviours obtained by Stillborg in a laboratory setting

(Stillborg, 1993; composited by Hoek et al, 1995)
The use of a database of in situ pull tests has significant advantages over these laboratory campaigns
as tools for design. The bolts in a database of in situ pull tests are installed in conditions found on a
mine site. Instead of installing bolts using lab-scale equipment in blocks of high strength concrete or
steel tubes, they are installed in holes drilled in rock by equipment and procedures used daily on site. In
addition, the database assembled is a much larger dataset than the laboratory tests discussed. Figure
7.1 was made using 3 tests for each bolt type (Stillborg, 1993). Static test results presented by Doucet
& Voyzelle (2012) appear to be results from single tests. With more tests performed, a distribution of
behaviour may be assembled and can be used for probabilistic design and analysis.
There are two primary advantages to the laboratory tests discussed. The first is that bolts are
pulled until failure. The second is the test configuration. Load may be applied across a simulated
joint (as in Stillborg, 1993, and Li et al, 2014), which is arguably a better analogue of the nature of
loading a reinforcement element may be subject to in practice, rather than loading of the bolt head (as
is performed during an in situ pull test). The test may be instrumented differently to provide more
certainty of the results and interpretation. For example, displacement at the toe of the bolt may be
measured to determine whether the bolt is slipping or if all displacement may be attributed to bolt
deformation. Such a measurement cannot be easily performed in an in situ pull test. Further discussion
of testing methods and how they relate to one another may be found in Chapters 2 and 4.
Previously assembled pull test databases (Tomory et al, 1998; Soni, 2000) have primarily analysed the
performance of rock bolts in terms of load capacity. Tomory et al. (1998) did not include displacement
of the Split Set in their analysis. Soni (2000) used the displacement measured during the pull test of
a Swellex bolt to determine whether a bolt had slipped or not, thus as a binary metric of performance
as opposed to a continuous one. Displacement characteristics of rock reinforcement and ground support
elements in general are critical to enact some methods of design, such as those that incorporate the
ground reaction curve (Section 4.3.3). In this chapter, load-displacement behaviours of certain rock
bolts are compiled across all pull testing campaigns in the database in order to define a distribution of
behaviour for that bolt. The objective is to propose composite diagrams of load-displacement behaviours
of various types of rock bolt as undertaken by Stillborg (1993), using a larger set of in situ pull test data.

Displacement data was recorded for 25 FA35 and 24 FA39 bolts. Using this data as well as the ultimate
capacity measurements taken for all FRS bolts in the database, performance metrics and the behaviour
of the FRS were characterised. All FA35s and FA39s for which displacement was measured were 1.68 m
in length and were tested without a pre-load.
7.2.1 Characterization of FRS Performance

Table 7.1 shows the 10th , 25th , 50th , 75th and 90th percentiles of ultimate capacity and secant stiffness for
the 49 FRS bolts for which displacement was recorded. Note that ultimate capacities are not normalized
to anchorage length.
Table 7.1: FA35 and FA39 performance percentiles
Metric Bolt n P10 P25 P50 P75 P90

Ultimate FA35 25 47.7 kN 58.0 kN 64.6 kN 71.4 kN 88.6 kN
Capacity FA39 24 47.6 kN 51.2 kN 57.3 kN 69.7 kN 79.4 kN
Total 49 48.0 kN 52.8 kN 62.0 kN 70.7 kN 83.2 kN
Secant FA35 25 5.1 kN/mm 6.9 kN/mm 15.0 kN/mm 22.7 kN/mm 39.7 kN/mm
Stiffness FA39 24 4.4 kN/mm 5.9 kN/mm 9.5 kN/mm 13.5 kN/mm 18.8 kN/mm
Total 49 4.8 kN/mm 6.5 kN/mm 10.9 kN/mm 18.2 kN/mm 28.2 kN/mm
The percentiles of performance metrics used for the two bolts are not identical. Although the 10th
and 75th percentiles are quite similar between the two bolts, the FA35 dataset appears to generally have
a higher ultimate capacity. The FA35 also appears to behave in a more stiff manner than the FA39, the
disparity between the two bolts increasing at higher percentiles. However, it has been demonstrated in
Chapter 5 that there is no difference in ultimate capacity between the two bolts when the entire dataset
of ultimate capacities is examined, and that secant stiffness is not necessarily reflective of performance.
As such, the two datasets are combined in Figure 7.2. In this figure, the data points represent the
combination of load and displacement at which the ultimate capacity of a bolt was reached. Boxes are
defined by percentiles of both ultimate capacity and secant stiffness. Median ultimate capacity and
secant stiffness are indicated by solid black lines.
100
90
P90
80
P75
70
P50
60 5 P 10
0
P2
50
Loadt(kN)
P9
P7
P25 FA35
50 P10 FA39
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacementt(mm)
Figure 7.2: Distributions of secant stiffness and ultimate capacity for a pull test on an FRS with an
anchorage length of 1.52 m
In the construction of Figure 7.2, not all data regarding the ultimate capacity of an FRS was used.
Figure 7.3 and Table 7.2 compares the dispersion of ultimate capacities for all configurations of FRS
discussed in this thesis, including the FA35/FA39 dataset for which displacements are measured, and
the FRS dataset as a whole. As multiple lengths of bolt are represented, load is quantified in terms of
kN/m of anchorage length.
Table 7.2: Distribution of ultimate capacity across all FRS configurations
Bolt n P10 P25 P50 P75 P90

FA35 81 25.1 kN/m 32.1 kN/m 40.9 kN/m 47.6 kN/m 52.4 kN/m
FB35 92 21.7 kN/m 32.1 kN/m 39.9 kN/m 49.6 kN/m 58.4 kN/m
FA35+FA39 49 31.5 kN/m 34.6 kN/m 40.7 kN/m 46.4 kN/m 54.6 kN/m
Grand Total 442 24.0 kN/m 31.5 kN/m 38.7 kN/m 47.4 kN/m 53.5 kN/m
80
Median
70 Mean
60
P90
50
P75
LoadV(kN/m)
40 P50
P25
30
P10
20
10
0
FA35 FA39 FA46 FB35 FB39 FB46
FRSVVariant
Figure 7.3: Ultimate capacity per metre distributions for all FRS configurations
Percentiles of ultimate capacity generally agree with each other across bolt type. The main exception
is the FA39, the capacity of which appears to be relatively narrowly distributed between 30 and 40 kN/m.
The FB35 and FB39 have the widest distributions, while those of the FB46, FA35 and FA46 are similar.
The nature of the FA39 dataset carries over into the combined FA35/FA39 dataset. P10 and P25 are
higher than the equivalent percentiles for other bolts, although the median, P75 and P90 better match
the rest of the data. In Figure 7.4, percentiles of secant stiffness and ultimate capacity are generalized
so they may be applied to various lengths of FRS. Load capacity is expressed in kN/m, displacement
in percentage of anchorage length, and percentiles of ultimate capacity shown are for the entire FRS
dataset.
70
60
P90
50 P75
Loadt(kN/m)
40 P50
5 P 10
P90
P2
50
P7
P25
30
P10
20
10
0
0.09 0.29 0.49 0.69 0.89 1.09
Displacementt(9toftanchoragetlength)
Figure 7.4: Distribution of secant stiffness and ultimate capacity for all FRS bolts tested
To use Figure 7.4 for design, a decision must be made regarding what percentiles of performance (i.e.
ultimate capacity and secant stiffness) are to be used. As an example, a designer wishes to use the 25th
percentiles of both ultimate capacity and secant stiffness of an FRS with an anchorage length of 2 m.
The intersect of the 25th percentiles is at 33 kN/m and 0.32 % displacement, so the ultimate capacity
for the 2 m bolt will be 66 kN at 6.4 mm at displacement. 25% of bolts will exhibit lower stiffness, 25%
lower ultimate capacity, but only 6.25% will have a lower ultimate capacity with more displacement.
7.2.2 Characterization of FRS Behaviour

Figure 7.5 shows the load-displacement relationships for all FRS pull tests for which displacement was
recorded. Displacements at 0.5 ton (4.45 kN) intervals are shown (although data was logged digitally
with variable load resolution), and behaviour after ultimate capacity is reached is not shown. FA35 bolts
are depicted in black, and FA39 in red.
100
90
FA35
80 FA39
70
60
Load (kN)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.5: All FA35 and FA39 pull test load-displacement relationships
Both bolts show erratic displacement behaviour as load develops, suggesting that in many cases the
bolt slips multiple times before reaching its ultimate capacity. To construct a representative distribution
of behaviour, percentiles of displacement were calculated at 0.5 t (4.45 kN) intervals. As load increases,
the dataset diminishes as the ultimate capacities of bolts are surpassed. To address this, dummy data
entries were used for these bolts so that the number of bolts used to construct the percentiles remained
constant. While the behavioural range is calculated using displacement, this is interpreted as stiffness,
i.e. the 90th percentile of displacement is equal to the 10th percentile of stiffness. Figure 7.6 illustrates
both the percentiles of stiffness (calculated from displacement at load intervals), as well as the percentiles
of ultimate capacity simultaneously. As once the ultimate capacity of a particular test has been exceeded
no displacement data at higher loads may be recorded, the 10th percentile of stiffness must end at the
10th percentile of ultimate capacity, as only 90% of the data remains from which to calculate stiffness
(mathematically, at this point the dummy entry influences the value of the percentile, so the percentile
is no longer shown). This should not be taken to indicate that bolts with low secant stiffness have
proportionally low ultimate capacities; Figure 7.2 shows that this does not appear to be the case. Figure
7.7 shows a smoothed version of the same figure displaying the initial anchorage capacity suggested by
the manufacturer (courtesy of Supplier A).
100
90
P90
80
70 P75
P50
60
Load (kN)
P25
50
P10
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.6: Distribution of displacement measured during pull testing of FA35 and FA39 with
anchorage lengths of 1.52 m
100
90
P90
80
P75
70
P50
60
P25
Loadc(kN)
50 P10
InitialcCapacitycRange
40 (FromcSupplier)
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacementc(mm)
Figure 7.7: Conceptual displacement distribution of FRSs with anchorage lengths of 1.52 m subject to
a pull test
Figure 7.6 shows that in situ FRS behaviour may be quite variable; it is possible that next to no load
is required to initialize displacement, or that no displacement may be observed until 35 kN of load. Load
then increases with growing displacement before plateauing at a maximum value (ultimate capacity).
In Figure 7.7, behaviour is extrapolated to be perfectly plastic. In reality, after reaching the ultimate
capacity, load is continually built and released as the bolt slips out of the hole incrementally. Note that
the percentiles of ultimate capacity displayed in this figure are for the FA35/FA39 dataset, and not the
entire FRS dataset. Figure 7.8 shows a generalized version of Figure 7.7. Load is expressed in load per
metre of anchorage, and displacement in terms of anchorage length. This characterisation of behaviour
was performed only bolts with an anchorage length of 1.52 m, and its applicability to other bolt lengths
has not been verified.
70
60
P90
50
P75
P50
Loadt(kN/m)
40
P25
P10
30
20
10
0
0.09 0.29 0.49 0.69 0.89 1.09 1.29 1.49
Displacementt(9toftanchoragetlength)
Figure 7.8: Conceptual displacement distribution of pull tests performed on FRSs
Initial anchorage values of 27 to 54 kN are claimed by Suppliers A and B for both 35 and 39 mm
configurations of FRS. As seen in Figure 7.7, pull testing indicates that these values are generally met or
exceeded. However, both suppliers claim anchorage values of 54 kN to 89 kN for their respective 46 mm
FRSs (courtesy of Suppliers A and B). Table 7.3 compares manufacturer recommendations with observed
pull test results in terms of both absolute and length–normalized load. As both suppliers provide their
load recommendations in terms of absolute load, the typical 35 mm and 39 mm anchorage length of
1.524 m is used to normalize load to length for all bolts.
For 35 and 39 mm bolts, almost all pull tests (97.6%) have ultimate capacities exceeding the lower
bound of the suppliers’ claim, and around 60% exceed the upper bound. Suppliers claim a higher range
of ultimate capacities for their 46 mm bolts – between 54 kN and 89 kN. It has been found in this thesis
that there is no difference in performance across different FRS diameters. 77.7% of the 46 mm FRS
tests exceeded the lower bound of the claimed range, but only 15.5% exceeded the upper bound, a much
lower pass rate than the 59.2% observed for the 35 mm and 39 mm FRSs. When loads are adjusted to
a common anchorage length, the discrepancy in supplier specifications becomes more apparent. 59.4%
of 35/39 mm FRSs pass their upper bound of 35.4 kN/m, compared to only 1.9% of 46 mm FRSs
passing their upper bound of 58.4 kN/m. It is difficult to see how suppliers determine their capacity
specifications, as it has been observed that no difference exists between the length–normalized ultimate
capacities of different FRS diameters. Assuming that the claimed ranges of capacity are determined
consistently (i.e. use of equivalent bolt length, installation procedures, etc.), it is difficult to explain this
variation.
Table 7.3: FRS performance compared to supplier specifications
Bolt Claimed Capacity % Passing Claimed Capacity % Passing

FA35 27 kN 98.8% 17.7 kN/m 98.8 %
54 kN 66.7% 35.4 kN/m 69.1%
FA39 27 kN 100.0% 17.7 kN/m 100.0%
54 kN 53.3% 35.4 kN/m 53.3%
FA46 54 kN 84.0% 35.4 kN/m 64.0%
89 kN 14.0% 58.4 kN/m 4.0%
FB35 27 kN 94.6% 17.7 kN/m 93.5%
54 kN 67.4% 35.4 kN/m 65.2%
FB39 27 kN 98.9% 17.7 kN/m 97.6%
54 kN 46.2% 35.4 kN/m 45.8%
FB46 54 kN 78.0% 35.4 kN/m 54.7%
89 kN 16.0% 58.4 kN/m 0.9%
35 mm + 39 mm 27 kN 97.6% 17.7 kN/m 96.9%

Total 54 kN 59.2% 35.4 kN/m 59.4%
46 mm Total 54 kN 77.7% 35.4 kN/m 57.7%
89 kN 15.5% 58.4 kN/m 1.9%
It is recognized that this discussion touches only on recently installed bolts. The 46 mm bolt has
more constituent steel, as it is larger in diameter. This means that the load at which it will physically
fail is greater than the smaller diameters of FRS discussed. If an FRS is sheared an locked in place, a
larger cross-sectional area will result in a higher load required to break the bolt. Similarly, the shear
strengths of the bolts may not be equivalent. However, if these failure modes are not observed at an
operation, the FRS bolts appear to have the same capacity regardless of diameter.

Displacement data from 51 fully encapsulated resin-grouted Rebar A and Rebar B between 1.8 m and 2.4
m in length was collected. Various pre-loads, between 0 and 3 tons (26.7 kN) were applied during testing
of these rock bolts. Displacement data from these bolts was used to characterize the performance and
behaviour of rebar. When working capacity is quantified, partially encapsulated bolts are incorporated
into the analysis.
7.3.1 Characterization of Rebar Rock Bolt Performance

In Chapter 5, it was found that rebar from both Suppliers A and B had similar working capacities and
secant stiffness. Table 7.4 elaborates on this similarity, showing that distributions of both performance
metrics for fully encapsulated bolts as quantified by percentiles are comparable. As such, the two
datasets are combined in Figure 7.9, depicting the combination of load and displacement at which the
rebar reached their working capacities. Most of the rebar was pull tested after pre-loading the bolt to 2
tons (17.8 kN). The points in Figure 7.9 are thus depicted with a simulated 17.8 kN pre-load.
Table 7.4: Percentiles of performance metrics for rebar rock bolts
Metric Supplier n P10 P25 P50 P75 P90

A 34 112.6 kN 118.6 kN 124.1 kN 127.7 kN 132.8 kN
Working capacity B 20 107.7 kN 115.7 kN 123.8 kN 124.6 kN 129.6 kN
Total 54 112.6 kN 117.5 kN 124.1 kN 127.1 kN 131.1 kN
A 23 9.1 kN/mm 15.3 kN/mm 28.9 kN/mm 43.8 kN/mm 46.9 kN/mm
Secant stiffness B 21 8.1 kN/mm 15.3 kN/mm 27.9 kN/mm 35.2 kN/mm 46.6 kN/mm
Total 44 9.2 kN/mm 15.8 kN/mm 28.1 kN/mm 39.5 kN/mm 45.9 kN/mm
160
140
P7 90
P90 P 10
5
0
P
P5
P75
P50
120
25
P25
P
P10
100
LoadA(kN)
RebarAA
80 RebarAB
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DisplacementA(mm)
Figure 7.9: Distributions of secant stiffness and working capacity for a pull test with a pre-load of 17.8
kN on a rebar rock bolt
7.3.2 Characterisation of Rebar Rock Bolt Behaviour

Figure 7.10 shows all pull tests performed. Tests performed with a pre-load of 0 are shown in red, a
pre-load of 17.8 kN in grey, and 26.7 kN in black.
160
140
120
100
Load (kN)
3 t (26.7 kN) Pre-load

80 2 t (17.8 kN) Pre-load
0 Pre-load
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.10: All rebar pull test load-displacement relationships
It can be seen in Figure 7.10 that large displacements at low loads may occur if the bolt is not pre-
loaded. Figure 7.11 shows the load–displacement data neglecting the first 17.8 kN of all pull tests. Figure
7.12 incorporates displacement data below 17.8 kN and correcting the percentiles of the entire data set
to match those of the tests performed without pre-load at 17.8 kN. As pull tests are often performed
only until the rebar yields, if not before, data limitations result in the 75th and 90th percentiles not
clearly showing yield behaviour.
160
P10
140
P25
P50
120 P75 P90
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.11: Distribution of displacement measured during pull testing of 20 mm rebar 1.8 m to 2.4 m
in length with a pre-load of 17.8 kN
A comparison of Figures 7.11 and 7.12 illustrates the objective of using a pre-load during pull testing;
160
P10
140
P25
P50
120 P75 P90
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.12: Distribution of displacement measured during pull testing of 20 mm rebar 1.8 m to 2.4 m
in length without a pre-load
large displacements occur at low loads as the rock mass and testing apparatus tighten up, before a stiffer
linear response to load is developed. As the stiffness and working capacity of rebar subject to a pull
test are independent of one another, they are separated in Figure 7.13. The behaviour shown in Figure
7.12 is extrapolated to P90 of working capacity. Median working capacity is shown in red, and other
percentiles of working capacity are listed. Note that partially encapsulated rebar were incorporated into
the dataset used to calculate percentiles of working capacity.
160
140
P10 P25 P50 P75 P90
120
100
LoadW(kN)
80 PercentilesWofWWorkingWCapacity
P90 131WkN
P75 127WkN
60 P50 124WkN
P25 117WkN
P10 113WkN
40
20
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
DisplacementW(mm)
Figure 7.13: Conceptual distribution of displacement during pull testing of 20 mm rebar without a
pre-load
Figure 7.13 shows that less than 2 mm of displacement may be observed when pull testing a 20 mm
rebar before working capacity is reached and the rebar begins to yield. About 5 mm of displacement
represents median behaviour if the bolt is not pre-loaded, and in some conditions over 14 mm of displace-
ment may be measured. Table 7.5 compares the rebar strength claimed by the supplier to the observed
working capacities.
Table 7.5: Rebar performance compared to supplier specifications
Metric Specification % Passing

Minimum thread yield strength 89 kN (Supplier A), 86 kN (Supplier B) 100%
Minimum thread tensile strength 134 kN (Supplier A), 116 kN (Supplier B) 100%
All rebar reached their working capacities above the supplier-specified thread yield strength. While
not all rebar were tested until the 134 kN minimum thread tensile strength specified by Supplier A,
thread failure was not reported in any pull test.
7.4 Modified Cone Bolt

The behaviour of the MCB33 was described by four metrics combining to be represented by one (secant
stiffness). Secant stiffness and steel yield strength are the two primary metrics used to describe bolt
performance, although all metrics contribute to the overall behaviour of the MCB33.
7.4.1 Characterisation of Modified Cone Bolt Performance

Figure 7.14 shows the combinations of load and displacement at which the bolts began to yield (quantified
by secant stiffness), assuming a pre-load of 2 tons (17.8 kN). This is a limited representation of bolt
behaviour that is elaborated on in Table 7.6, which shows percentiles of each metric. All cone bolts
tested were the same length, so no length–normalization was performed.
Table 7.6: Distributions of MCB33 performance metrics
Metric n P10 P25 P50 P75 P90

Initial Stiffness 57 5.7 kN/mm 7.5 kN/mm 9.7 kN/mm 11.4 kN/mm 15.2 kN/mm
Plough Load 67 26.7 kN 35.4 kN 53.4 kN 68.4 kN 91.6 kN
Plough Stiffness 58 1.2 kN/mm 1.4 kN/mm 2.1 kN/mm 2.8 kN/mm 3.7 kN/mm
Yield Strength 48 106.8 kN 115.7 kN 125.1 kN 130.3 kN 136.7 kN
Secant Stiffness 43 1.5 kN/mm 1.9 kN/mm 2.8 kN/mm 4.1 kN/mm 6.3 kN/mm
Figure 7.14 shows that cone bolt performance is more variable than that of rebar, in terms of both
yield strength and displacement. While the MCB33 yield strengths observed are similar to those of the
rebar, the displacement at which yield occurs is much larger. When both elements are installed in a
support system, this would result in the stiffer rebar bearing more load than the less stiff cone bolt. As
such, the yield strengths presented in Table 7.6 should not be used in a design methodology based solely
on the load demand on and capacity of a support system, but one that also incorporates displacement
into the calculation.
Displacement (mm)
160
140 P90
P75
P50
0 5
120 P25 P 10
75
P5 P2
P9
P
P10
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.14: Distributions of secant stiffness and working capacity for a pull test with a pre-load of
17.8 kN on an MCB33
7.4.2 Characterisation of Modified Cone Bolt Behaviour

In Figure 7.15, 58 pull tests on the MCB33 are shown, sorted by pre-load. The behaviour comprised of
elastic deformation, plough and plastic deformation of the bolt as described in Section 5.4.3 is seen for
most of the pull tests. As the objective of pull testing cone bolts is to demonstrate their large displace-
ment capacities as opposed to load capacity, tests may be stopped when plough has been demonstrated
but not yield, or alternatively after significant plastic deformation has been incurred.
160
140
120
100
Loadm(kN)
80
60 4mtm(35.6mkN)mPre-load
3mtm(26.7mkN)mPre-load
2mtm(17.8mkN)mPre-load
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacementm(mm)
Figure 7.15: 56 MCB33 pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations
Percentiles of displacement are presented in Figure 7.16. As many pull tests are stopped before
the bolt has yielded, data becomes increasingly limited at higher loads. Figure 7.16 was created by
decreasing the size of the dataset used to calculate percentiles (from n = 45 to n = 32) at a load where
a large number of tests are stopped (12 tons; 107 kN) by eliminating dummy displacements from the
percentile calculations at 107 kN. Above 107 kN, dummy displacements were reintroduced to maintain
the n = 32 dataset as it decreased in size at higher values of load.
160
P10
140 P25 P50
P75
P90
120
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.16: Distribution of displacement measured during pull testing of a 2.4 m MCB33 with a
pre-load of 17.8 kN
Figure 7.16 clearly shows the two distinct behaviours of the cone bolt described in Section 5.4:
the 10th and 25th percentiles are comprised of the bolts that do not develop a linear plough response
before yielding, while a linear plough response is seen in the larger percentiles. The development of this
behaviour is the principal controlling factor over the displacement that may be observed before the bolt
yields. Figure 7.17 shows a conceptual version of 7.16. Using the initial stiffness of the MCB33s in the
database, percentiles are extrapolated to 0 load as if no pre-load were recorded. While it is acknowledged
that larger displacements may be observed at low loads as is the case for the rebar, these displacements
are still relatively small compared to those that occur as the bolt ploughs through the resin.
In Figure 7.17, it can be seen that the median displacement observed before an MCB33 begins to yield
is 35 mm, although can be as much as 100 mm. Extreme cases of low plough fall below P10 , although
a decreasing stiffness is observed. In Table 7.7, Mansour’s specifications regarding yield strength are
compared with the observations made in the database.
Table 7.7: MCB33 performance compared to supplier specifications

Minimum thread yield strength 98.5 kN 100%
Typical thread yield strength 113.6 kN 81%
160
140 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90
120
100
Loadf(kN)
80
PercentilesfoffYieldfLoad
P90 137fkN
60 P75 130fkN
P50 125fkN
P25 116fkN
40 P10 107fkN
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Displacementf(mm)
Figure 7.17: Conceptual distribution of displacements for a pull test of a 2.4 m MCB33 without a
pre-load
The minimum thread yield strength (98.5 kN) appears to accurately reflect a minimum, as all of the 47
bolts with a yield strength recorded begin to yield above these values. Additionally, 81% begin yielding
above the “typical” thread yield strength. As such, pull test findings agree with the specifications
claimed by the supplier. However, it must be reiterated that because of the large displacement the
MCB33 undergoes even in static loading conditions, design methodologies that incorporate the static
reinforcement offered by the Modified Cone Bolt must consider displacement as well as load.
7.5 D-Bolt
Because of the high strength of the D-Bolt, testing personnel usually used pull testing as a verification
tool and did not yield the bolt in every testing campaign due to safety concerns associated with bolt
failure during a pull test. As a result, very few working capacities were recorded in comparison to values
of secant stiffness. As such, stiffness (and thus displacement) are primarily evaluated.
7.5.1 Characterisation of D-Bolt Performance

Figures 7.18 and 7.19 show percentiles of stiffness plotted with minimum and typical yield loads of the 20
mm and 22 mm D-Bolts according to Normet (2014). These appear to agree fairly well with the limited
working capacity data that does exist (displayed as black points in both figures). Table 7.8 shows the
percentiles of secant stiffness for both D-Bolt configurations.
Table 7.8: Secant stiffness distributions of 20 mm and 22 mm D-Bolts
Bolt n P10 P25 P50 P75 P90

20 mm D-Bolt 12 6.5 kN/mm 8.5 kN/mm 23.3 kN/mm 35.8 kN/mm 59.5 kN/mm
22 mm D-Bolt 19 3.9 kN/mm 5.3 kN/mm 11.1 kN/mm 24.3 kN/mm 26.1 kN/mm
250
200
P10
P25
75
TypicalyYieldyLoad
P5
90
P
P
150
MinimumyYieldyLoad
Loady(kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacementy(mm)
Figure 7.18: Distribution of secant stiffness for a pull test with a pre-load of 17.8 kN on a 20 mm
D-Bolt
250
5
P2
50
0
200 5
P1
P 7 TypicalyYieldyLoad P 90
P
MinimumyYieldyLoad
150
Loady(kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacementy(mm)
Figure 7.19: Distribution of secant stiffness for a pull test with a pre-load of 17.8 kN on a 22 mm D-Bolt
Figures 7.18 and 7.19 show that the pull tests performed on both D-Bolts resulted in variable dis-
placements and behaviours, with the 22 mm bolt acting in a less stiff manner than a 20 mm bolt. As
discussed in Section 4.3.4, much of the 22 mm D-Bolt testing was performed in very fractured ground
conditions, potentially influencing the degree of displacement observed. Despite this, both D-Bolt config-
urations perform stiffly compared to the Modified Cone Bolt. As the stiffness is so variable, site–specific
pull testing is recommended in order to fully understand displacement development with load, and how
to implement the D-Bolt into a ground support standard.
7.5.2 Characterisation of D-Bolt Behaviour

Figures 7.20 and 7.21 show the pull tests collected for the 20 mm and 22 mm D-Bolts. It can be seen
that very few of the bolts yield during testing.
250
200
150
Load (kN)
100
50
20 25 30
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.20: 20 mm D-Bolt pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations
250
200
150
Load (kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.21: 22 mm D-Bolt pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations
Figures 7.20 and 7.21 serve to highlight the wide range of behaviour observed for both diameters
of D-Bolt when subject to a pull test. However, a cluster of similarly behaving 22 mm D-Bolts with
relatively high stiffness is observed in Figure 7.21. All of these bolts were tested in one campaign,
demonstrating that the D-Bolt may exhibit consistent behaviour within some testing campaigns, but
not in others. Figures 7.22 and 7.23 show the distributions of behaviour for either diameter of D-Bolt.
250
200
P10 P25 P50
150
Load (kN)
P75
P90
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.22: Load–displacement behaviour of a 20 mm D-Bolt with a pre-load of 17.8 kN
250
P10 P25 P50
200
P75
150 P90
Load (kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.23: Load–displacement behaviour of a 22 mm D-Bolt with a pre-load of 17.8 kN
The D-Bolt has the potential to exhibit high displacement at low loads as seen for P75 and P90
of displacement for the 22 mm D-Bolt. This is similar to the behaviour observed for rebar in Figure
7.12, where large initial displacements may be attributed to compression of the rock mass and testing
apparatus. The effect in Figure 7.23 continues to higher loads than the equivalent effect for rebar, but
this is thought to be the result of a large proportion of pull tests on the D-Bolts begin performed in
poor ground. Figures 7.24 and 7.25 show conceptual versions of D-Bolt behaviour with manufacturer
specifications (Normet, 2014). Behaviours are extrapolated to 0 kN.
250
200
P10 P25 P50 P75 P90 TypicalyYieldyLoad

150
MinimumyYieldyLoad
Loady(kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacementy(mm)
Figure 7.24: Conceptual distribution of displacements for a pull test of a 20 mm D-Bolt without a
pre-load
250
200 P10 P25 P50 P75 P90

TypicalyYieldyLoad
MinimumyYieldyLoad
150
Loady(kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacementy(mm)
Figure 7.25: Conceptual distribution of displacements for a pull test of a 22 mm D-Bolt without a
pre-load
While too little working capacity data was collected to reliably verify that the D-Bolt performs
at or above the supplier’s specifications in a pull test, it should be acknowledged that when working
capacity/yield was captured during the test, it always occurred above the minimum yield load specified.
This includes 3 20 mm D-Bolts yielding above 140 kN, and 3 22 mm D-Bolt yielding above 170 kN.
7.6 Expandable bolts

As discussed in Section 4.3.5, the expandable bolt generally begins to yield before it develops a consistent
slipping response, i.e. working capacity is defined by yield and not slip. As such, load is not length–
normalized. Because of the highly variable manner in which expandable bolts appear to react to load
in a pull test and the unclear relationship between stiffness and length, stiffness is also expressed in
absolute terms. In Section 5.6 it was found that very little difference existed between the Manganese
and Premium lines of Swellex bolt (Mn and Pm) in terms of stiffness and insufficient data was available
to fully investigate the working capacity (while Atlas Copco claim equal minimum yield loads between
the Pm12 and Mn12, the Pm24 has a yield load 20 kN greater than that of the Mn24; Atlas Copco,
2012). Additionally, the behaviour of the two types of bolt mainly differ after yield; the Mn line may
exhibit significantly more plastic deformation than an equivalent Pm bolt before failing (Scolari, 2005).
As behaviour up until yield (i.e. working capacity) is examined, Mn12 and Pm12 Swellex configurations
are grouped together, as are the Mn24 and Pm24 configurations.
7.6.1 Characterisation of Expandable Bolt Performance

Figure 7.26 shows the combinations of load and displacement that characterise the capacities of the
Pm12 and Mn12 bolts, summarized with secant stiffness data for the Pm24 and Mn24 in Table 7.9.
Note that the 25th and 50th percentiles of Pm12/Mn12 working capacity are both 89 kN. As discussed
in Section 4.3.5, pull tests on Pm24 and Mn24 bolts were generally not performed until the bolt yielded.
Only data from bolts that were fully embedded in ore or rock (i.e. not back fill) was used for stiffness
calculations.
250
200
150
Load (kN)
0
75
P5 5
P 2P90
100
P
P75
P25/P50
P10
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.26: Distributions of secant stiffness and working capacity for a pull test on Swellex Pm12 and
Mn12 without a pre-load
Table 7.9: Swellex secant stiffness percentiles
Metric Bolt n P10 P25 P50 P75 P90

Working capacity Pm12 & Mn12 17 84.5 kN 89 kN 89 kN 93.4 kN 99.6 kN
Secant Stiffness Pm12 & Mn12 8 N/A 5.0 kN/mm 5.8 kN/mm 10.1 kN/mm N/A
Pm24 & Mn24 16 4.8 kN/mm 7.8 kN/mm 18.1 kN/mm 22.1 kN/mm 28.3 kN/mm
Little available data only permitted a limited analysis of Swellex performance compared to the
other bolts discussed. Figure 7.26 shows that the Pm12 and Mn12 bolts reach their working capacities
consistently at loads of about 90 kN. In Table 7.9 it can be seen that the Pm24 and Mn24 have the
potential to react in a very stiff, as well as a very soft manner. This variable behaviour is not as apparent
with the Pm12 and Mn12 bolts, although less data is available.
7.6.2 Characterisation of Expandable Bolt Behaviour

Figures 7.27 and 7.28 show pull test data collected for the four configurations of Swellex.
250
200
150
Load (kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.27: Swellex Pm12 and Mn12 pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations
250
200
150
Load (kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.28: Swellex Pm24 and Mn24 pull tests collected from Vale’s Sudbury operations
In Figure 7.27 it can be seen that pull tests performed on Pm12/Mn12 may exhibit several behaviours.
In some cases, very little displacement is initially observed, although stiffness decays with load. In other
cases, a linear response to load is observed. The Pm24 and Mn24 bolts act in a more consistent manner,
usually responding linearly to load, although two pull tests exhibit low initial stiffness. The distributions
of these behaviours are constructed in Figures 7.29 and 7.30. Insufficient data was available to calculate
10th and 90th percentiles of displacement for the Pm12 and Mn12 bolts. All pull tests shown for these
configurations had no pre-load. A pre-load of 4 tons (35.6 kN) is depicted for the Pm24 and Mn24.
250
200
150
Load (kN)
P25 P50 P75

100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.29: Load–displacement behaviour of Pm12 and Mn12 bolts

250
P10 P25 P50 P75 P90
200
150
Load (kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.30: Load-displacement behaviour of Pm24 and Mn24 bolts
Figures 7.29 and 7.30 show that Swellex expandable bolts appear to react linearly to load, although
may bear low loads with little to no displacement. The Pm24 and Mn24 bolts exhibit a consistently stiff
response to load, however there does appear to exist a relatively small possibility of a much softer response
(note that this may be in part attributable to the reaction of the rock mass and testing apparatus). As
a result of a lack of displacement data at high loads, neither figure clearly shows yielding behaviour.
Figures 7.31 and 7.32 show smoothed relationships and depict the supplier’s specifications regarding
yield load.
250
200
150
Load (kN)
P25 P50 P75

100 Minimum Yield Load (Pm12, Mn12)
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.31: Conceptual load–displacement behaviour of Pm12 and Mn12 bolts subject to a pull test
250
P10P25 P50 P75 P90
200
Minimum Yield Load (Pm24)
Minimum Yield Load (Mn24)
150
Load (kN)
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Displacement (mm)
Figure 7.32: Conceptual load–displacement behaviour of Pm24 and Mn24 bolts subject to a pull test
Only sufficient working capacity data was collected for the Pm12 and Mn12 to compare with supplier
specifications, shown in Table 7.10. As displacement data was collected in 1 ton (8.9 kN) load increments,
one of the data bins is the 89 kN - 97.9 kN. This means any bolt that yields between 89 kN and 97.9 kN,
it is said to have yielded at 89 kN using procedures enacted throughout this thesis. This is problematic,
as a large portion of the data (47%) falls in this range, and the supplier specified minimum yield load
for the Pm12 and Mn12 is 90 kN. As such, bolts with a recorded working capacity of 89 kN are assumed
to have passed the 90 kN threshold specified by the supplier.
Table 7.10: Swellex Pm12 and Mn12 performance compared to supplier specifications

Minimum yield strength (Pm12, Mn12) 90 kN 88%
Two of the Swellex pull tested did not comply with manufacturer specifications (both of them Pm12).
It is possible this is due to a difference in the definition of working capacity or its method of determination
used in this thesis, and the definition of yield strength used by Atlas Copco. Higher load resolution is
desirable to determine with more certainty whether bolts in the 89 kN to 97.9 kN range yielded above
or below 90 kN. Additionally, the supplier’s specifications for the Pm24 and Mn24 should be verified by
pulling these bolts to loads above 200 kN and 180 kN respectively.
7.7 Summary
An important part of designing a support system is the selection of the appropriate reinforcement
elements required to stabilise an excavation (Thompson et al, 2012). Figure 7.33 shows the conceptual
behaviours of all bolts discussed on similar scales. Some bolts (MCB33, both diameters of D-Bolt, and
Swellex Pm24/Mn24) have their behaviours extrapolated to 0 load as a result of a lack of data.
250 250
200 200
Loady(kN)
Load (kN)
150 150
MedianyWorkingyCapacity
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Displacementy(mm)
(a) FA35 and FA39 (b) Rebar

250
200
Load (kN)
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
(c) MCB33
250 250
200 200
Load (kN)
Typical Yield Load

Load (kN)
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(d) 20 mm D-Bolt (e) 22 mm D-Bolt

250 250
200 200 Minimum Yield Load (Pm24)

Minimum Yield Load (Mn24)
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
150 150
100 100
Minimum Yield Load
50 50
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
(f) Swellex Pm12 and Mn12 (g) Swellex Pm24 and Mn24
Figure 7.33: Conceptual load–displacement behaviour extrapolated to 0 load for various rock bolts
subject to a pull test
Figure 7.34 shows the median behaviours of all bolts discussed in this chapter extrapolated to a load
of 0 kN.
25,
MediangWorkinggCapacity
TypicalgYieldgLoad
MinimumgYieldgLoad
2,, 22gmmgDFBolt
SwellexgPm24
SwellexgMn24
95, 2,gmmgDFBolt
2,gmmgRebar
Loadg8kN(
MCB33
9,,
SwellexgPm923Mn92
FA35sgFA39
5,
,
, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9,,
Displacementg8mm(
Figure 7.34: Median load–displacement behaviour for all bolts with no pre-load
Figure 7.34 shows that the 22 mm D-Bolt appears to have the greatest load capacity, although the
minimum yield loads shown for the Swellex Pm24 and Mn24 are minima specified by Atlas Copco.
The stiffest reinforcement element is the 20 mm rebar, likely due to limited load propagation down
the bolt. The least stiff bolts (in terms of secant stiffness) appear to be the MCB33 and the Swellex
Pm12 and Mn12. While the MCB33 is a yielding bolt, and the ploughing mechanism is the cause
of the large displacement, it is unclear why the Pm/Mn12 acted in so soft a manner as continuously
frictionally coupled bolts. The bolts with the lowest working capacity are the two FRS A diameters
shown, approximately representative of all FRS configurations tested. If the working capacity of the
MCB33 is defined by the onset of plough, it has quite a similar median capacity to that of the FRS
A bolts. However, the load at which plough occurs is much more variable than the ultimate capacities
achieved by FRSs as a whole.
Two bolts in Figure 7.34 were examined by Stillborg (1993), specifically resin-grouted 20 mm rebar
and a 39 mm nominal diameter FRS. The rebar tested by Stillborg (1993) behaves in a slightly stiffer
manner than the median depicted in Figure 7.34. This is to be expected comparing laboratory with
field testing, and the difference is only 3-4 mm. As Stillborg (1993) tested bolts across a simulated joint,
the yield response measured is for the bolt tendon, while the working capacity shown in Figure 7.34 is
the result of the threads yielding; plastic deformation starts around 15.3 tonnes (150 kN) for the rebar
tested by Stillborg (1993), while median rebar working capacity is 124.1 kN.
Stillborg (1993) depicts the SS39 as undergoing no displacement until its capacity is reached, at
which stage it slips out of the hole at a constant load. Pull tests that constituted the database showed
that bolts usually slip multiple times with growing displacement before reaching ultimate capacity; the
median behaviour shows a displacement of 11 mm before ultimate capacity is reached. The SS39 tested
by Stillborg (1993) was 3 m in length, and had a capacity of approximately 5 tonnes (49 kN). However, as
Stillborg (1993) conducted testing across a simulated joint, in reality two 1.5 m lengths of Split Set were
being tested. This means that a length-normalized capacity of 32.6 kN/m was recorded. In comparison,
the median ultimate capacity for 1.68 m FA35/39s was 62 kN (and the overall median was 38.7 kN/m),
however Tomory et al. (1998) recorded an average Split Set capacity of 31.9 kN/m, likely as the result
of jackleg installations.
While the Swellex tested by Stillborg (1993) is no longer marketed, its overall behaviour may still
be compared to modern Swellex bolts. In Stillborg’s (1993) test, the EXL Swellex dowel undergoes a
very stiff response before slipping in a manner comparable to an FRS at 11 tonnes (108 kN). In situ
pull tests on modern Swellex bolts show quite a different behaviour. Although a softer linear response
is observed, the modern Swellex is not intended to slip when installed in hard rock, and was generally
shown to yield in the database, excluding partial embedment tests and paste/sand fill installations.
When using the figures in this section, it must be kept in mind that these results represent pull tests
on bolts, and may not necessarily reflect performance when subject to in situ loading mechanisms. In
Chapter 8, the limitations of this thesis, including the pull tests as a method of assessing reinforcement
element performance, are discussed. Recommendations are also provided to improve the pull testing
procedures observed during this thesis.
Chapter 8
Conclusions
In the final chapter, the contributions made by this thesis are outlined. Limitations are discussed,
recommendations made and the path forward laid out.
8.1 Contributions
In order to conduct this thesis, a large database of pull tests performed on various rock bolts was
assembled. This database includes 985 individual pull tests performed between 2003 and 2015 on friction
rock stabilizers, rebar rock bolts, Modified Cone Bolts, D-Bolts and expandable bolts, amongst others.
The data was collected from 6 Vale operations in and around the Sudbury Basin. Although databases
of pull tests have been assembled previously, this database incorporates a wider range of bolt types. In
addition, collecting pull test data from mines within relatively close proximity to one another under one
company provides consistency in procedures and conditions for bolt installation and testing, as well as
consistency in the ground control products used on and delivered to the 6 mine sites.
A review was performed on methods of testing rock bolts. This included the ASTM standard (ASTM
D4435-13) and ISRM suggested methods for pull testing. These were compared with the methods and
apparatuses used for pull testing in practice, and shortcomings of the standard, the suggested method,
and the practised methods of pull testing outlined. The measurements taken from a pull test, metrics
that may be calculated and the significance of the measurements and metrics was also discussed.
An analysis of the data collected followed. Theoretical bolt behaviour of rock bolts subject to loading
was compared to behaviour observed during the in situ pull tests. Various metrics of bolt performance
describing load and displacement behaviour, primarily ultimate/working capacity and several measures
of stiffness, were quantified and their distributions characterised for different types of bolt. Subsequently,
the influence of factors associated with bolt installation, the rock mass and the bolt itself on rock bolt
performance were investigated. The findings of this analysis built on and was compared to previous
work when possible.
Using the collected load-displacement behaviour of friction rock stabilizers, rebar, the MCB33, D-
Bolts and Swellex, a distribution of behaviour was built for each bolt. Although the characterisation of
rock bolt behaviour has been previously performed in a laboratory setting, the analysis contained herein
uses a larger dataset than these analyses. Additionally, as the pull tests are performed in situ, they
better represent installation conditions found at a mine site and as a result are more applicable to the
140
Chapter 8. Conclusions 141
design of underground excavations in hard rock mines.
8.2 Load Capacities of Reinforcement Elements

The analyses contained in this thesis have allowed for the development of summary statistics for the
capacities of different rock bolts from pull tests.
Ultimate capacity for the FRS is quantified in load per anchorage length, assumed to be 0.15 m
less than the length of the element. The average ultimate capacities of all FRS diameters were found
to be approximately equivalent, ranging between 37.8 kN/m for the FB39 and 40.0 kN/m for both the
FA35 and FB35. A dataset composed of all FRS data points gives a normal distribution of working
capacity, with an average of 38.9 kN/m and standard deviation of 11.7 kN/m. This proved to be
the reinforcement element investigated with the largest coefficient of variation describing load capacity.
Although the working and ultimate capacities of reinforcement elements that physically yield or fracture
as opposed to slip are dependent primarily on the mechanical properties of their constituent steel, the
capacity of the FRS is more strongly dictated by how the bolt interacts with the rock mass in which
it is installed. The two suppliers of FRS bolts provide a range of initial capacities for the bolts. The
capacity ranges for both the 35 mm and 39 mm nominal diameters are between 27 kN and 54 kN (note
these loads are not normalized to anchorage length). 97.6% of the FRS bolts with nominal diameters
of 35 and 39 mm had capacities greater than 27 kN, and 59.2% had capacities greater than 54 kN. In
comparison, both suppliers claim an initial capacity range of 54 kN to 89 kN for their 46 mm FRS.
77.7% of 46 mm bolts had capacities greater than 54 kN (note that the 46 mm bolts were generally 0.3
m longer than the 35 and 39 mm bolts tested), and only 15.5% passed the upper bound of 89 kN. As
a result, there appears to be a difference in the way the ranges of capacities are calculated for different
FRS diameters for both of the suppliers.
Rebar rock bolts from two suppliers were examined. A small discrepancy in working capacity was
observed between the two, however this may be the result of differing testing apparatuses and procedures.
Rebar from Supplier A had an average working capacity of 123.8 kN with a standard deviation of 7.5
kN. Rebar B had an average working capacity of 120.9 kN with a standard deviation of 7.4 kN. While
the pull tests conducted by Supplier A were generally performed using digital data collection, Supplier
B’s tests often recorded data manually at load increments of one ton. As such, working capacities are
rounded down to the nearest ton, while in the case of tests on Rebar A the working capacity will be
rounded down to the nearest measurement of load. Despite this, all rebar exceed the minimum thread
yield and tensile strengths specified by their respective suppliers.
Two metrics of load capacity were defined and quantified for the MCB33: plough point and yield
strength. The plough point appears to be normally distributed when only examining bolts tested im-
mediately after installation, with an average value of 53.2 kN and standard deviation of 22.7 kN. The
average MCB33 yield strength was 117.2 kN, with a standard deviation of 16.3 kN. All of the MCB33s
tested had working capacities greater than the minimum thread yield strength specified by Mansour,
and 81% passed the typical thread yield strength.
A review of the performance of these and other rock bolts (including the D-Bolt and Swellex) has
allowed the development of charts depicting the behaviour of the bolts in a pull test. It was recognised
that different metrics of performance may only be applicable to a certain set of bolt types. This is an
important observation given that the ISRM suggested methods were developed prior to the introduction
of many rock bolt types, and although the ASTM pull testing standard (D4435-13) was developed more
recently, it does not distinguish between types of rock bolt beyond grouted versus mechanically anchored
bolts.
8.3 Limitations
The limitations of this thesis can be broadly divided into three classes; the limitations of a pull test as
a method of assessing performance, those associated with the pull test as implemented in practice, and
the limitations of the data present in the database.
The primary conceptual limitation of a pull test is that it is only representative of a very specific
loading scenario as bolts are pulled axially at the head/thread. Loading in an underground environment
may be much more complex; reinforcement elements may have multiple axial, shear or rotational loads
applied at any location on their lengths, and these forces may evolve with time. Additionally, loading is
only applied in a quasi-static manner during a pull test. The response to dynamic load is not measured,
although may be of interest for yielding reinforcement elements.
The most prevalent difficulty encountered when evaluating the performance of the rock bolts tested
in the database was the presence of displacements attributed to the response of the excavation surface
as opposed to that of the bolt alone. While the measurement of this response may be applicable to
certain scenarios, it introduced not only variability, but also bias into the data, as certain elements
(such as the D-Bolt) tended to be tested in poorer quality rock masses than others. ASTM D4435-08
provides a methodology that limits the measurement of the rock mass response by using an apparatus
that measures displacement relative to a stationary datum, however it was not enacted by pull testing
personnel. Additionally, methods of data recording varied in the database between manual and digital
displacement logging. Manual logging is performed in loading increments which may result in poor data
resolution, while digital logging was often performed at a resolution that does not reflect the capabilities
of this method.
Shortcomings existed with the way in which pull tests were reported. Many parameters (for example
rock mass quality or borehole diameter) were inconsistently or seldom noted. Pull tests were almost
always done on rock bolts that had been installed the same day as the pull test, or if not, at some un-
noted previous date. A significant shortcoming of the database is the lack of data describing bolt failure
during a pull test. It is acknowledged that this was to preserve the safety of the personnel conducting
the test, but it is an advantage of laboratory testing that bolts may be failed in a controlled and safe
manner.
8.4 Recommendations
Attempts have previously been made to introduce a standardized pull test data sheet, in which various
parameters are to be recorded. For example, Soni (2000) presents a sheet on which various testing
parameters may be recorded. These include rock strength parameters, rock mass classification(s), the
type and length of bolt, the diameter of the drillbit and drillhole, inflation pressure, inflation or drive
time, installation date, residence time, and grout type, length and collar depth. In the pull test reports
collected, these parameters were noted with varying frequency, although all are pieces of information
that may affect performance. In addition to these, there are further recommendations to be made with
regards to information recorded and pull test practices.

In addition to those outlined by Soni (2000), the following aspects of a pull test should be clearly
reported.
• The objective and type of pull test should be stated. For example: partial embedment/encapsulation,
bolt slip, bolt yield, achieve a load of x kN. If a test is ended prematurely, it should be explained
why.
• Record the bolt name including configuration and presence or lack of possible modifications, for
example a plastic coating. Bolt length (as well as anchorage length) and diameter should be clear.
• Report equipment used for the pull test. This includes the installation equipment, the loading
system, displacement measurement system and the logging equipment. If an electric pump is
used to apply load, record loading rate. If an electronic logger is used, report logging frequency.
It should be noted whether the displacement measurement system is mounted on the pull test
apparatus itself, or if it is stationary relative to the excavation.
• It should be explicitly stated what units are used to record load and displacement. If load is
recorded in tons, then short, long, or metric should be specified.
• If the bolt is pre-loaded before recording displacement, that pre-load should be stated.
• If applicable, a bolt’s spin time should be recorded. For these scenarios, temperature should also
be measured.
Appendix A presents pull test informations sheets from ASTM and ISRM, as well as modified data
sheets, including one for the overall campaign and one to log each pull test individually. In terms of pull
test procedure, modifications could be made without significantly affecting the amount of time required
to perform them. They are as follows.
• If recording data manually, use a maximum load increment of 5 kN or 0.5 tons once load has been
built to within 20 kN or 2 tons of the expected working capacity to obtain a more precise pull test
result.
• If recording data electronically, the additional load resolution possible with this method must be
exercised.
• If load is not built despite an observed increase in displacement, take two or more recordings of
displacement to make it clear slip or perfectly plastic behaviour was observed.
• If a reinforcement element such as an FRS slips, the test should continue until a pre–determined
displacement (e.g. 15 mm) has occurred. This ensures that maximum recorded loads are at least
comparable between tests, and the criterion used to dictate the end of a test is consistent.
• When using a method of measuring displacement that incorporates the rock mass response, un-
loading of the reinforcement element should be recorded to assess elastic deformation, and thus
estimate how much of the displacement response may be attributed to the rock mass reaction.
Displacement should be recorded at the highest load achieved. Pump pressure should then be
released until a load equal to or greater than the pre-load is reached (if no pre-load is used, at
least 15 kN is recommended), and displacement should be recorded again. This is to minimize the
effect of rock mass and pull test apparatus relaxation. The measurement of the stiffness of the
unloading response gives an idea of how load attenuates down the bolt length from the point of
load application, and may be used as a relative measure of performance.
In some cases, the analysis presented was hampered by a lack of data for specific types of bolt
or parameters recorded. These limitations may be overcome by expanding the database. One of the
advantages of the database assembled for this thesis over previously constructed pull test databases is
that all pull tests were performed in and around the Sudbury Basin, reducing variability in installation
conditions and procedures. If possible, this aspect of the database should be preserved, including data
only collected from hard rock mines, and should be tested in a similar or superior manner to the pull
tests presented herein.
8.5 Implications and Path Forward

The database assembled presents a large number of pull tests performed on different reinforcement
elements. Having reviewed and compared the standard and practical execution of testing methods,
an analysis of the database was performed, quantifying various metrics of performance for most types
of reinforcement element present in the database. Bolt performance across different conditions was
examined, and a thorough review of the load–displacement response of rock bolt installed in situ to
a pull test was presented with comparisons to measures of performance dictated by the corresponding
supplier.
Although there are fundamental limitations of an in situ pull test, as well as weaknesses resulting
from its practical execution, great value may be obtained at relatively little cost and disruption to mine
site activities. The implications of these limitations are observable throughout this thesis, and ways
in which future pull testing may be improved are discussed. Future work should entail expanding the
database to build on and/or verify the analyses presented herein. If possible, more precise methods of
pull testing should be enacted in order to reduce the subjectivity of results obtained from a pull test.
The results of this thesis may be used in the process of designing a ground support system. The
working capacity of a reinforcement element is a critical aspect of support system strength that should
be known with a high degree of confidence. The displacement response of an element to load is a funda-
mental aspect of some design methodologies that must also be quantified. Understanding how different
conditions may affect the performance of individual reinforcement elements is crucial information in a
mine where various ground conditions or methods of bolt installation are used, or for an organization
that operates several different mines. The ability to objectively compare reinforcement element perfor-
mance, both to specifications provided by the bolt suppliers and to other types of element, allows for
the selection of the correct tool for a design problem. With higher confidence in the performance of
reinforcement elements, ground support systems that are not only more cost–effective, but that are also
safer, may be designed and implemented.
List of References
Abdellah, W., Raju, G., Mitri, H., and Thibodeau, D. Stability of underground mine development
intersections during the life of mine plan. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science,
72:173–181, 2014.
ASM International. Atlas of stress-strain curves. ASM International, Materials Park, OH, 2002.
ASM Standard B1.13M, 2005. Metric screw threads: M Profile, ASME, New York, NY, 2005,
www.asme.org.
ASTM Standard A370, 2012. Standard test methods and definitions for mechanical testing of steel
products, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA, 2012, DOI: 10.1520/A0370-12, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard A615, 2015. Standard specification for deformed and plain carbon-steel bars for con-
crete reinforcement, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA, 2015, DOI: 10.1520/A0615-15A,
www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D4435, 2013. Standard test method for rock bolt anchor pull test, ASTM International,
West Conshohoken, PA, 2013, DOI: 10.1520/D4435-13E01, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard D7401, 2008. Standard test methods for laboratory determination of rock anchor capac-
ities by pull and drop tests, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, PA, 2008, DOI: 10.1520/D7401-08,
www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard E6, 2009. Standard terminology relating to methods of mechanical testing, ASTM
International, West Conshohoken, PA, 2008, DOI: 10.1520/D0006-09B, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard F432, 2013. Standard specification for roof and rock bolts and accessories, ASTM
International, West Conshohoken, PA, 2013, DOI: 10.1520/F0432-13, www.astm.org.
ASTM Standard F606, 2013. Standard test methods for determining the mechanical properties of exter-
nally and internally threaded fasteners, Washers, and Rivets, ASTM International, West Conshohoken,
PA, 2013, DOI: 10.1520/F0606M-13, www.astm.org.
Atlas Copco. Swellex rock bolts product catalogue. Nacka, Sweden, 2012.
Baecher, G. and Christian, J. Reliability and statistics in geotechnical engineering. Wiley, Chichester,
England, 2003.
Balanda, K. and MacGillivray, H. Kurtosis: a critical review. The American Statistician, 42:111–119,
1988.
145
Bieniawski, Z. Engineering rock mass classifications: a complete manual for engineers and geologists
in mining, civil and petroleum engineering. Wiley, New York, NY, 1989.
Bieniawski, Z. et al. Suggested method for determining deformability of rock materials in uniaxial
compression. In Rock characterization, testing and monitoring, ISRM suggested methods, pages 111–
116. Permagon Press, Oxford, 1978.
Brady, B. and Brown, E. Rock mechanics for underground mining. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht,
Netherlands, 3rd edition, 2006.
Bureau, M. Personal communication. December 2014.
Cai, M., Champaigne, D., and Kaiser, P. Development of a fully debonded cone bolt for rockburst
support. In Van Sin Jan, M. and Potvin, Y., editors, Deep Mining 2010 - the fifth international
seminar on deep and high stress mining, pages 329–342, Santiago, Chile, 2010. Australian Centre for
Geomechanics.
Card, K., Gupta, V., McGrath, P., and Grant, F. The Sudbury Structure: its regional, geological and
geophysical setting. In The geology and ore deposits of the Sudbury Structure, pages 25–44. Government
of Ontario, Toronto, ON, 1984.
Carmichael, H. Operations suspended. The Sudbury Star, October 19 2012. Retrieved March 5, 2015
from http://www.thesudburystar.com/2012/10/18/vale-shutting-down-frood-mine.
Charette, F. Personal communication. December 2014.
Chinnasane, D., Knutson, M., and Watt, A. Use of cable bolts to reinforce the hanging pillars and
improve the ore recovery when stopes are mined using double top sills at Vale’s Copper Cliff Mine.
In Hudyma, M. and Potvin, Y., editors, Deep Mining 2014 - proceedings of the seventh international
conference on deep and high stress mining, pages 305–314, Nedlands, Australia, 2014. Australian Centre
for Geomechanics.
Cochrane, L. Ore deposits of the Copper Cliff Offset. In Pye, E., Naldrett, A., and Giblin, P., editors,
The geology and ore deposits of the Sudbury Structure, pages 347–359. Government of Ontario, Toronto,
ON, 1984.
CSA Standard G30.18-09. Carbon steel bars for concrete reinforcement, Canadian Standards Associa-
tion, Toroto, ON, 2009.
Dietz, R. Sudbury Structure as an astrobleme. The Journal of Geology, 72:412–434, 1964.
Doane, D. and Seward, L. Measuring skewness: a forgotten statistic? Journal of Statistics Education,
19:111–119, 2011.
Doucet, C. and Voyzell, B. Technical information data sheets. Technical report, CanmetMINING,
Ottawa, ON, 2012.
Duthin, D. and Starnes, M. Strength and ductility of concrete beams reinforced with carbon FRP and
steel. Technical Report NISTIR 6830, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD, 2001.
DYWIDAG Systems International. Mining and tunneling products catalogue. Luxembourg.
Eckstrand, R. and Hulbert, L. Magmatic nickel-copper-platinum group element deposits. In Goodfellow,

W., editor, Mineral deposits of Canada: a synthesis of major deposit-types, district metallogeny, the
evolution of geological provinces, and exploration methods, pages 205–222. Geological Association of
Canada, St. John’s, NL, 2007.
FiReP. FiReP Rebar, 2014.
Fox, J. Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Sage, Los Angeles, CA, 2nd edition,
2008.
Gaudreau, D., Aubertin, M., and Simon, R. Performance assessment of tendon support systems sub-
mitted to dynamic loading. In Villaescusa, E. and Potvin, Y., editors, Ground support in mining and
underground construction - proceedings of the fifth international symposium on ground support, pages
299–312, Perth, 2004. Taylor and Francis.
Golightly, J. The Ni-Cu-PGE deposits of the Sudbury Igneous Complex. In Rousell, D. and Brown,
G., editors, A field guide to the geology of Sudbury, Ontario, pages 121–131. Ontario Geological Survey,
2009.
Hadjigeorgiou, J. and Charette, F. Rock bolting for underground excavations. In Hustrulid, W. and
Bullock, R., editors, Underground mining methods: engineering fundamentals and international case
studies, pages 547–554. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, CO, 2001.
Hadjigeorgiou, J. and Potvin, Y. A critical assessment of dynamic rock reinforcement and support
testing facilities. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 44:565–578, 2011.
Hawkes, J. and Evans, R. Bond stresses in reinforced concrete columns and beams. Journal of the
Institute of Structural Engineers, 29:323–327, 1951.
Hoek, E. Practical rock engineering. RocScience, 2007.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P., and Bawden, W. Support of underground excavations in hard rock. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1995.
ISRM. Suggested methods for rock bolt testing, Part 1: Suggested method for determining the strength
of a rockbolt anchor (pull test). In Brown, E., editor, Rock characterization, testing and monitoring,
pages 163–166. Pergamon Press, Oxford, NY, 1981.
Jennmar. Selected Ground Control Products. Pittsburgh, PA.
Lamothe, B. Personal communication. February 2015.
Lamothe, B. Personal communication. July 2014.
Lamothe, B. Personal communication. November 2014.
Lamothe, B. Personal communication. September 2014.
Leung, D. Personal communication. June 2014.

Li, C. Performance of D-Bolts under static loading. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 45:183–192,
2012.
Li, C. and Doucet, C. Performance of D-Bolts under dynamic loading. Rock Mechanics and Rock
Engineering, 45:193–204, 2012.
Li, C. and Stillborg, B. Analytical models for rock bolts. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 36:1013–1029, 1999.
Li, C., Stjern, G., and Myrvang, A. A review on the performance of conventional and energy-absorbing
rockbolts. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 6:315–327, 2014.
Lightfoot, P. and Farrow, C. Geology, geochemistry and mineralogy of the Worthington Offset Dike:
a genetic model for offset dike mineralization in the Sudbury Igneous Complex. Economic Geology,
92(7):1419–1446, 2002.
Long, D. The Huronian Supergroup. In Rousell, D. and Brown, G., editors, A field guide to the geology
of Sudbury, Ontario, pages 14–30. Ontario Geological Survey, 2009.
Ma, L., Gagnon, R., and Mainville, L. Report for Yield-Lok bolts qualification tests at Vale. Technical
report, Jennmar Canada, 2011.
Mainville, L., Guenette, A., and Desjardins, M. Pull test report for Vale - Coleman Mine. Technical
report, Jennmar Canada, 2012.
Mainville-Beach, L. Personal communication. June 2014.
Mainville-Beach, L. Personal communication. October 2014.
Mansour Mining Technologies Inc. Product Catalogue. Sudbury, ON.
Martin, L., Tijani, M., and Hadj-Hassen, F. A new analytical solution to the mechanical behaviour of
fully grouted rockbolts subjected to pull-out tests. Construction and Building Materials, 25:749–755,
2010.
McCreath, D. and Kaiser, P. Evaluation of current support practices in burst-prone ground and
preliminary guidelines for Canadian hard rock mines. In Villaescusa, E. and Potvin, Y., editors, Rock
support in mining and underground construction: proceedings of the international symposium on rock
support, pages 611–619, Rotterdam, 1992. Balkema.
Morissette, P., Hadjigeorgiou, J., and Thibodeau, D. Investigating the dynamic-load demand on support
systems using passive monitoring data. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
67:115–126, 2014.
Mukwakwami, J., LaFrance, B., Lesher, C., Tinkham, D., Rayner, N., and Ames, D. Deformation,
metamorphism and mobilization of Ni-Cu-PGE sulfide ores at Garson Mine, Sudbury. Miner Deposita,
49:175–198, 2013.
Naldrett, A. Evolution of ideas about the origin of the Sudbury Igneous Complex and its associated
Ni-Cu-PGE mineralization. In Rousell, D. and Brown, G., editors, A field guide to the geology of
Sudbury, Ontario, pages 106–120. Ontario Geological Survey, 2009.
NIST-SEMATECH. e-handbook of statistical methods. 2003. Retrieved June 3, 2015 from http://www.
itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
Normet. D-Bolt technical data sheet. hünunberg, switzerland. 2014.
Potvin, Y. and Hadjigeorgiou, J. Ground support strategies to control large deformations in mining
excavations. In Sixth international symposium on ground support in mining and civil engineering
construction, pages 545–560, Marshalltown, South Africa, 2008. SAIM M, SANIRE and ISRM.
Rousell, D., Fedorowich, J., and Dressler, B. Sudbury Breccia (Canada): a product of the 1850 Ma
Sudbury Event and host to footwall Cu-Ni-PGE deposits. Earth-Science Reviews, 60:147–174, 2003.
Scolari, F. Swellex Manganese offers improved work index. In Smith, M., editor, Rock and soil rein-
forcement, pages 11–13. Atlas Copco, Orebro, Sweden, 3rd edition, 2005.
Scott, J. Friction rock stabilizers - a new reinforcement method. In Brown, W., Green, S., and Hus-
trulid, W., editors, Monograph 1 on Rock Mechanics Applications in Mining, pages 242–249. American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, 1977.
Sentinel Captial Partners. Sentinel acquires Fasloc from Dupont. (2005, October 3).
Sentinel Captial Partners. Sentinel sells Fasloc to DSI USA. (2007, January 22).
Simser, B., Andrieux, P., Langevin, F., Parrott, T., and Turcotte, P. Field behaviour and failure
modes of Modified Conebolts at the Craig, LaRonde and Brunsick Mines in Canada. In Potvin, Y.,
Hadjigeorgiou, J., and Stacey, D., editors, Deep and High Stress Mining: proceedings of the third
international seminar on deep and high stress mining, page 13p. Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
2006.
Snelling, P., Godin, L., and McKinnon, S. The role of geologic structure and stress in triggering remote
seismicity in Creighton Mine, Sudbury, Canada. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Science, 58:166–179, 2013.
Soni, A. Analysis of Swellex bolt performance and a standardized rockbolt pull test datasheet and
database. Master’s thesis, University of Toronto, 2000.
St-Pierre, L., Hassani, F., Radziszewski, P., and Ouellet, J. Development of a dynamic model for a
cone bolt. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science, 46:107–114, 2009.
Stillborg, B. Rockbolt tensile loading across a joint. In International Mine Water Association Sympo-
sium Zambia 1993, pages 587–604. IMWA, 1993.
Thompson, A., Villaescusa, E., and Windsor, C. Groud support terminology and classification: an
update. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 30:553–580, 2012.
Tomory, P. Analysis of Split Set bolt performance. Master’s thesis, University of Toronto, 1997.
Tomory, P., Grabinsky, M., Curran, J., and Carvalho, J. Factors influencing the effectiveness of Split
Set friction stabilizer bolts. CIM Bulletin, 91:205–214, 1998.
Vale. Annual Report 2013. 2013.

Vale. Totten mine. Retrieved March 5, 2015, from http://www.vale.com/canada/en/business/

mining/nickel/vale-canada/sudbury/totten-mine/Pages/default.aspx.
Vale. Copper Cliff mine design package. Technical report, Vale, 2010.
Vale. Coleman Mine mine design package. Technical report, Vale, 2011.
Vale. Our history in Canada, January 2014.
Windsor, C. Rock reinforcement systems. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Science,
34(6):919–951, 1997.
Windsor, C. and Thompson, A. Reinforcement design for jointed rock masses. In Tillerson, J. and
Wawersik, W., editors, Proceedings of the 33rd US symposium on rock mechanics, pages 521–530,
Rotterdam, 1992. Balkema.
Appendices
151
Appendix A
Pull Testing Forms
A.1 ASTM D4435-13 Sample Form
Figure A.1: Rock bolt pull test sample form (ASTM D4435, 2013)
152
Appendix A. Pull Testing Forms 153
A.2 ISRM Suggested Method for Pull Testing Data Sheet
ROCKpANCHORpTEST RESULTpSHEET TESTpq

Datepofpinstallation: Datepofptestp:
Project: Location:
Anchor: Type: Length: InstallationpTorque:
ROCK: Classification: Fracturepspacing: Strength:
BOLT: Type: Length: Untensionedplength:
HOLE: Diameter: Length: Orientationpandproughness:
Pumpppressure Boltptension Displacementpreadings Remarks

Reading Displacement Reading Displacement Average
TESTpRESULTS: Maximumppullpforce:
Displacementpatpmaximumppullpforce: Maxbpdisplacementpinptest:
Naturepofpfailureporpyield:
Otherpremarks:
Testedpby: Checkedpby:
Figure A.2: Rock bolt pull test data sheet (After ISRM, 1981)
Appendix A. Pull Testing Forms 154
A.3 Proposed Pull Test Information Sheets

Pull(Test(Campaign(Information Sheet
AttentionBof: PreparedBby:
MineNcompany: MineNcompany:
TestBdateB EMMNDDNYYG:
PullBtestBobjective:
(e.g.wqualitywcontrol,w
productwverification,wetc.)
TestBLocation: BoltBinstallationBdateBEMMNDDNYYG:
o o
TemperatureBduringBinstallation: C NB F Wet(bulb( Dry(bulb
RockwMasswParameters
RockBtype: UCSBEMPaG: EBEGPaG:
RMR: to Q: to RQD: to
RockBmassBquality:
GSI: to OtherBEspecifyGB : to
Notes:B______________________________________________________________________________________
BoltwandwAnchor Parameters
RockBboltBtype: BoltBlength: mN ’ ”B
GalvanizationNcoating: NominalBboltBdiameter: mm N ”
AnchorBtype: InstallationBtorque:
GroutBtype: Resin Cement Measured bolt diameter: mm N ”
GroutBdescription:B
(includingwcartridgew
lengths,ww/cwratio,wetc.)
Equipment andwApparatus
DrillNinstallationBequipment: MeasuredBdrillBbitBdiameter: mm N ”
LoadingBpumpBtype: Manual Electric DataBrecording: Manual Electronic
LoadBunits: kN t((short)( t((long)( LoadBintervalsBorB
t((metric)( measurementBfrequency:
DisplacementBunits: mm( in( Preload: kN N t
DisplacementBmeasured: Ram(travel( Bolt(head(relative(to(stable(point(
AdditionwComments
Pull Test Data Sheet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MeasuredSdiameter
DrillholeSdiameter
DriveS/SInflationS/S
SpinStime
PartialSembedmentS
orSencapsulation?
Preload
NOTES Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp Load Disp
StoppingScriteria/S
natureSofSfailure
Notes

Analysis and Interpretation of in Situ Rock Bolt Pull Tests

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Analysis and Interpretation of in Situ Rock Bolt Pull Tests

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Analysis and Interpretation of In Situ Rock Bolt Pull Tests in Hard

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

© Copyright 2016 by Luke Nicholson

behaviour of rock bolts.

2 Testing of Rock Bolts 4

3 Composition of the Database 14

4 Review of Implemented Pull Test Methods 28

5 Summary Statistics and Interpretation of Pull Test Data 40

6 Factors Influencing Pull Test Performance 78

7 Characterization of Rock Bolt Behaviour 112

List of References 144

A Pull Testing Forms 152

2.1 Types of rock bolt (Hadjigeorgiou & Charette, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4.1 Normet’s pull test apparatus mounted on a 22 mm D-Bolt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

7.1 Average load–displacement behaviours obtained by Stillborg in a laboratory setting (Still-

3.1 Intact rock UCS values in MPa by mine site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.1 General One-Way ANOVA table (NIST-SEMATECH,2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

7.1 FA35 and FA39 performance percentiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

1.1 Problem Definition

1.5 Structure of the Thesis

both laboratory and field tests.

Chapter 7: Characterization of rock bolt behaviour — The load–displacement behaviours of several

Testing of Rock Bolts

2.1 Rock Bolts

Figure 2.1: Types of rock bolt (Hadjigeorgiou & Charette, 2001)

2.2 Laboratory Testing Methods

2.2.1 Tension Test

Tensile Test of Friction Stabilizers

2.2.2 Wedge Tension Test

2.2.3 Bend Test

2.2.4 Tests of Expandable Rock Bolts

Expandable Bolt Mechanical Property Test

2.2.5 Laboratory Rock Anchor Capacity Pull Test

2.2.6 Laboratory Drop Test

2.3 In Situ Pull Test

Figure 2.10: Apparatus for a pull test (ISRM, 1981)

2.4 Discussion of Testing Methods

Composition of the Database

3.1 Pull Test Setting

North Range Whistle

Granophyre Chemsford Formation

3.1.1 Regional Geology

Table 3.1: Intact rock UCS values in MPa by mine site

Coleman Copper Cliff Creighton Garson Stobie Totten

3.1.2 Coleman Mine

Figure 3.2: Longitudinal section of Coleman Mine (Morissette et al, 2014)

3.1.3 Copper Cliff Mine

3.1.4 Creighton Mine

Figure 3.4: Longitudinal section of Creighton Mine (Snelling et al, 2013)

3.1.5 Garson Mine

3.1.6 Stobie Mine

Figure 3.5: Longitudinal section of Stobie Mine

3.1.7 Totten Mine

3.2 Reinforcement Elements in the Pull Test Database

3.2.1 Friction Rock Stabilizers

Figure 3.7: FRS A schematic (Courtesy of Supplier A)

Figure 3.8: FRS B schematic (Courtesy of Supplier B)

Table 3.2: Comparison of FRS supplier specifications (Courtesy of Suppliers A and B)

3.2.2 Rebar Rock Bolts

Gr. 60 Gr. 400 W

3.2.3 Modified Cone Bolt

Figure 3.10: MCB33 (Courtesy of Mansour)

Table 3.4: MCB33 mechanical properties (Courtesy of Mansour)

Figure 3.11: D-Bolt schematic (Normet, 2014)