Testing and analysis of steel wire mesh for mining applications of rock surface support

E.C. Morton, A.G. Thompson & E. Villaescusa

CRCMining / WA School of Mines, Kalgoorlie, Western Australia
A. Roth
FATZER AG, Geobrugg Protection Systems, Romanshorn Switzerland

ABSTRACT: Steel wire mesh is widely used for rock surface support in mines. Experimental studies on mesh continue to be conducted
throughout the world using different testing configurations and simple analysis techniques to characterise its performance. In practice,
laboratory testing can only hope to investigate a limited range of configurations. The response of the mesh depends on the overall sample
size, the restraints and the loading. A testing program using two different types of mesh has recently been completed at the WA School of
Mines. The results of this testing are presented and the force-displacement responses highlight the deficiencies in previous analysis
methods. More sophisticated analysis techniques incorporated into computer software are used to demonstrate the potential to predict the
force-displacement response for any defined set of constraints and loading conditions.

1 INTRODUCTION
Wire mesh has been used as ground support in mining since
the 1950s. The mesh may comprise welded wire, expanded
metal or woven (chain link). The wire used in
manufacturing the mesh may vary widely in its physical and
mechanical properties. Experimental studies have been, and
continue to be, conducted throughout the world, for
example, South Africa (Ortlepp, 1983), Canada (Pakalnis
and Ames, 1983, and Tannant et al, 1997), Australia
(Thompson et al., 1999, Villaescusa, 1999, and Roth et al.,
2004), Chile (Van Sint Jan and Cavieres, 2004) and USA
(Dolinar, 2006). Each research group has applied different
methods of testing and used different techniques to analyse and
characterise the data. In practice, laboratory testing can only
hope to investigate a limited range of configurations.
Thompson (2001) demonstrated that more sophisticated
analysis techniques that directly model the behaviour of the
mesh and restraints have the potential to be used to simulate a
wide range of loading configurations and boundary conditions.
A recent testing program has been undertaken at the new
WASM static test facility. Two different modelling
techniques have been used to attempt to simulate the force
displacement characteristics of both welded wire and woven
mesh using three dimensional deformations.

on the mesh. Load is applied to the mesh through a

spherical seat to a 300mm square hardened steel plate. The
sample size is 1300mm x 1300mm and may be fully
constrained on all sides or restrained at discrete locations.
2.2 Boundary Conditions
The boundary restraint applied to the mesh sample is the
most critical element in testing. Two different restraining
systems have been used. The first system involved lacing
6mm wire rope through the sample and around a frame as
shown in Figure 2. The rope was tensioned and then
clamped using wire rope grips on each end of each side.
This method provided reliable force-displacement response
curves with consistent failure mechanisms. However the
initial tensions applied to the mesh were not consistent and
influenced the amount of displacement that occurred prior
to the mesh responding and taking load.

2 TEST FACILITY
2.1 Description
In 2005, the Western Australian School of Mines designed
and built a large scale static testing facility (Figure 1) to
complement its existing dynamic test facility (Player et al.,
2004). This new facility comprises a reaction beam and a
frame to support the mesh sample. The mesh sample is
assembled within a stiff frame that rests on the support
frame. A screw feed jack is mounted on the reaction frame.
The screw feed jack can be driven at a constant speed (4mm
per minute) and allows large displacements to be imposed

Figure 1. WASM Static Test facility.

Figure 2. Laced restraint system used as the first test arrangement.

Figure 3. Fixed restraint system used as final test arrangement.

In order to remove some of the inconsistencies of the lacing

method, a new sample frame was designed to provide a
fully fixed restraint system for the mesh. A system using
high tensile bar, eye nuts and D shackles passing through
the beam at regular positions (Figure 3) was selected as the
most appropriate boundary system.

The chain link mesh failed on the edge of the plate either as a
result of the plate cutting through the wires or as a result of the
wires cutting each other. Generally only one or two strands
broke. After the first rupture the load dropped completely as a
result of plate movement and the test was stopped.
Figure 4 shows the difference in responses for the two
mesh types and the differences between the different
boundary conditions used. The lacing boundary condition
was less stiff and thus more displacement occurred prior to
the mesh taking load. The fixed boundary condition resulted
in the mesh reacting immediately to the applied displacement.
The force-displacement responses of both mesh types
showed significant displacements at low loads. Attempts to
characterise the response for design purposes (as attempted
previously and reported by Tannant et al., 1997 and Dolinar,
2006) have been largely unsuccessful as the maximum force
or maximum displacement for a specific test configuration
needs to be known. These analysis methods also cannot be
applied to other restraint conditions.
Regression analyses of the force-displacement curves
showed that the curves were nonlinear in nature and could be
best represented by a cubic equation. Observations during the
testing program suggest that the nonlinearities are associated
with geometric distortion of the mesh and the mechanical
properties of the wire; and the welds for Mesh Type 1.
Table 1. Summary of results from tests using the lacing boundary
condition.
Displacement at
Displacement.
Peak Load
Test Mesh Rupture
Peak
at Rupture
(kN)
No Type Load (kN)
(mm)
(mm)

Testing has been undertaken on two different mesh types. The

standard welded wire mesh (Mesh Type 1) used in Western
Australian mines is 100mm x 100mm x 5.6mm galvanised
weld mesh. The samples were donated by a local mine site.
The second type of mesh (Mesh Type 2) was 4mm high tensile
wire chain link mesh provided by sponsors Geobrugg.

004 2
137.1
343
137.1
005 1
46.2
242
46.2
007 1
46.7
249
46.7
008 1
35.9
222
38.9
009 1
34.1
209
38.4
010 1
28.1
216
41.4
011 1
44.0
228
44.0
012 2
120.8
311
120.8
013 1
45.4
239
45.4
014 1
33.4
222
35.4
Mesh Type 1 Welded wire mesh
Mesh Type 2 High tensile wire chain link mesh

3 MESH TESTING RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Table 2. Summary of results from tests using the fixed boundary

condition.

2.3 Mesh Types

Ten tests were conducted using the lacing boundary

constraints. Eight of these tests were conducted on welded
wire mesh (Type 1). Two tests were conducted on chain link
mesh (Type 2). A summary of results is provided in Table 1.
A further 13 tests were conducted using the fixed
boundary condition. Ten tests were conducted on weld
mesh with the remaining 3 tests conducted on chain link
mesh. The results from these tests are shown in Table 2.
There are significant differences between the two mesh
types. The chain link mesh is less stiff and has been
manufactured using high tensile wires to enable capacities over
three times greater than that of standard welded wire mesh.
With few exceptions all the welded wire mesh samples first
ruptured either through the weld or in the heat affected zone,
on the boundary, where the wire was under direct loading.
Failure then progressed along the boundary, alternating
between two sides beginning with the directly loaded wires.

343
242
249
241
253
236
228
311
239
249

Displacement
Test Mesh Rupture Displacement. atPeak Load
at Peak
No Type Load (kN) Rupture (mm) (kN)
(mm)
017 1
45.0
173
45.0
018 2
145.6
310
145.6
019 2
155.0
285
155.0
020 1
44.1
192
44.1
021 1
37.9
151
37.9
022 1
40.9
182
43.4
023 2
147.2
292
147.2
024 1
38.5
150
38.5
025 1
46.4
181
46.4
026 1
44.9
188
44.9
027 1
40.7
195
40.7
028 1
29.7
209
29.7
029 1
41.3
181
41.3
Mesh Type 1 Welded wire mesh
Mesh Type 2 High tensile wire chain link mesh

173
310
285
192
151
195
292.3
150
181
188
195
209
181

Fixed Weld Mesh

Fixed Chain Link

Laced Chain Link

Laced Weld Mesh

160

equilibrium associated with each node in the mesh. It is

therefore necessary to find the solution to a large number of
simultaneous equations. The resulting equations can be
summarised in partitioned matrix notation as:

Fa = K aa K au da
Fu Kua Kuu du

140

(1)

120

where:
[Fa] =
[Fu] =
[da] =
[du] =
[Kij] =

Force (kN)

100
80
60
40
20
0
0

50

100
150
200
250
300
Displacement at Loading Point (mm)

350

Figure 4. Force displacement responses for welded wire mesh and

chain link mesh with fixed and laced boundary conditions.

4 MODELLING
Previous modelling attempts have simulated twodimensional deformations. Based on the WASM test results
the latest models have been modified to allow for three
dimensional non linear modelling. The requirements for
mesh analysis, based on testing program results and other
considerations, are:
Different mesh types.
Variable wire diameters.
Variable wire spacings.
Non-linear stress-strain properties for the wire.
Able to account for weld strength.
Allow for slip of the mesh at the restraint.
Allow for variable bolt tensions.
Allow for variable bolt restraint spacings.
Variable mesh orientation relative to bolt pattern.
Allow for wire positions relative to the welds.
Variable load types and areas.
Allow for large mesh displacements.
Significant differences between welded wire mesh and
chain link mesh required two different models to be used.
4.1 Modelling of welded wire mesh
The basis of the method is to satisfy equilibrium of forces
and moments and compatibility of displacements and
rotations at every longitudinal wire and cross-wire
intersection or node in the mesh. It is assumed the mesh is
restrained at a number of nodes (representing plates and
bolts) and subjected to either defined force or displacement
loading at a variable number of nodes (representing rock
loading). In the general case, there are 6 equations of

vector of applied forces

vector of unknown forces
vector of applied displacements
vector of unknown displacements
stiffness matrix relating forces and moments to
displacements and rotations at each node.
Forces and displacements may be directed in any of the three
coordinate directions. Applied displacement may be used to
simulate either loading or restraint. A rigid restraint results
from zero applied displacement. Non rigid restraints may be
used to allow for modelling the effects of flexible boundary
restraints or slip of the mesh relative to the plate as observed in
previous testing (Thompson et al., 1999). Equation 1 may be
partitioned into two separate matrix equations:

[Fa] = [Kaa ] [da] + [Kau] [du]

[Fu] = [Kua ] [da] + [Kuu] [du]

(2)
(3)

These simultaneous matrix equations are solved in two

parts. Firstly, Equation 2 is used to solve for the unknown
displacements and, secondly, the unknown forces at the
nodes may be calculated by substituting [du] into
Equation 3. The results for two different arrangements of
rigid restraint are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Deformed mesh with higher forces shaded darker.

4.2 Modelling of high-tensile chain-link mesh

For the modelling of the high-tensile chain-link mesh, the finite
element software FARO was used. This software was
developed by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich
(Volkwein et al., 2002) and is based on an explicit time
stepping approach. Equilibrium is treated separately for every
node in the system. It is not therefore necessary to satisfy
global equilibrium as in an implicit FE approach. The software
was developed for dynamic impacts, but can also be used for
the simulation of quasi-static loads by using constant velocities.
The software is based on Newtons Laws and involves the
following steps. The acceleration of every node is
calculated by considering external forces, gravity and the
mass associated with each node. Then using a small time
step interval, the velocity for the next time step is
determined from the acceleration of every node. The
translation vector for the location of every node in the next

time step can be calculated. The new location of every node

is used to calculate the elongation of the elements between
two nodes. From these elongations and the material laws,
the forces in the single elements for the next time step are
calculated. Finally, the resulting force on the node is
determined, from which the node acceleration is calculated
for the next time step.
Figure 6 shows the setup of the model and it is consistent
with the tests executed in Australia in 2002/03 (Roth et al.,
2004). The setup consists of the high-tensile chain-link mesh
fixed at the boundaries, four bolts with plates and a square
steel frame for applying load.
To calibrate the model, the parameters of the mesh
(flexural stiffness, beginning of the tension behaviour, the
tension resistance and the normal force) were adjusted in
such a way that the model best fitted the results from the
tests reported by Roth et al., (2004). Figure 7 shows the
model with the applied load and Figure 8 the forcedisplacement charts of the test and the simulation.
Now that the model is calibrated, it is possible to simulate
different setups with different static loads. The entire support
scheme can be modelled by introducing the characteristics

of the bolts. It is furthermore possible to simulate dynamic

impacts (e.g. due to high stress and violent rock failure) and
to predict the maximum deflection of the mesh, the loads in
the bolts and the maximum energy absorption capacity.
5 CONCLUSION
The force-displacement response of different mesh types
depends on many factors. Laboratory testing imposes
boundary conditions which can have a significant effect on
the force-displacement response. However, the boundary
restraints and loading do not simulate the conditions in the
field where large sheets or rolls of mesh are used and small
areal restraint is provided at discrete locations associated
with rock bolts. The only way to accurately predict the force
displacement responses of various mesh types without
testing is through three-dimensional, non-linear modelling.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The direct assistance of Barrick Gold and Geobrugg and the
financial support and encouragement provided by the
Australian mining industry for research at the WA School of
Mines are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES

Figure 6. Setup of the woven mesh model.

Figure 7. Numerical model with applied load.

Figure 8. Force displacement chart showing the results from the

test and the simulation of the high-tensile chain-link mesh.

Dolinar, D. 2006. Load capacity and stiffness characteristics of

screen materials used for surface control in underground coal
mines. 25th Int. Conf. on ground control in mining, Morgantown.
Ortlepp, W.D. 1983. Considerations in the design of support for
deep hard rock tunnels. 5th International Congress on Rock
Mechanics. V2, 179 - 187.
Pakalnis, V &. Ames, D. 1983. Load tests on mine screening.
Underground support systems. Canadian Inst. of Min. Met. and
Petroleum, Special Volume 35. Udd, J. (ed), 79 83.
Player, J.R., Villaescusa, E. & Thompson, A.G. 2004. Dynamic testing
of rock reinforcement using the momentum transfer concept.
Ground support in mining and underground construction, eds.
Villaescusa and Potvin, 327-340, Leiden:Balkema.
Roth, A, Windsor, C.R., Coxon, J. & de Vries, R. 2004.
Performance assessment of high tensile wire mesh ground
support under seismic conditions. Ground support in mining and
underground construction. Villaescusa and Potvin (eds), 589594, Leiden:Balkema.
Tannant, D, Kaiser, P.K. & Maloney, S. 1997. Load - displacement
properties of welded - wire, chain - link and expanded metal mesh.
International symposium on rock support - Applied solutions for
underground structures. Lillehammer Norway. E. Broch, A.
Myrvang & G. Stjern (eds), 651 - 659.
Thompson, A 2001. Rock support action of quantified by testing
and analysis. Section 1. International seminar on mine surface
support liners: Membranes, shotcrete and mesh, Perth:ACG.
Thompson, A.G., Windsor, C.R. & Cadby, G.W. 1999. Performance
assessment of mesh for ground control applications. Rock support
and reinforcement practice in mining. E. Villaescusa, C. Windsor &
A. Thompson (eds), 119-130. Leiden: Balkema.
Van Sint Jan, M. & P. Cavieres P. 2004. Large scale static laboratory
test of different support systems. Ground support in mining and
underground construction. E. Villaescusa and Y. Potvin (eds), 571577, Leiden:Balkema
Volkwein A., Anderheggen E. & Grassl H. 2002, Numerical
simulation of highly flexible rockfall protection systems, 5th
World Congress on Computational Mechanics, Vienna, Austria.