Volume 5, Number 1, March 2009, pp.

1-10

[INVITED PAPER]

Ground support research at the WA School of Mines

Ernesto VILLAESCUSA *
* CRC Mining, WA School of Mines, Kalgoorlie Western Australia
Received 06 10 2008; accepted 22 12 2008

ABSTRACT
Mining in Western Australia in the next two decades will be approaching depths and conditions in which the induced stress regimes will approach the strength of the rock masses surrounding the excavations. In such cases, failure may occur violently due to
the energy stored within the rock masses. Furthermore, in those highly stressed regions of a rock mass, sudden slip on major structures in the vicinity of the excavations are more likely to occur with an associated release of energy in the form of compres sive and
shear waves that excite the rock near the boundaries of excavations. In order to be prepared for such scenarios, and to ensure safe
and economical excavations in the future, the WA School of Mines (WASM) and a number of sponsoring companies have conceptualized and undertaken a number of research projects in ground support technology. The projects range from static and dynamic
laboratory testing of support and reinforcement elements to in-situ assessment of ground support corrosivity. The project background for each of the stabilization research projects at WASM has been summarized together with details of the methodology,
current status, applications and future work.
Keywords: Ground support, Laboratory testing, Field monitoring

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of ground support is to maintain excavation
safety and access for their intended lifespan. The
effectiveness of a support strategy is important for two main
reasons, namely: safety to personnel and equipment and also
to achieve the most economical extraction of ore. The type of
ground support required in a particular location is dependent
on several factors including the rock mass strength, the
geometry of the excavation, the induced stresses, the blasting
practices and the weathering process. In most mining
operations, the ground support design is based on previous
experience and evolves over a number of years (Brown,
2004). In many instances there may be nothing technically
wrong with the designs and the performance can be assessed
to be acceptable. However, rock mass conditions usually
change with time (for example, stresses increase as the depth
of mining increases and when the global extraction increases)
and accordingly ground support performance may change and
become unacceptable.
Over the last 10 years or so, the WA School of Mines
(WASM) has undertaken (in conjunction with a number of
sponsoring companies) applied research to characterize the
rock masses and their response to mining activities. To avoid
uncontrolled rock mass failure it is necessary to more fully
understand the pre-existing rock mass conditions and stresses,
optimise excavation design and sequence and to install
ground support that is resistant to both static and dynamic
loadings. The current WASM research portfolio as part of the
CRC Mining comprises the following projects (Figure 1):
JCRM All rights reserved.

S801 Characterization and Reconciliation of Rock

Structure, Strain, Strength and Stress
S802 Discontinuous Rock Mass Analysis
S803 Optimized Excavation Design and Sequences
S804 Static and Dynamic Testing of Ground Support
Systems
S805 Advanced Ground Support Technology
S806 Minefill Strength and Deformability
S807 Advanced Ground Support Hardware and Equipment
S808 Early Strength of Shotcrete
The integration of the output from these 8 research

S801
Geological
regime

S802
Rock mass
characterization
S803
Performance
prediction

S807
New
technology

Excavation
stability
S806
Backfill
mining voids
S808
Shotcrete
support

S804
Ground support
evaluation

S805
Ground support
implementation

Figure 1. WASM research projects in mining rock mechanics

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

projects will improve the design and stability of excavations

by taking into account the pre-existing condition of the rock
mass and the changes in the rock mass due to mining activity.
The outputs are applicable to both open pit and underground
excavations in hard rock. Some of the WASM ground support
projects are described:
2. DYNAMIC LABORATORY TESTING OF GROUND
REINFORCEMENT ELEMENTS
In Western Australia, the ground conditions are becoming
increasingly difficult as the mines are getting deeper (Li et al,
1999). In some cases, induced stress, related seismicity and
dynamic failures are being experienced (Figure 2).
As mining progresses at depth, the design of appropriate
mine sequences (Bywater et al, 1983; Beck and Sandy, 2003;
Villaescusa, 2003) and geometry along with ground support

Guide
Rails

Figure 2. Violent rock mass failure leading to requirement for

expensive, time-consuming rehabilitation

Remote Activated
Release Hook
Maximum Load 4.5t
Max Height 5m

Guide
Rails

645kg Beam

Computer
and Data
Logger

2.4m long
specimen
with break
at 1m
Samples
to be
tested

Buffer

Simulated
Ejected
Mass

Buffer

Video
grid for
back up
analysis

High
Speed
Video
Camera

Figure 3. General view of the WASM Dynamic Test Facility

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

schemes are the primary methods used to mitigate the effects
of induced stress and rock mass failure near the surface of
excavations in Western Australian mines.
Consequently, an understanding of the dynamic energy
capabilities of reinforcement and support elements, as well as
complete ground support systems being used in Western Australia to mitigate dynamic rock failure required development.

As a result, WASM secured industry and Western Australian

government sponsorship to develop a dynamic loading simulation test facility using a new method (Player et al, 2004;
Thompson et al 2004; Villaescusa et al, 2005).
To date the test facility (Figure 3) has the ability to test
reinforcement and support systems.
The WASM Dynamic Test Facility uses thick-walled steel
Flange welded
to anchor pipe

Embedment length
in anchor zone

Stiffened
Deep Beam

ical
log nuity
o
e
i
g
ont
disc

Reinforcement
Interface

Flange welded
to collar pipe

Collar zone

Block
Movement

Loading mass
comprising
steel disks
clamped to
flange

Buffer

Buffer
Plate

External
Fixture

Figure 4. Reinforcement simulation under laboratory conditions

Beam resting on
the buffers at the
start of a test

Drop initiated
by electronic
release
mechanism

Buffer
Piston

2 tonne
mass of
steel disks

Beam raised to a height

of about 2m

Figure 4. General view of the WASM Dynamic Test Facility

Position of the loading mass

at the time of impact

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

pipes to simulate the rock, the borehole and a reinforcement

system using the load-transfer concept (Windsor and
Thompson, 1993) by having (Figure 4).
an anchor zone consisting of the beam and the upper pipe.
a collar zone consisting of the loading mass and the lower
pipe.
an element which spans between the anchor and collar
zones.
A typical test involves raising a beam with the reinforcement system to be tested to heights of up to 2m. A loading
mass of up to 2000kg is attached to the lower end of the specimen. The complete assembly is then dropped. In tests to
date, the impact surfaces are buffers similar to those used to
absorb collisions between train locomotives and carriages.
Figure 5 shows the sequence of steps in the test of a cable
bolt reinforcement system. After impact, the beam and upper
pipe are stopped by the buffers. At the same time, the element
attempts to slow the loading mass. The ability of the reinforcement system as a whole to successfully retard the loading mass depends on its response characteristics. The response characteristics are typically how much it deforms
when subject to load as well as both the force and displacement capacities. With these measured characteristics it is
possible to calculate the energy absorption (Thompson et al,
2004); this is the criterion by which different reinforcement
systems may be compared.
The establishment of the WASM Dynamic Test Facility
required the integration of a new test method with several
different modes of measurement. Measurements are made
using electrical resistance strain gauges, load cells, potentiometric displacement sensors and accelerometers. In addition,
all tests are monitored visually using a high speed digital
video camera. All these instruments are monitored and synchronized using a high speed data acquisition and recording
system. Finally, computer software was developed to view
and analyze efficiently the large quantity of data collected
during each test. Figure 6 shows the loading mass at the bottom of the pit after failure by slippage of a cable bolt element
installed without plate.

Research to date has been focused to develop a performance criterion for comparison of a number of commercially
available reinforcement systems. Comparisons based solely
on energy absorbed are not sufficient, and the analysis must
include for example dynamic force - displacement responses
as well as practical considerations for total displacement allowed before rock mass unraveling occurs. Displacement is
particularly important. For example, although a reinforcement
system may have large displacement capacities (and hence
energy absorbed due to the change in potential energy of the
mass following impact) it may cause the rock mass to disintegrate to the point where the support system may not be able
to hold the broken rock. Figure 7 shows a summary of typical
WASM results for elements other than friction stabilizers.
Additional work at the facility has included a comprehensive study of friction bolts and other recently developed bolts,
such as the resin grouted yielding Garford bolt (Varden et al
2008).

Figure 6. Sequence of steps during dynamic testing at WASM

60

Energy absorbed (kJ)

50

40
30
20
10
0
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Deformation at simulated discontinuity (mm)

2.4m cement grouted threadbar fully bonded

2.4m cement grouted threadbar bonded (no surface hardware)

3.0m threadbar central debonded bar with mine nut

3.0m threadbar central debonded (integrated nut and washer)

Cone bolt low strength cement grout

Cone bolt high strength cement grout

Plain strand cement grouted cable

Garford Yielding Bolt in cement grout

Cone bolt high strength cement grout - high impact

Garford Yielding Bolt in resin (high impact)

Garford yielding bolt in resin

Figure 7. Deformation compared to energy absorbed for a number or reinforcement systems

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

3. LABORATORY TESTING OF SURFACE SUPPORT
ELEMENTS

Motor control
unit

Motor & jack

Instrumentation
readout unit

Instrumentation
panel

3.1 Large scale static laboratory testing

Sample
clamps

Load bearing
frame

Sample support
& sample frame

Jack shaft
& load cell

Figure 8. WASM Static Test Facility

Figure 9. Details of centre loading and fixed restrain system

for mesh testing
160
Plastic Mesh

140
Weld Mesh

120
Chain Link Mesh

100

Force (kN)

In 2005, the Western Australian School of Mines designed and built a large scale static testing facility (Figure 8)
to complement its existing dynamic test facility. This new
facility comprises two steel frames; a lower one used to support the sample and the other to provide loading reaction
(Morton et al, 2007). 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 is driven at a constant speed (4mm per minute) and allows large
displacements to be imposed on the mesh. Load is applied to
the mesh through a spherical seat to a 300mm square, 35mm
thick hardened steel plate. The sample size is 1300mm x
1300mm and the mesh may be fully constrained on all sides
or restrained at discrete locations.
The application of the boundary conditions to the mesh
sample is the most critical element in mesh testing (Pakalnis
and Ames, 1983; Tannant et al, 1997; Thompson et al., 1999;
Roth et al., 2004; Van Sint Jan and Cavieres, 2004; Dolinar,
2006). At WASM, a new sample frame was designed that
provided a fully fixed restraint system for the mesh boundary.
A system using high tensile bar, eye nuts and D shackles
passing through the beam at allocated points was selected as
the most appropriate boundary system (Figure 9). The same
boundary restraint system has been subsequently used at the
WASM dynamic test facility.
Testing to date has been undertaken on three different
mesh types; weld, chain link and plastic. Standard welded
wire mesh used in Western Australian mines (100mm x
100mm x 5.6mm galvanised weld mesh) was first tested. The
effect of the following installation practices (not dissimilar
from reality) has been investigated including; holes cut in the
mesh under the loading plate, loading on the overlap between
two sheets of mesh, cross wires up versus cross wires down.
With few exceptions all the weld mesh samples first ruptured
at the boundary where the wire was under direct load. Failure
then progressed along the boundary, alternating between two
sides beginning with the directly loaded wires. Three rupture
mechanisms have been observed; tensile failure of the wire,
weld failure or failure of the wire through the heat affected
zone (HAZ) (Villaescusa, 1999). The failure mechanism in
combination with an assessment of the rupture force provides
and indication of the quality of the mesh.
The second type of mesh tested was a 4mm high tensile
wire chain link mesh provided by Geobrugg (Roth et al,
2004). 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. In general, the chain link mesh is less stiff and has
been designed using high tensile wires to enable capacities
over three times greater than that of standard weld mesh.
Plastic mesh was also tested to assess its capability as
surface support element in highly corrosive environments.
The force displacement results for each of these mesh type
is shown in Figure 10.

80
60
40
20
0
0

100
200
300
Displacement at loading point (mm)
Figure 10. Static force - displacement results for different
mesh types

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

Helicopter release
hook

14
Weld Mesh Dynamic

Drop beam

Weld Mesh Static

12

Chain Link Mesh Dynamic

Chain Link Static

Buffer

Rupture Energy (kJ)

10
Chain link squares shaded
grey indicate no rupture

8
6
4
2

Loading Mass

0
Mesh frame

Figure 11. Configuration for dynamic testing of support elements

100
200
300
Total Displacement at Rupture (mm)

400

Figure 12. Dynamic testing of chain link and weld mesh support
elements

Figure 13. Deformation of chain link and weld mesh support elements

3.2 Large scale dynamic laboratory testing

Recently, the dynamic test facility has been upgraded to
enable the dynamic testing of support elements such as mesh
and shotcrete. The drop beams were upgraded to enable the
attachment of support frames to restrain the support elements
(Figure 11).
The dynamic test facility adopted the same sample size
and boundary conditions as the static test facility. To date,
weld mesh and chain link mesh have been tested. The energy,
force and displacement were calculated at rupture. A comparison between the static and dynamic performance of both
mesh types is shown in Figure 12.
The rupture energy for weld mesh was found to be approximately 2kJ whilst the rupture energy for chain link mesh

ranged between 10 to 12 kJ. For chain link mesh rupture may

occur at lower levels if it is installed very tight. Figure 13
shows the chain link (left) and weld mesh (right) after a non
rupture test. In near future a methodology will be developed
to dynamically test various shotcrete combinations including
plain shotcrete, fibrecrete and mesh reinforced shotcrete
(Morton et al, 2008). The ultimate aim is to combine reinforcement elements and surface support elements into one
test to enable the testing of complete ground support systems
under dynamic load.
4. FIELD MONITORING OF GROUND SUPPORT
PERFORMANCE
The performance and ultimate capacity of a reinforcement
scheme can be affected by sub-standard field installation
practices. In most cases, however, faulty installations are

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

difficult to detect given that the only visible part of an installed element is the plate, nut and a short length of the bolt
indicating the orientation of installation with respect to an
excavation wall. As an example, for a fully encapsulated cement or resin grouted rebar, it is very difficult to determine
the bonded length (effective bolt encapsulation) along the
entire axis of the bolt. Because a full bolt capacity may be
mobilized with very short embedment lengths of good quality
grout, conventional pull testing of exposed collar lengths
within a fully (resin or cement) grouted element is almost
meaningless.
Pull testing as suggested by The International Society of
Rock Mechanics (Brown, 1978) is only applicable to ungrouted point anchor and friction/Swellex bolts. For fully
encapsulated elements, the method only provides an indication of grout effectiveness at the collar or at the first (unknown) location along the bolt axis where the grout is effectively working. For fully grouted elements, pull testing only
provides a definite indication of poor installation in cases
where the entire length of encapsulated reinforcement fails
well below its designed capacity.

orientation (360) and overcoring reinforcement lengths up to

3m (Hassell and Villaescusa, 2005). Overcoring of in-situ
bolts can be undertaken in the walls and backs to a collar
height of 5-7m.

4.1 WASM bolt overcoring rig

The following sections describe the various components

of the overcoring procedure and the details and interpretation
of the results obtained for resin anchored rock bolts. The
implications for future implementation of resin anchored rock
bolts will also be discussed.

The in-situ conditions along the entire length of a fully

encapsulated rock bolt can only be examined by recovering
the complete element. This process is called bolt overcoring
and this allows not only the recovery of the element, but also
provides a clear view of the surrounding rock mass and a
better understanding of the rock bolt system/rock mass interaction. Research at WASM has resulted in the development
of a versatile overcoring system capable of drilling at any

Figure 14. WASM bolt overcoring operations

Figure 14. Overcored friction bolts in very poor rock masses

4.2 Overcoring procedure

The overcoring procedure involves both field and laboratory components.
The field components are:
Mobilization of overcoring rig.
Selection of bolts.
Overcoring and recovery of core.
Transport of core to WASM laboratory.
The laboratory components are:
Inspection, photographing and recording of core details.
Selection of sections of core for pull or push testing.
Preparation of core for testing.
Testing.
Reporting.

4.3 Field activities

The WASM rig is shown drilling in Figure 14. Careful
drilling and suitable penetration rates are chosen, so that the

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

Figure 16. Overcored resin (left) and cement grouted (right) bolts in very poor rock masses

Figure 17. Prepared short sections of overcored bolts prior to pull testing

recovered 140mm diameter core undergoes minimal disturbance even in very poor rock masses that have been reinforced using friction stabilizers (e.g. Figure 15).
Bolt overcoring provides a range of information including
the location and frequency of geological discontinuities,
overall rock mass conditions, bolt encapsulation, load transfer
along the bolt axis and corrosion effects (Hassell and Villaescusa, 2005). Overcoring in broken ground or shear zones
shows that very little resin migration occurs in jumbo-installed resin bolts. The resin simply fills the annulus
between the bolt and the borehole. Because of its viscosity,
the resin is unable to penetrate the rock mass fissures and
voids. In comparison, significant cement migration has been
observed during overcoring of cement grouted bolts in poor
ground conditions (Figure 16). The degree of rock mass interlocking using cement grout is superior compared to that
achieved by resin grouting or friction stabilizers. Interlocking
around an underground excavation has been suggested as an
important mechanism to allow the rock mass to be
self-supporting (Windsor and Thompson, 1993).
Following overcoring, laboratory testing can be used to
assess the performance in terms of encapsulation quality and
load transfer of any recovered bolt-rock mass sections. The
overcored samples are geologically mapped and appropriate
sections are cut from the sample to test the

force-displacement
characteristics.
In
general,
a
force-displacement curve provides an indication of stiffness,
peak and residual forces, as well as the displacement capacity
for the embedment length tested. The results can be used as a
relative measure of load transfer (installation quality and bolt
effectiveness) along a bolt axis. The concepts of load transfer
and embedment length are critical to the understanding of any
force-deformation results (Windsor and Thompson, 1993).
In general, push tests and pull tests are used to determine
encapsulation quality and relative load transfer along a bolt
axis. Push tests are expected to provide a different response to
pull tests. During push testing (Aziz, 2004) the steel bar is
compressed into the sample, while in pull testing the bar is
tested in tension. An advantage of push testing is that it allows several tests to be carried out along a single bolt axis. A
disadvantage is that a push test is likely to over-estimate the
stiffness and peak/residual loads. However, provided the push
testing is carried out for similar embedment lengths, the results can be used as a relative measure of load transfer
along the bolt axis.
The typical embedment length used for meaningful
push/pull testing is usually set at 300-500mm. However, the
total sample length required for a push test is 400mm, while
for a typical pull test the sample length required ranges from
700-1000mm. For a 2.4m long bolt, it is possible to select up

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

160

Push test - 300 mm embedment length

140

Load
Displacement

120

Load (kN)

100
80
60

Sample ID & location along bolt axis

40

3A 0.00 0.30m
3B 0.40 0.70m
3C 0.80 1.10m

20

Push test arrangement

3D 1.20 1.50m
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

Displacement (mm)

Figure 18. Typical push test arrangement and results for cement grouted HGB bolts

a) Failure at resin-rock
interface

b) Failure at bolt gloving

interface

c) Sideway displacement
of resin

Figure 19. Example of effective load transfer (a), and low strength due to excessive gloving by the resin cartridge (b and c)
to 5 samples for push testing and usually two for pull testing.
This allows the variability of encapsulation and relative load
transfer along the entire bolt axis to be well established.
In preparation for push/pull testing, some of the rock is
removed from the overcore, leaving a section of the element
partly exposed (Figure 17). The remaining rock/element section is then confined in a metal jacket to simulate the radial
confinement provided by the rock mass in-situ (Hyett et al.,
1992). The exposed section of the element is then pushed or
pulled. A plate is used to restrict the movement of the confined 300-500mm long portion of bolt/rock. The force required to push or pull the element through the rock, and the
element displacement are digitally recorded (Figure 18).
Following pull testing, the elements are inspected and
photographed. Figure 19 shows an example of tested resin
grouted bolts. Where the load transfer was effective, failure of
the short resin bolt embedment occurred at the resin/rock
interface. The frictional resistance was mobilized by shearing
of the resin irregularities at the resin/rock interface. However,
when the resin encapsulation was poor, failure at the
bolt/resin interface was experienced. This implies poor installation practices or excessive hole diameter leading to unsatisfactory mixing of the resin.
Overcored samples along the axis of a hole can be used to
determine the load transfer variability within similar embed-

ment lengths collected from key regions of a bolt. For resin

grouted bolts, the overcored data shows that similar strengths
were found for the collar and toe regions, with increased
strengths for the middle regions where resin mixing appear to
be more effective (Varden and Villaescusa, 2006).
5. CONCLUSIONS
The design of appropriate ground support at depth is
largely determined by the stress state around the openings and
the properties of the rock masses. As underground mines
progress deeper into the earth crust, the stress state is such
that dynamic failures can be triggered and appropriate stabilization techniques must be designed and implemented. The
WA School of Mines is currently undertaking ground support
research in a wide range of areas with the view of achieving
safe and economical extraction under difficult mining conditions at great depth.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The technical contributions of John Player, Alan Thompson, Ellen Morton, Chris Windsor, Rhett Hassell, Hla Aye
Saw, Brett Scott and Lance Fraser are gratefully acknowledged. The financial assistance of the sponsoring mining

10

E. VILLAESCUSA / International Journal of the JCRM vol.5 (2009) pp.1-10

companies, MERIWA and the CRC Mining in supporting the

work of the WASM Rock Mechanics Group is also acknowledged
REFERENCES
Aziz, N., 2004. Bolt surface profiles an important parameter in load
transfer capacity appraisal, Procc. 5th Int. Symp. on Ground
Support in Mining and Underground Construction, E. Villaescusa & Y. Potvin (Eds), Taylor & Francis, London, pp.221-230.
Beck, D. and M. Sandy, 2003. Mine sequencing for high recovery in
Western Australian mines, Procc. 12th Int. Symp. on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, The AusIMM, Kalgoorlie.
Brown, E.T., 2004. The dynamic environment of ground support and
reinforcement, Keynote Lecture, Procc. 5th Int. Symp. on
Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, E.
Villaescusa & Y. Potvin (Eds), Taylor & Francis, London,
pp.3-16.
Brown, E.T., 1978. Rock characterization testing and instrumentation.
Commission on Testing methods, International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Bywater, S., R. Cowling and B. Black, 1983. Stress measurements
and analysis for mine planning, Procc. Fifth ISRM Congress,
Melbourne, D29-37.
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.
Hassell, R and E. Villaescusa, 2005. Overcoring techniques to assess
in situ corrosion of galvanised friction bolts, Proceedings 24 Int.
Conf. on Ground Control in Mining, pp.349-356, West Virginia
University:Morgantown.
Hyett, A., W. Bawden and R. Reichardt, 1992. The effect of rock
mass confinement on the bond strength of fully grouted cable
bolts, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sc.& Geomech. Abstr., V29,
pp.503-524.
Li. T., E. Villaescusa and D.J. Finn, 1999. Continuous improvement
in geotechnical design and practice, Australian Journal of
Mining, 14, 146, pp.46-51.
Morton, E., A.G. Thompson, E. Villaescusa and A. Roth, 2007. Testing and analysis of steel wire mesh for mining applications of
rock surface support, Procc. 11th ISRM Congress, V2,
pp.1061-1064, Lisbon, July, Taylor and Francis:London.
Morton E C, A. Thompson and E. Villaescusa, 2008. Static testing of
shotcrete and membranes for mining applications, Procc. 6th International Conference on Ground Support, Cape Town, (In
print).
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) pp.79-83.
Player. J.R., E. Villaescusa and A.G. Thompson, 2004. Dynamic
testing of rock reinforcement using the momentum transfer concept, Procc. 5th Int. Symp. on Ground Support in Mining and

Underground Construction, E. Villaescusa and Y. Potvin (Eds).

Taylor and Francis, London, pp.327-339.
Roth, A, Windsor, C.R., Coxon, J. and R. de Vries, 2004. Performance assessment of high tensile wire mesh ground support under
seismic conditions, Procc. 5th Int. Symp. on Ground Support in
Mining and Underground Construction, E. Villaescusa and Y.
Potvin (Eds). Taylor and Francis, London, pp.589-594.
Tannant, D, Kaiser, P.K. and S. Maloney, 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). June 22 - 25, pp.651-659.
Thompson, A.G., Windsor, C.R. and G. Cadby, 1999. Performance
assessment of mesh for ground control applications, Procc. 4th
Int. Symp. on Rock Support and Reinforcement Practice in
Mining, E. Villaescusa, C.R. Windsor and A.G. Thompson (Eds).
Balkema, Leiden, pp.119-130.
Thompson, A.G, E.Villaescusa, and J.R. Player, 2004. Simulation and
analysis of dynamically loaded reinforcement systems, Procc.
5th Int. Symp. on Ground Support in Mining and Underground
Construction, E. Villaescusa and Y. Potvin (Eds). Taylor and
Francis, London, pp.341-355.
Van Sint Jan, M. and P. Cavieres, 2004. Large scale static laboratory
test of different support systems, Procc. 5th Int. Symp. on
Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, E.
Villaescusa and Y. Potvin (Eds) , Taylor and Francis, London,
pp.571-577.
Varden, R. and E. Villaescusa, 2006. A methodology for selection of
resin grouted rockbolts, Proc. US Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Golden Colorado, Paper 06-944.
Varden, R., R. Lachenicht, J. Player, A. Thompson and E. Villaescusa,
2008. Development and implementation of the Garford Dynamic
Bolt at the Kanowna Belle Mine, 10th Underground Operators
Conference, Launceston, The AusIMM (In press).
Villaescusa, E., 1999. Laboratory testing of weld mesh for rock support, Rock Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, E.
Villaescusa, C. Windsor and A. Thompson (Eds), pp.155-159,
Balkema Rotterdam.
Villaescusa, E., 2003. Extraction sequences in sublevel stoping.
Keynote Lecture, 12th Int. Symp. on Mine Planning & Equipment Selection, Kalgoorlie, WA, The AusIMM, pp.9-18.
Villaescusa E., A.G. Thompson and J. Player, 2005. Dynamic testing
of rock reinforcement systems, Procc. CRC Mining Australian
Mining Technology Conference New Technologies to Produce
More with Less, H. Gurgenci, M. Hood, P. Lever and P. Knights
(Eds), The AusIMM, Melbourne, pp.79-95.
Windsor, C.R. and A.G. Thompson, 1993. Rock Reinforcement Technology, Testing, Design and Evaluation. Comprehensive
Rock Engineering (J A Hudson, ed.), Pergamon Press, Oxford, 4,
Chapter 16, pp.451-484.