FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

July 1, 2008, through June 30, 2009

Project Title: ROCK ANCHOR WITH RESIN INSERTION IMPROVEMENT
ICCI Project Number:
Principal Investigator:
Project Manager:

07-1/US-2
A.J.S. (Sam) Spearing, Southern Illinois University
Joseph Hirschi, Illinois Clean Coal Institute
ABSTRACT

A vast majority of the estimated 100 million rock anchors installed annually in US coal
mines use resin cartridges. About 4.5 million per year of these are bolts with a
mechanical shell that if properly installed become effective active (tensioned) supports on
installation. In addition, cable anchors (mostly passive) are installed with typically four
feet of effective resin anchorage and sometimes with mechanical shells. These shells
make installation more difficult because the cable, even with a stiffener tube, is not very
rigid. In particular, when installing bolts with mechanical shells and cable bolts in holes,
back pressure can be so high that the installation is unsuccessful creating a spinner (untensioned bolt) at best, or buckling the bolt at worst. This requires installing another bolt
or cable to avoid depending on a poorly functioning unit. These installation problems can
create a significant potential safety hazard and waste time and money.
A purpose-designed test rig that physically inserts different rock anchors into pipes with
resin was used to measure back pressure developed with time during the
insertion/installation process. The test installation procedure is designed to mirror that
used by rock bolt operators in underground coal mines. In addition, a computer model
that can predict the approximate back pressure of new anchor and resin combinations was
calibrated and used as a screen before physical testing. This research has lead to an
understanding and quantification of insertion back pressures and has already resulted in
improved mechanical shell designs that will lead to more reliable mechanical shell and
resin bolt installations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Most rock anchors installed in US coal mines use resin cartridges. Approximately five
percent of these bolts also use a mechanical shell. When properly installed, they become
effective active (tensioned) supports. In addition, cable anchors (which are not very rigid,
even with a stiffener tube) are installed with resin anchorage. When installing bolts with
mechanical shells and cable bolts in holes, back pressure can be so high that the
installation is unsuccessful creating a spinner (un-tensioned bolt) at best, or buckling
the bolt at worst. This requires another bolt or cable to be installed, creates a significant
potential safety hazard, and wastes time and money.
A test rig that physically inserts different rock anchors into pipes with resin was designed
and built with funding support from Frazer and Jones, a major supplier of mechanical
shells. The rig was used to measure back pressure developed with time during the
insertion/installation process. The test procedure mirrors the installation procedure used
by roof bolt operators in underground coal mines. In addition, a computer model capable
of predicting approximate back pressure of new anchor and resin combinations was
calibrated and used to screen potential combinations before physical testing. Specifically,
the following were investigated and quantified:

Back pressures generated in 1-inch holes with 4-foot long #5 and #6 diameter
rebar, whilst high as full insertion is achieved, are not enough to create problems
during the installation.
Increasing resin cartridge viscosity was found to increase insertion back pressure
up to a point, above which back pressure actually decreased. The reason for this is
not intuitive, but is probably a result of other factors such as solid fillers, resin
containment, and possibly even clips.
Back pressure becomes an issue when bolts are fitted with mechanical shells.
Tests confirmed that shell design has a dramatic effect on back pressure
magnitude and failures can occur.
The design, volume, and number of resin ports were shown to be very important
in reducing back pressure.
By comparing buckling strength of #6 rebar, a target for maximum back pressure
should be 3,000 lbs; but the lower the better, assuming other resin performance is
not compromised (such as thixotrophy).

This research has improved understanding and quantification of insertion back pressures
and has already resulted in improved mechanical shell designs that will lead to more
reliable mechanical shell and resin bolt installations. Two commercial companies are
using the test rig and research results to develop new and improved mechanical shell
systems that will effectively reduce back pressures and thereby improve ground control
safety, performance, and costs. The test rig will be kept operational to help suppliers
complete improved designs.

1
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this project were to understand and quantify back pressures created
during installation of commonly used cable and bolt configurations with resin cartridges
of different viscosities. Once the insertion process was understood and quantified,
solutions were found to potentially reduce or even eliminate problems associated with
high back pressures (failures and spinners). In the future, manufacturers of bolts,
cables, shells, and resin can use the apparatus built for this project to develop and test
better products that reduce the effective problem, thus improving rock related mine safety
and reducing costs.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The vast majority (+90%) of about 100 million rock anchors installed in US mines per
annum use resin cartridges (Tadolini & Mazzoni, 2006). About 4.5 million per annum of
these are so called double-lock bolts with a mechanical shell that if properly installed
become effective active supports on installation. In addition, cable anchors (mostly
passive) are installed with typically four feet of effective resin anchorage. Some of these
are installed with mechanical shells that make the installation more difficult. This is
because the cable (even with a stiffener tube) is not very rigid.
When installing particularly double-lock bolts (bolts with mechanical shells) and also
cable bolts in holes, back pressure can be so high that the installation is unsuccessful
creating a spinner (un-tensioned bolt) at best, or bending the cable stiffener or bolt at
worst. This requires another bolt/cable to be installed, or leaves a poorly functioning
unit, which creates a significant potential safety hazard. It also wastes time and money.
This research involved building a test rig that physically inserted different rock anchors
into pipes with resin and measured the back pressure developed with time during the
insertion/installation. The installation process mirrored that used underground in coal
mines. All underground coal mines in Illinois use either cable anchors or tensioned rebar
or both.
Pre-tensioned bolts and cables are very useful in improving rock related safety under
many strata conditions (thin and weak laminated strata being the main exception, where
the additional tension can induce premature failure of thin laminates). More tensioned
anchors are being used. For example, Consol Energy introduced pre-tensioned full
column resin grouted anchors with mechanical shells in three of their eastern US mines.
However, insertion back pressure is still a big deterrent. This problem has not been
effectively quantified or addressed in the past. This research hopes to rectify that
shortcoming by quantifying the problem and recommending combinations for mitigation.
It will also give manufacturers of anchors and resins the ability and guidelines to improve
their rock related safety support products.

2
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
The test rig (see Figure 1) was designed to be able to install 4-ft rock anchors (cables or
bolts) into 4-ft long steel pipes with 1-in and 1.375-in internal diameters, which are the
typical hole diameters used in coal mines for rock anchoring. The 4-ft length was selected
as this is the common effective grout length for resin (especially for cable bolts) and a
common bolter chuck-to-roof height when bolts are inserted underground. It also kept
the overall height of the test rig within manageable limits.
The cylinder is hydraulically powered and extended at a rate of 0.5 ft/sec. This is close to
the actual installation speed used by a rock bolter underground. The maximum up-thrust
capacity of the cylinder is 12,370 lbs. The hydraulic power pack came from an old MTS
load frame.
Installation distance was measured using a string potentiometer. Insertion back pressure
was recorded as a voltage and converted to a load in the standard manner.

Figure 1: Test rig in the Coal Research Center High Bay Building, Carterville IL.
The test procedure was simple and results surprisingly repeatable. Where possible, resin
cartridges used were from the same batch so that viscosity was as consistent as practical.
A resin cartridge was inserted into a pipe clamped solidly in place in the test rig. Next, a
bolt was fitted into the socket attached to the cylinder. Finally, the cylinder was extended
to its full 4-ft length thus terminating the test. Most tests were repeated three times to
ensure reliability and repeatability of results.

3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Task 1:
The first task was to build the test rig and fully commission it. Commissioning included
ensuring that the data logger was accurate and calibrated and that the equipment met
design specifications. Figures 2 and 3 show repeatability test results using #5 and #6
rebar (- and -in nominal diameter respectively) 4-ft long in a 1-in diameter hole with
resin from the same production batch. Repeatability was considered good and the rig was
successfully commissioned.

Figure 2: Insertion forces using #5 rebar in a 1 inch diameter hole.

Figure 3: Insertion forces using #6 rebar in a 1 inch diameter hole.

Task 2:
Most common bolt/cable combinations used in coal mines were tested to establish
insertion back pressures and quantify problems, if any. Shells were tested to evaluate
existing and new resin port systems in shell plugs and leaves, and to quantify their

4
effectiveness. Figure 4 shows insertion loads for five commonly used mechanical shells
using #6 rebar in a 1.375-in hole. It can be seen that insertion loads are different and one
mechanical shell (Shell A) failed to install with the rebar buckling.

Figure 4: Insertion loads for mechanical shells with #6 rebar in a 1.375-in diameter hole.
Clearly, the lower the insertion back pressure, the easier and more reliable the
installation. This assumes that other important parameters are not compromised; such as
resin having such a low viscosity that it flows out of the hole during installation.
The reason for the failure of Shell A was investigated by measuring the buckling strength
of #5 and #6 rebar at different lengths. Lengths tested were 3.5 feet, 3.0 feet, 2.0 feet and
1.0 foot. These lengths between the bolter chuck and the roof would be created when the
4-ft bolt has been inserted 0.5 feet, 1.0 foot, 2.0 feet and 3.0 feet into the hole,
respectively. Test results are shown in Table 1.
These buckling loads will be significantly higher than those underground because, in lab
tests, both ends are held firmly in place in two platens, whereas underground only one
end of the bolt is held rigid in the bolter chuck but the other end is only loosely contained
by the hole and resin as the bolt is being inserted, thus creating non-axial loading
conditions and an effective lower buckling strength.

5
Table 1: Buckling strength of rebar as a function of length.
Rebar length (ft)
3.5

3.0

2.0

1.0

#5 buckling load (lbs)

1,582
1,757
1,237
Ave: 1,525
1,816
1,957
2,219
Ave: 1,997
4,131
5,193
6,328
Ave: 5,217
14,501
12,422
14,099
Ave: 13,674

#6 buckling load (lbs)

2,409
2,161
2,756
Ave: 2,442
4,753
4,196
3,559
Ave: 4,169
11,257
9,089
10,137
Ave: 10,161
24,538
23,687
25,578
Ave: 24,601

Figure 5 shows buckling load results using #6 rebar with shells. It is clear why the
installation with Shell A failed. The back pressure exceeded the buckling strength of #6
rebar after about being inserted about 18 inches, considering that the practical buckling
strength of the #6 rebar is less than shown in Figure 5 as discussed earlier. From these
curves, it is evident that the area of concern when the bolt is most likely to buckle is after
the bolt has been inserted into the hole between 15 and 25 inches, under test conditions.
In order to have an adequate factor of safety, considering lower effective buckling
strengths in practice, the peak back pressure should be kept below 3,000 lbs (the lower
the better). This will result in less failed installations and more reliable ones. For different
bolt and grout lengths, actual back pressures will vary and could be investigated only if
the rig was lengthened and a longer cylinder used.

Figure 5: Bolt buckling strength and insertion back pressures

using #6 bolts with shells in a 1.375-in hole.

Cable bolts are difficult to install if full column grouted because of high back pressures,
leading to the current industry standard of using a 4-ft equivalent bond length irrespective
of actual cable bolt length. Cables clearly are weak in buckling, hence the need for a
stiffener tube and the 4-ft bond length. Using the project test rig, methods to reduce back
pressures can be investigated and this could permit longer resin bond lengths if
technically required under certain ground conditions. Figure 6 shows results for 0.6-in
diameter 4-ft long cable bolts with two bird cages in a 1-in diameter hole using 4-ft
equivalent resin bond length. This would approximate the behavior of an 8-ft cable bolt
with a 4-ft stiffener tube.

Figure 6: Insertion loads for 0.6-in diameter cable bolts in a 1-in hole.
Task 3:
The objective of this task was to identify optimum combinations of existing bolts/cables
and resin to reduce insertion back pressures. In particular, resin viscosity and resin ports
were evaluated.
The Effect of Resin Viscosity
Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of a fluid which is being deformed by either shear
stress or extensional stress. In everyday terms (and for fluids only), viscosity is
"thickness". The poise (symbol P) is the unit of dynamic viscosity in the centimetergram-second system of units. It is named after Jean Louis Marie Poiseuille.
1P = 1 gcm1s1

The analogous unit in the International System of Units is the Pascal second (Pas):
1Pas = 1 kgm1s1 = 10P
The poise is often used with the metric prefix centi-. A centipoise is one one-hundredth of
a poise, and one millipascal-second (mPas) in SI units.
1cP = 10-2P = 10-3Pas
Centipoise is properly abbreviated cP, but alternate abbreviations cps and cPs are also
commonly seen. The abbreviation cps is used in this report. Water has a viscosity of
0.0089P at 25C, or 1cP at 20C (Wikipedia, 2009).
It was thought that increasing resin viscosity would result in increasing insertion back
pressure. The effect of resin viscosity in 1-in diameter holes using #5 and #6 rebar is
shown in Figures 7 and 8. Resin cartridges normally have viscosities between about 250k
cps and 450k cps. To extend the viscosity range tested, some expired cartridges were
found with a very high viscosity. Results are of interest because back pressure increases
with increasing viscosity to a certain level and then seems to decline. Because of these
unexpected results, all tests were repeated at least twice. The reduction in back pressure
when using extremely high viscosity resin (900k cps) is not intuitive and is difficult to
explain. The PI believes that it is probably due to the use of relatively coarse limestone
fillers that make flow properties of the resin cartridge mix more complex.

Figure 7: The effect of resin viscosity with #5 rebar in a 1-in hole.

Figure 8: The effect of resin viscosity with #6 rebar in a 1-in hole.

Based on these results, viscosity is not considered a serious back pressure issue when
using bolts without mechanical shells. It has been shown that back pressure only reaches
significantly high levels when the bolt is within about 12 inches of full installation and at
this position the buckling strength of the bolt is much higher than the back pressure.
The Effect of Resin Ports
The importance of resin ports has been qualitatively known but this research was able to
quantify the back pressure reduction. Tests were done using only those plugs shown in
Figure 9 (without any leaves). All plugs had the same main dimensions but had different
numbers of ports as follows:

Minimum = zero ports

Average = six ports currently the most commonly used
Maximum = twelve ports

Figure 9: Plugs used to measure the effects of resin ports.

9
Three tests were conducted on each plug design to ensure repeatability. A set of results
are given in Figure 10. It can be clearly seen how important resin ports are considering
that the plug with no ports failed as the #6 rebar buckled, the highest insertion load with
six ports was about 4,000 lbs, and that with twelve ports was about 2,500 lbs.

Figure 10: Insertion loads generated using different plug designs.

Task 4:
This task used measured data to calibrate a computer model. Frazer and Jones, the largest
manufacturer of shells in the US, will use the model to assist in mechanical shell design
work that limits insertion pressures.
A fluid is defined as a substance that continually deforms (flows) under an applied shear
stress. Viscosity is a measure of the resistance of a fluid which is being deformed by
either a shear stress or an extensional stress.
The two-part polyester resin appears to behave as a pseudo-plastic, non-Newtonian fluid.
Flow simulation is, however, very difficult as back pressure during installation depends
not only on resin fluid properties (viscosity, etc.), but also on the resin cartridge material
which contains resin and catalyst mixes, solid filler, and possibly even clips at either end.
FloXpress (from Solidworks) was used to simulate insertion loads qualitatively with resin
port tests as shown in Figures 11 and 12. The effect of resin grooves is to increase the
equivalent hydraulic diameter of the annulus. These velocity streamline plots, produced
by simplified Newtonian flow analysis (for water), illustrate pressure gradients where
velocity is high, hence pressure is high and vice-versa.

10
Using this simple program, relative maximum resin velocities around the mechanical
shell plug, assuming a volume flow rate of 18 in/s, were modeled as follows:

No ports maximum velocity = 112 in/s

Average six ports maximum velocity = 85 in/s
Maximum twelve ports maximum velocity = 68 in/s

These results look qualitatively similar to actual peak back pressures, although no actual
calibration was undertaken as it was not within the scope of this research project.
Model results were then compared with actual results from the test rig when utilizing the
plug only. The increasing insertion load when using a complete mechanical anchor (plug
and leaves) seems to indicate the presence of fluid or viscous drag.
Fluid drag is, therefore, probably also an important factor especially when the whole
mechanical shell is considered. Fluid drag has three components being pressure drag
(normal force acting against wedge advancement), viscous drag (fluid friction in annular
area), and hydrodynamic drag (resulting from shape of object/anchor within the flow
stream).
Results were encouraging enough that it seems with further simulation work, this type of
analysis can help in preliminary design optimization before prototypes are made for
actual testing in the rig, thus saving money and reducing development time.

Figure 11: Velocity profile with no resin ports.

11

Figure 12: Velocity profile with twelve (maximum) resin ports.

Sophisticated modeling is being performed by Mike Reilly of Frazer and Jones even after
the project ends because of the potential it showed. This involves more fundamental resin
testing, especially determining the dynamic viscosity of resin.
Task 5:
This task, in cooperation with manufacturers, developed and tested improved devices and
combinations to mitigate the issue of insertion pressure being too high. As a direct result
of this research project, two new prototype shells are being developed for the coal mining
industry.
Frazer & Jones (FJ) Design
The new FJ prototype design has not been patented as yet so details cannot be revealed. It
has the potential once completely developed to improve performance, reduce insertion
loads, and maintain or possibly reduce costs. Figure 13 shows results to date but, as the
design is patent pending, a picture is not included. It is interesting to see from the graph
that during insertion, viscous drag (hence load) actually seems to reduce, which should
reduce the percentage of failures during installation. The cost reduction results from a
simplified manufacturing process of splitting leaves in the mold rather than in a separate
step, resulting in less total mass and more units per composite mold. Back pressure will
be reduced as leaves already create less viscous drag (as shown in Figure 13 because
back pressure reduces as insertion length increases) and the plug will have more and
deeper resin passages.

12

Figure 13: Tests with new leaves on an existing plug.

FM Locotos Design
The approach taken with a new design provisionally patented by the FM Locotos Co. is
different and involves adding resin ports to the bolt itself as well as those on the shell
plug and leaves. Results to date show potential but clearly more development is needed.

Figure 14: Two prototypes with resin ports in the bolt itself.

13

Figure 15: First prototype results.

The test rig will be kept operational after project funding ends as it is still needed and
useful. Rotational ability is also going to be added as alluded to in the initial project
proposal.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions:
The research has been useful as it has quantified insertion back pressures associated with
common bolt and resin combinations. Using this data and buckling strengths of bolts at
different lengths, more effective products have been and will continue to be designed.
These should lead to fewer failures (spinners), reduce costs, and improve safety.
Recommendation:
The rig should be kept operational as it is still a useful tool for the industry.

14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The investigator would like to thank Brian Greer, MMRE Lab Manager, for his efforts in
designing and commissioning of the rig and its operation. The investigator also greatly
appreciates the dedicated effort of the following Graduate Assistants: Allen Mueller, Gopi
Bylapudi and Sravana Velivela. Research funds from the ICCI/DCEO and the
cooperation of the Coal Research Center at SIUC are sincerely appreciated. Funding of
the test rig by Frazer and Jones and consumables from Jennmar Corp are also gratefully
acknowledged. Without all their support, this project would not have been feasible.
REFERENCES
Tadolini, S. and Mazzoni, R., 2006, Understanding Roof Bolt Selection and Design Still
Remains Priceless. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Ground
Control, Morgantown, WV, August 1-3, pp. 382389.
Wikipedia, 2009, Viscosity. Website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscosity.

15

DISCLAIMER STATEMENT
This report was prepared by Dr. A.J.S. (Sam) Spearing of Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, with support, in part by grants made possible by the Illinois Department of
Commerce and Economic Opportunity through the Illinois Clean Coal Institute. Neither
Dr. Spearing of Southern Illinois University Carbondale nor any of its subcontractors nor
the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity, Illinois Clean Coal
Institute, nor any person acting on behalf of either:
(A) Makes any warranty of representation, express or implied, with respect to the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or
that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report
may not infringe privately-owned rights; or
(B) Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the
use of, any information, apparatus, method or process disclosed in this report.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring; nor do the views and opinions of authors
expressed herein necessarily state or reflect those of the Illinois Department of
Commerce and Economic Opportunity or the Illinois Clean Coal Institute.
Notice to Journalists and Publishers: If you borrow information from any part of this
report; you must include a statement about State of Illinois support of the project.