25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Behavior of Welded Wire Mesh Used for Skin Control
in Underground Coal Mines
Murali M. Gadde, Senior Engineer, Ground Control
John A. Rusnak, Vice President, Engineering
Jay W. Honse, Director, Engineering
Peabody Energy
St. Louis, Missouri
ABSTRACT
Welded wire mesh is the most commonly used skin control
technique in the United States underground coal mines. Currently,
selection of the mesh is based on trial and error rather than any
rigorous design methodology. Several factors affect a wire mesh’s
performance including the amount of rock material to be supported
and how the load is distributed, wire gauge, aperture size, grade of
steel, weld strength, bolting pattern and sheet size. Although the
best way to choose the mesh is to conduct full-scale physical load
tests, because of the limitations on the number of variables that can
be considered in such tests and the requirement of an elaborate test
set-up, it may not always be possible to use this option. An
alternative would be to use numerical modeling to study the load-
deformation behavior of a wire mesh. In addition to providing a
very detailed stress, strain distribution in the entire mesh, the
advantage of this approach is the ease with which parametric
studies can be conducted. In this paper it is shown that the load-
deformation curves generated by nonlinear numerical models
match closely with laboratory derived ones. Then, based on
parametric studies, design guidelines are developed to choose the
mesh appropriate for different loading conditions. The modeling
studies also bring forth the limitations of the current lab studies.
For example, under some conditions it was noticed that the small
sheet size considered in lab tests would produce higher mesh
deformations than a full-size one used in actual practice.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Among different alternatives available for an underground
opening’s skin control, welded wire mesh or screen is by far the
most popular one used in the United States coal mines. Although
developed originally as a concrete reinforcing member, the mesh
has found widespread usage in underground mines. Such a mesh
typically consists of a series of high strength steel wires laid
parallel to each other and welded together at the crossing points to
form a rectangular or square grid structure. The pressure and heat
imparted to the weld spots by automatic electric resistance welding
machines fuse the steel together to form a homogeneous section
[1]. The high strength and stiffness provided by this prefabricated
structure makes it an attractive proposition for mechanized
installation.
Unlike other roof support materials, which are designed to prevent
rock failure, a wire mesh is primarily used to hold detached rock
142
from falling from an excavation surface. A mesh is typically
designed such that it has enough stiffness to contain the broken
rock without undergoing excess deformations (bagging) and has
adequate strength to hold such material from falling. Even though a
wire mesh is generally not intended to prevent skin failures from
developing, it might help limit progressive surface failures by
providing confinement to the unstable rock and by reducing contact
with mine atmosphere if the rock is prone to weathering related
disintegration.
Its popularity notwithstanding, currently no proper design methods
are available for the selection of a wire mesh appropriate for
different field conditions. Although meager, the available
techniques are inadequate or too cumbersome and expensive for
use in routine designs. Therefore, alternatives are warranted that are
easy to use, inexpensive to implement and yet provide results that
are accurate enough to guide the selection of the mesh. Research in
this paper focuses on developing one such alternative using three-
dimensional numerical modeling methodology.
2.0 WIRE MESH DESIGN VARIABLES
When choosing a welded wire mesh for a particular application, the
following geometric and strength parameters are of importance:
 longitudinal and transverse wire size (gauge)
 longitudinal and transverse wire spacing (aperture)
 sheet width and length
 side and end overhangs
 yield and failure strengths of wires and welds
The geometric parameters given above are illustrated in Figure 1.
When referring to the welded wire reinforcement, the terms
‘longitudinal’ and ‘transverse’ are used in reference to the
manufacturing process [1] and do not have any connection with the
placement of the mesh underground. The longitudinal wires are
placed in the weld machine first followed by the transverse wires,
which are welded at right angles to the former to form the mesh
sheet. Also, it may be noted that the higher the gauge number of a
wire, the lower its diameter and vice versa. For example, a gauge 8
wire is thinner than a gauge 4 wire.
Among the above listed parameters, the length and width of the
sheet are determined by the entry width and bolt spacing used at the
mine. Also, for skin control applications, the sheet ends are
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
Transverse wire Longitudinal wire
Sheet width
Sheet length
LS
OH
TS
OH: Overhang; LS = Longitudinal Spacing; TS = Transverse Spacing
Figure 1. Geometric parameters of a welded wire mesh sheet [1].
generally cut flush to avoid any handling related safety hazards
thus eliminating the need to specify overhang dimensions.
Similarly, the strengths of the wire and weld are generally fixed to
be the same as those used for concrete reinforcement and are
described in standards like the ASTM (A185-94).
The selection of wire gauge and spacing, however, require some
analysis. These two are also somewhat interdependent. The load
capacity and stiffness of a welded mesh depends on the ‘amount’ of
steel it has per unit area, which could be changed by changing the
number of wires or the gauge or both. Thus if the strength or
stiffness are the governing factors, then both the wire gauge and
spacing must be considered together to produce an economical
design. On a few occasions, the wire spacing may also be decided
based on the size of the broken rock pieces. When done this way,
the wires should be placed such that the minimum size rock
fragment does not slip through the mesh openings.
In underground mining application, typically, the transverse and
longitudinal wires have the same diameter and spacing though
occasional use of rectangular or non-uniform spacing is also seen.
8-gauge screen with 4” x 4” spacing is the most commonly used
configuration in the US coal mines. Occasionally 6 or 4-guage
mesh or 3” x 3” aperture is also used. Non-uniform wire spacing is
preferred by a few mainly as a convenience to let roof bolter
operators know the exact location of roof bolts with respect to the
placement of the sheet.
3.0 MODES OF MESH FAILURE
AND THE DESIGN CRITERIA
Functionally, a welded wire mesh can fail in two different modes:
strength and bagging. In the strength failure, the mesh suffers
structural failure and will not be able to handle loads added to it
143
beyond the point of failure. From laboratory studies on welded wire
mesh, three types of strength failures were noticed [2]. These were
weld, Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) and wire failures. When the loads
imposed on the screen produce shear or tensile stresses exceeding
the strength of weld spots, then the weld failure occurs. Similarly,
when the loads exceed the strength of wires in areas affected by the
heat and pressure during welding, or the tensile strength of wires in
the remaining areas, the HAZ and the wire failures occur,
respectively [2].
On contrast, in bagging failure there are no failures in the structural
sense and the integrity of the mesh is not compromised. Due to its
inadequate stiffness, however, the mesh deforms significantly
causing a reduction in the entry cross-sectional area to become a
nuisance or even a safety hazard. When bagging exceeds a certain
limit, the wire mesh is rehabilitated to prevent further sag.
Currently, there are no hard and fast rules on the allowable sag and
is determined based on site-specific conditions like whether the
screen is used in conjunction with any other surface control
measures, whether the rock is further deteriorating to add to the
mesh load, the working height of the seam is high or low etc. For
the lack of a strict limit on the allowable sag, in this study it is
assumed that when the deformation exceeds 12 inch the mesh is
considered to have suffered bagging failure. A systematic data
collection is necessary to arrive at the allowable displacement
pertinent to different mining conditions.
With regard to the strength failures it may be noted that even if a
few weld failures occur, the screen will continue to accept
increased loads until HAZ or wire failure happens, at which point,
there is a significant drop in its load bearing capacity. Although
weld failures alone do not constitute total mesh failure, they do
increase its sag due to the changed geometry and the resulting
redistribution of loads.
From field observations and laboratory studies on welded wire
mesh with bolt spacing and pattern similar to that used in the US
coal mines [2,5-9], it appears the bagging failure occurs on a
majority of occasions before total strength failure. Therefore,
designs considering the bagging failure (i.e. 12 inch deformation)
may be adequate for a majority of the field situations. If bolts are
placed on smaller spacings for any reason, then design may have to
address strength failure. There is no need, though, to make any a
priori assumptions as the design studies, such as the one discussed
in this paper, will indicate which mode of failure is operating for
the conditions analyzed.
4.0 WIRE MESH DESIGN APPROACHES
As pointed out before, the two important parameters that need
careful evaluation for wire mesh design are: the gauge and wire
spacing. The selection of these two factors is primarily dependent
on the expected rock load that the screen should carry without
strength failure or excessive sag. Unfortunately, there are currently
no accurate ways to estimate the rock load on the mesh or for that
matter even to decide under what conditions any skin control
measures are necessary. As far as the authors are aware, the only
equation available to estimate the expected load on a wire mesh is
given by Coates [3] as
Pv  0.727  s (1)
with Pv being the vertical load per unit area,  the specific weight of
the roof rock and s is the spacing between bolts in a row. Equation
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
(1) is based on the pressure-arch theory and has some assumptions
that are not readily verifiable through field observations and hence
its validity can not be assured. Further, at the upper limit, the rock
load estimated by equation (1) is extremely high for the mesh
application. Additionally, equation (1) considers only stress related
failure and can not account for weathering related slaking, which is
a major contributor for skin failures in thinly laminated weak
shales.
Since there are no reliable ways to estimate the probable rock load
on the screen, engineering judgment based on past experience at the
mine or from nearby mines is necessary. Even though not based on
a systematic study, experience shows that roofs with Coal Mine
Roof Rating (CMRR) [4] less than 35 may need some form of skin
control, especially, in openings that need to stay open over long
periods of time. Skin control is also necessary in highly laminated
weak shale roofs that are prone to weathering related disintegration.
In addition to the CMRR value, the Unit 1 rating used to derive the
overall CMRR also provide additional insights on how prone the
immediate roof is to skin failures. A systematic research is required
to estimate the extent of slaking and stress related surface failures.
If the expected load on the mesh is estimated by some means, then
the required wire gauge and spacing could be determined by
different approaches. Literature review [2,3,5-9] shows two
approaches were used in the past: simple analytical models and
physical testing. Analytical models, however, were never used as a
stand-alone methodology and were generally employed to explain
the behavior seen in the tests. The only exception to this was
Coates [3] who used some simple equations to estimate the axial
force in the mesh wire without any laboratory testing to support the
theory.
In the physical testing, a square sheet of mesh is directly loaded
either in lab or field using a steel plate or frame to generate the
load-deformation curves and to obtain the peak load capacity of the
mesh. This methodology is the most reliable way to choose a
proper wire mesh but has the following practical limitations:
 the sheet size used is a shorter version of the actual one
and thus the results may not be directly applicable to the
full-size sheets
 testing requires elaborate laboratory or field set up
 parametric studies are hard to conduct thus limiting the
number of variables that can be studied
 difficult to gain insights on the way loads and
deformations are distributed among individual wires and
require subjective interpretation about critically loaded
areas
 extremely difficult to vary how the rock load is
distributed on the screen
 can not accurately simulate the conditions at the bearing
plates, unless tested in situ
 interpretation of the load-deformation results is
complicated beyond the first peak as several factors can
produce the same result and it is difficult to pinpoint the
actual cause for the observed behavior (discussed more in
section 6.0)
 requires special fabrication of the mesh if a non-standard
design is to be checked
 needs capital investment and the entire process is very
time consuming
144
Owing to these limitations, all the published physical testing works
considered only a few of the factors that can affect a wire mesh’s
behavior and that too within a very limited range of their possible
values.
Since the structural behavior of the screen is a 3D problem, no
analytical solution could be obtained that accurately satisfies all the
boundary and loading conditions seen in the field. As a result,
extremely simplifying assumptions were made in the past to reduce
the problem to a 2D situation to develop analytical solutions. While
physical testing is the most accurate way, as mentioned above, it
has several practical limitations and hence can not be used for
routine designs. For these reasons, Thompson et al [7] proposed to
use numerical modeling for the mesh design as it can incorporate a
large number of factors in the analysis. Although their paper talks
about a methodology to achieve this goal, at the time they
published their paper the approach was not fully developed and
hence no results were provided there [7]. As far as the authors of
this paper are aware, there is no published work in the literature
that tackles the wire mesh design problem using 3D numerical
modeling.
5.0 NUMERICAL MODELING METHODOLOGY
Ideally, a wire mesh design approach (physical or analytical)
should be able to incorporate the following elements of the physical
problem [7]:
a) Variable sheet width and length
b) Variable wire diameter and spacing
c) Wire’s non-linear load-deformation properties
d) Weld’s load-deformation properties
e) Large wire deformations
f) Variable bolt spacing, bolt tensions and bearing plate
sizes
g) Slippage behavior at the bearing plates
h) Variable rock loads and their distribution patterns
Numerical modeling can incorporate all these factors in the analysis
and has some other advantages which include, cheaper analysis
cost, no need of complicated test set up and the ease of conducting
parametric studies over a broad range of input values.
With modeling it is also easy to investigate if non-standard screen
configurations are needed in special applications. For example, if
high rock loads are anticipated, then instead of increasing the wire
diameter over the entire sheet, it may be possible to achieve
satisfactory design by incorporating large diameter wires at a few
strategic locations within the mesh or by changing wire spacing
only in certain areas. Such flexibility is almost impossible with any
other design methods. Since the readily available screens in market
are made to certain standard sizes in popular use, any non-standard
design needs to be custom manufactured for testing in the
laboratory. If the initial design is unsatisfactory, then another mesh
must be built before its adequacy is checked. With modeling,
however, there is no need to fabricate the screen for testing. On
contrary, based on several numerical models, one can specify what
type of mesh may be manufactured to achieve the design goals.
Another factor in favor of modeling is that in recent years it has
become a routine tool for ground control studies and hence is not
totally unfamiliar to the mining community. Further, a majority of
the commercially available computer programs include the
‘structural elements’ needed to build wire mesh models. Thus the
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
mesh design by numerical modeling will not be a significant
deviation from routine ground control modeling and with only a
little more effort it can be included as a part of the regular analysis.

While 3D numerical modeling can account for almost all the

factors that might influence the mesh’s performance, it has some
limitations too. These limitations arise not because of the
capabilities of the modeling but due to the difficulties in obtaining
the necessary input. This applies to the weld behavior and the
slippage at the bearing plates. For the welded wire mesh, the
ASTM standards require only testing for the ultimate weld strength
and do not necessitate monitoring the associated load-deformation
changes that are crucial for numerical modeling. Similarly, the
frictional properties of the rock-wire-plate interfaces have never
been studied and hence no data is available. For these reasons, in
the modeling described in this paper it is assumed that the welds
are of very good quality and their failures do not occur. Likewise,
no slippage is allowed at the rock-wire-plate interfaces and they are
assumed glued.
Another complication in simulating the field behavior of the mesh
is related to determining the number of wires held tight by bearing
plates. Due to several operational practices, the actual number of
wires that pass between bearing plates and roof rock can vary
anywhere from the theoretical maximum to just one. To account for
this variation, in the numerical models the fixity conditions at the
bearing plates were assumed to be either all-nodes or one-node. In
the all-nodes condition, every wire passing below the bearing plate
was assumed fixed. On contrast, the one-node condition
corresponds to the other extreme where the screen is held in place
by a single point of the mesh-plate contact. This later fixity
condition also loosely represents total slippage of the wire mesh
until it gets stuck against the bolt and can not slip any further.
These two extreme model conditions will bracket the true solution
corresponding to some finite number of wires held tight by the
plates.
In the following sections, wire mesh modeling results obtained
using FLAC3D [10] program are presented. FLAC3D is a finite
difference based explicit software code that can easily
accommodate nonlinear material and geometric effects. In the
models run for this research, elastic-perfectly plastic material
behavior on large strain mode was used to get the load capacity and
stiffness of the mesh. The general behavior of the wires in a mesh
is simulated by using beam type elements. To create the desired
screen geometry, the built-in programming code, FISH [10] was
used along with FLAC3D’s ‘pile’ elements. The geometry of a
typical mesh used in the modeling is shown in Figure 2. The
following steel properties were used in all the models: Young’s
modulus = 29e6 psi; Poisson’s ratio = 0.3; Yield strength = 65ksi;
Strain at the point of failure = 10%. The wire’s cross-sectional area,
section modulus and moment of inertia were estimated
corresponding to the gauge used in the model.
6.0 VERIFICATION OF THE MODELING
APPROACH
Since numerical modeling has never been used for simulating the
behavior of a welded wire mesh, it is important to check its validity
before proceeding further. This has been achieved by comparing
the modeling results with laboratory data from two different
sources corresponding to two different situations. One set of data
was from Dolinar [9] who tested a 5ft x 5ft, 8-guage mesh with
4” x 4” apertures attached to bearing plates using some special
Figure 2. The geometry of a full-size wire mesh used in the
modeling.
fasteners. The fasteners are point anchoring elements that attach the
mesh to bearing plates as shown in Figure 3. Dolinar tested
different combinations of fasteners with tests done using one, two
or three sets of them [9]. This data is extremely useful because with
fasteners the exact number of wires restrained is known, and also
the slippage at the plates is very small similar to the fixed boundary
conditions used in the numerical models. Comparison of the model
and actual test results are shown in Figure 4 for two different
fastener configurations tested by Dolinar [9].
Wire mesh
Bearing
Plate
Fastener
Figure 3. A double fastener combination used in Dolinar’s tests
[9].
In Figure 4 the modeling was conducted only up to the point where
there was a monotonic increase in the load with deformation. This
was done for two reasons. One, at that point the mesh has suffered
bagging failure as defined in this paper. The second is related to the
complexity of the failure mechanism beyond the first smooth curve.
The load drops exhibited in the lab tests could be due to wire slip at
the plates, the failure of welds, wires or both. It is extremely
difficult to monitor exactly which load drop corresponds to which
factor. In any case, because the screen has functionally failed
beyond the first monotonically increasing part, it is inconsequential
for the design. Further, since the modeling in this paper can only
account for the wire failure and not weld failures or wire slip, even
if they were monitored in the lab tests, a complete simulation
would not have been possible.
The second set of data was taken from tests conducted by Tannant
[6] using bearing plates as opposed to the fasteners to hold the
mesh in place. In this case, tests were conducted on a 9-, 6- and 4-
gauge mesh with bolts spaced at 4ft x 4ft on square or diamond
patterns [6]. But for comparison sake only gauges 9 and 6 were
simulated with square pattern as it is the most commonly used
pattern in the US coal mines. The results are shown in Figure 5.

145
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
(a) (a)
1600
20

1400

1200 16

1000
Load, lb

Tested 12
800

Load, KN
Modeling
Model
600 Tested
8
400

200
4
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deformation, in
0
(b) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

3500
Deformation, mm

3000 (b)
15
2500

2000
Load, lb

Tested 12
Model
1500

9
Load, KN
1000
Model
Tested
500
6

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Deformation, in 3

Figure 4. Comparison of numerical and Dolinar’s lab test data [9]

for (a) one fastener and (b) two fastener configuration. 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Again, in this case also the simulation was restricted to Deformation, mm
monotonically increasing part and before bagging failure occurred.
From Figure 5, it may be noticed that the match is close for the 9- Figure 5. Comparison of the modeling and the tested data for (a) 6-
gauge mesh than for the 6-gauge one. In the latter case, the and (b) 9-gauge mesh tested by Tannant [6].
modeling predicted stiffness is higher than the actual one. The
probable reason for this discrepancy is the difference in the was also pointed out that a detailed load-deformation distribution in
boundary conditions at the bearing plates. In the numerical models, individual wires is difficult to obtain in such testing. In this section
all the wires passing under the bearing plates were assumed to be the influence of the sheet size is investigated along with the details
held tight without any slippage, which may not be the case in the of the associated load distributions using the modeling
lab test. Surface irregularities of the plate and test frame, the way methodology.
plates are installed with respect to the mesh and several other
factors determine the exact number of wires restrained by a plate in For the full-size wire sheet simulation, the bolting pattern shown in
the lab. By changing the number of points that are fixed below the Figure 6 was used. The spacing between rows of bolts was 4.5 ft. A
bearing plates in the numerical models, it is possible to get a close rock load height of 6 inch was used for all the models described in
match with the tested data. This exercise was not attempted since this section.
there was no unique combination of boundary conditions that
produced a match and also since the exact number of wires
restrained in the lab was not known.

Despite some mismatch, results in Figure 4 and Figure 5 show that

the modeling as done here provided an overall satisfactory match
with lab data within the range of deformations that are important
for practical designs thus validating the adopted procedure.
2.5’ 4’ 5’ 4’ 2.5’
7.0 EFFECT OF SHEET SIZE
18’
It was mentioned in Section 4.0 that physical testing of wire mesh Figure 6. Bolting pattern used in modeling the full-size sheet.
generally does not consider the full-size sheets used in practice or
does not load the mesh over its full length as in reality. Further, it

146
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
In a typical physical test, a small screen is bolted on 4ft x 4ft square
pattern and is pulled using a 12 inch plate to failure. As a result of
the smaller size, the boundary conditions along two sides of the
sheet are not correctly implemented. This has two consequences.
First, due to the lack of restraint that would otherwise be available
in a full-size sheet, the measured deformations in lab tests would be
higher. Second, when the load carrying wires start to yield, they
shed a part of their load to adjacent wires that are not fully loaded
and this load shedding process can be different in a smaller sheet as
compared to a full-size one. These limitations are demonstrated by
the modeling results in Figure 7 and Figure 8. The axial force
distribution is shown using pipe diagrams and the displacements
are plotted by vectors. A feel for the magnitudes of the force or
displacement could be gained by comparing the relative size of the
pipes or vectors. To aid in the visualization, the values of maximum
central displacement and wire axial force are also given in the
figures. Comparison of results in Figure 7(a) and Figure 7(b) shows
that the measured displacements in lab tests are higher. The load
distribution patterns in the immediate neighborhood of rock load,
however, are similar. The modeling also shows that a majority of
rock load is carried by the wires passing under the bearing plates
with very little axial load seen in the rest of the wires.
(a)
Max. displacement = 8.04 in
Max. axial force = 988.5 lb
(b) 3 put in both pans, the tilt reduces and becomes zero when the
Max. displacement = 7.11 in
2 Max. axial force = 1064 lb
1 conditions, but also due to the smaller spacing between bolts in the
Figure 7. Load-displacement distributions in (a) small- and (b)
full-size sheet for identical rock loads.
The variation of the axial load in a few critically loaded wires was
monitored as the solution was progressing as shown in Figure 8.
The wires for which the loads were monitored are indicated in
Figure 7(b). Once the load in wire 1 reached its yield value, it
started shedding load to wires 2 and 3 as those two wires passed
147
1
2
3
Figure 8. Axial force variation at select wires shown in Figure 7(b)
in the full-size sheet as a function of the model solution step.
under the bearing plate at those locations. Before the peak was
reached in wire 1, the load in wires 2 and 3 was negligible and they
started picking up load as wire 1 started yielding. Subsequently as
additional wires yielded and shed more load, the load in wires 1,2
and 3 fell a little before stabilizing at their final equilibrium values
shown in Figure 8. A vertical dotted line is added to Figure 8 to
clearly show the load-shed mechanism. This shedding can not
happen in a small-size sheet as wires 2 and 3 do not exist.
Another problem with using small-size sheet in physical testing is
related to the distribution of rock load on the wire mesh. If four
roof bolts are used across an entry, then rock load can act in the
middle, left or right portions of the screen. Or the load can act on
two regions at a time or in the worst case, on all three. The
difference in the wire force and deformations due to these different
load distributions is shown in Figure 7(b) and Figure 9.
Due to symmetry considerations, results are shown only for left
side loading and left plus central loading in Figure 9. Comparison
of maximum displacements in Figure 7 with Figure 9 shows the
extent of over-estimation in small sheet testing. The displacements
in a full-size sheet with multiple loading decrease due to the
‘pulling’ effect of one load over another. This may be compared to
a weighing balance where if a load is placed only in one pan, the
balance tilts completely on that side. On the other hand, if weight is
weights in both pans are exactly the same. Similar mechanism
operates in a full-size wire mesh when more than one region is
loaded. Due to the deformability of the wires, however, in this case
the displacement can never be zero even if identical rock loads act
on different regions.
The difference in the displacements shown in Figure 7 and Figure
9(a) is not only because of the differences in the boundary
loaded region in Figure 9(a). This shows the importance of the span
on mesh deformations. The smaller the bolt spacing, the higher the
mesh stiffness and vice versa. Therefore, if no other option exists,
higher mesh stiffness could also be achieved by reducing the bolt
spacing.
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
(a)
Max. displacement =6.287 in
Max. axial force = 1041 lb
(b)
Max. displacement =6.912 in
Max. axial force = 1035 lb
(c)
Max. displacement =6.763 in
Max. axial force = 1143 lb
Figure 9. Load-deformation changes due to the difference in the
loading locations, (a) left only, (b) left and central and (c) all three.
8.0 PARAMETRIC STUDIES
Having shown the validity and the kind of details that can be
obtained with numerical modeling, the next step is to extend the
analysis and develop design guidelines for the welded wire mesh
selection. For this purpose parametric studies were conducted by
varying a few common input design variables. The bolting pattern
shown in Figure 6 with 4.5ft row spacing was used to estimate the
expected rock load on the mesh and the sheet size. It was assumed
that the bearing plate’s influence extends to 6” on either side of the
bolt center and the load on the screen is estimated using the total
remaining area of rock between adjacent bolts. Additionally, for all
the parametric studies the most commonly used aperture size 4” x
4” is taken. The factors varied were the wire gauge, the height of
rock load, the distribution of rock load and the number of wires
fixed under the bearing plates.
As mentioned in section 7.0, the rock load can act in the left,
middle or right regions of the mesh or any other combinations of
148
the three. But the worst possible loading occurs when the broken
rock falls on the entire sheet. Therefore, the modeling results are
presented only for this condition. Similarly, it was pointed out in
section 5.0 that in numerical models the fixity conditions at the
bearing plates were either all-nodes or one-node. Since the actual
number of wires passing below a bearing plate in the field lies
somewhere in between the simulated extremes, the true
displacements of the mesh will probably be closer to an average of
these two limiting conditions. These results are shown in Figure 10
and labeled as average-fixity conditions. Additionally, in this figure
results are also presented separately for the two bracketing fixity
conditions. Three different unstable rock heights, 3”, 6” and 12”
were considered in the modeling and the results were given
separately for each of them. For convenience, a line is added in
Figure 10 at twelve inch displacement to indicate the limit of
bagging failure. Further, if there is a significant deviation from a
near-straight line trend in displacements with a change in the wire
gauge, it means for those conditions the screen has suffered
strength failure at a few points but could still take the load. If no
results are shown for any condition, it indicates that several wires
failed in the mesh and the model could not reach its equilibrium
state.
Comparison of the results in Figure 10 shows the importance of the
boundary conditions at the bearing plates. These results show that
the performance of a mesh could be improved by a good quality
control during installation. With everything else being the same, a
higher mesh stiffness and load capacity could be obtained by
ensuring that the maximum possible number of wires are held tight
by the plates. These results also indicate that the mesh stiffness and
strength could also be improved by increasing the size of the
bearing plate as a larger plate will have more wires passing under it
than a smaller one.
In choosing which fixity condition to use for the wire mesh
selection, the following guidelines are helpful:
 For fully grouted resin bolts with very little installed bolt
tension, one-node fixity is perhaps appropriate
 For mechanical or combination bolts, if the initial tension
is within the range that is normally used, the average
fixity conditions are applicable
 If the installed tension is very high and the roof
conditions do not allow tension bleed off, then all-node
fixity may be used
 With mechanical and combination bolts, if experience at
the mine shows possible tension bleed-off with time, then
the one-node fixity conditions must be used
 Finally, installing a trial screen at the mine will provide a
better idea of the fixity conditions pertinent to that mine.
By noticing the number of wires passing under the
bearing plates with regular quality of installation
expected at the mine, the correct number of wires to be
fixed in the numerical models could be determined.
Based on the results in Figure 10, it appears it is not efficient and
perhaps not economical to use welded wire mesh to handle rock
loads greater than 1ft thick. If the roof instability extends beyond
this height then probably the roof bolting pattern itself may need to
be evaluated for its effectiveness. Figure 10 also shows the wire
gauge should be 6 or less to support higher loads. Of course, the
stiffness and capacity of the mesh could also be improved by
changing the wire spacing. In any case, if the screen is planned for
large rock loads, then some non-standard mesh designs may be
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
(a) considered and it is better to conduct custom numerical modeling
studies to arrive at the best design.
Wire gauge
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
0
For the most common mining conditions, the modeling results in
Figure 10 indicate that a 4” x 4” wire mesh with 6- to 8-gauge
5 wires is sufficient. This is consistent with what is seen in the
practice. While it is preferable to conduct numerical modeling
10 using the site specific conditions, the results given in this section
may be used as an initial guide. Based on the subsequent
Max. displacement, in

15 experience at the mine, it may be necessary to change the

3" maximum displacement limit for the bagging failure or the fixity
20 6"
condition used in the initial selection to choose a better wire mesh.
12"
25
9.0 WELDED WIRE MESH DESIGN
30 METHODOLOGY
35
Based on the studies described in the preceding sections, the
40 following step-by-step approach is suggested for the selection of a
welded wire mesh.

(b) 1. Evaluate the need for a skin control measure. This could
be done based on past experience at the mine or nearby
Wire gauge
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
mines. As an initial guide if the roof CMRR value is
0 below 35, consideration may be given for adopting some
surface control measure, especially, for openings that
5 require long-term stability. Similarly, estimate the
probable height of unstable roof that may be considered
10 as a skin failure. Again, no fixed rules are available at
this juncture and educated guesses based on experience
Max. displacement, in

15 and engineering judgment are the only option.

3" 2. From the roof bolting pattern to be used with the mesh,
20 6" get the distance between adjacent bolts in a row and
12"
between rows of bolts.
25
3. Based on the estimate of the volume of rock to be
supported from steps 1 and 2, calculate the expected
30
maximum rock load on the mesh.
35
4. Determine the wire mesh sheet size using the entry width
and spacing between two rows of bolts (a row being a
40 line of bolts installed across the entry).
5. If the minimum broken rock size to be contained is
known, then use it to determine the aperture of the mesh.
(c) 6. From the bolt types and past experience at the mine
Wire gauge choose pertinent fixity conditions at the bearing plates.
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 7. If the aperture is 4” x 4” and the bolting pattern is close
0
to that in Figure 6, use the unstable rock load height from
5
step 1 to get the required wire gauge from the results in
Figure 10.
10
8. The gauge may be so chosen that the maximum sag does
not exceed 12 inches (or a limit derived from experience
at the mine) or the wires do not fail.
Max. displacement, in

15

3"
9. If multiple wire gauges satisfy the design criteria, then
20 6" choose the one that is most economical and convenient to
12"
use.
25 10. If site conditions are significantly different from those
used for Figure 10, then build a numerical model
30
representing all the pertinent site-specific parameters to
choose the wire spacing and gauge that satisfies the
35
design criteria.
40
11. If non-uniform wire spacing, variable gauges or non-
standard yield strengths are considered, again construct a
Figure 10. Maximum displacement in the wire mesh as a function numerical model incorporating those details to check if
of wire gauge for different rock load heights with (a) all-node (b) the design criteria are satisfied or make changes until a
one-node and (c) average-fixity at the bearing plates. satisfactory design is achieved.

149
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
10.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Welded wire mesh is the most commonly used skin control
measure in the US underground coal mines. Despite it popularity,
rigorous design methods for a proper selection of the mesh are
lacking. The industry practice so far has been to pick a mesh based
on past experience or what the engineer ‘thinks’ will work from a
small pool of standard designs supplied by vendors. Even though
scanty, literature review showed that most of the available
information on the mechanical behavior of the welded mesh was
derived from physical testing in laboratory or in field. As pointed
out in this paper, due to several practical constraints, the past
testing was not comprehensive or totally informative. Similarly,
because of the complicated interactions of several factors, efforts to
develop a closed-form solution or a ‘formula’ to guide wire mesh
design were also inadequate. Therefore, an alternative approach is
warranted which is easy to use, economical and yet can derive the
load-deformation characteristics of the mesh with an acceptable
accuracy. Research in this paper showed 3D numerical modeling
can fulfill these requirements.
During the course of this study it was found that currently there are
no available methods to estimate the extent of unstable skin rock or
even to decide under what conditions some form of surface
coverage is necessary. As an initial guide, it is proposed to use
CMRR as the baseline parameter and consideration may be given to
apply some skin control if its value is below 35. The most effective
selection of the mesh could be achieved by generating CMRR
contours for the entire mine, section or entries under consideration.
By looking at these contour maps a qualitative ‘feel’ could be
developed about the probable mesh load heights in different parts
of the mine. Based on this information, different mesh
specifications appropriate for the different loading conditions could
be chosen.
Two different criteria, strength and bagging failure, were identified
to guide wire mesh selection. While the strength failure is a clearly
identifiable phenomenon, the bagging failure is dependent on
several site-specific conditions. For the lack of any guideline, it is
proposed to use 12 inch as the limiting deformation to classify the
failure as bagging. This number may need to be modified based on
a systematic study from underground observations.
The non-linear 3D modeling methodology adopted in this paper
showed a very good match with the data derived from some lab
tests. The match, however, was limited to the monotonically
increasing part of the load-deformation curves. From a design point
of view, this limitation of modeling is not of serious consequence
as the mesh has suffered bagging failure by then and was also at the
verge of strength failure. Past laboratory studies showed that in the
post smooth-curve region, several wires and welds failed causing
the observed saw-tooth behavior. From practical standpoint, such
failures will demand rehabilitation of the mesh even if the peak
screen capacity exists in the post-smooth region. Therefore, the
simulation of the complete load-deformation curve is only of
academic interest. As noted before, if the weld stress-strain curves
and plate-wire-rock interface properties are known, modeling can
simulate the mesh behavior over full range of displacements.
For the square bolting pattern used in the US coal mines, modeling
showed that the mesh loads were totally carried by the wires
passing below the bearing plates. In addition to the wire gauge and
spacing, distance between the bolts and the number of wire-plate
contacts determine the mesh capacity and stiffness. The modeling
also highlighted the limitations of using small screens for physical
150
testing. Specifically, it was found that results from such tests form
the upper-bound on displacements for the same loads acting on a
full-size sheet used in practice.
Based on parametric studies, design guidelines were developed for
the mesh selection for the most common mining and other input
variables. These studies confirm the adequacy of the popular 8-
gauge, 4” x 4” aperture wire mesh for the regular ground
conditions. It was also found that the limiting rock load for the
screen’s application may be around 1ft high. If it is necessary to
support more skin rock than this, the choice of the final gauge and
aperture size may be made based on an economic analysis. The cost
of using a sheet with a lower gauge (higher diameter) and lower
wire spacing over the entire mine or section must be compared with
the costs that would be incurred if a lighter mesh is used in general,
and rehabilitation is done in the areas where it might fail
functionally. Alternatively, non-standard screens may be designed
to handle the higher loads using the modeling methodology.
While numerical modeling has several desirable features, it has
some limitations too. As mentioned before, at this stage, modeling
can not accurately incorporate two factors, weld failure and
slippage at the bolts, in the analysis. The impact of ignoring these
two could be negligible to considerable depending on whether the
quality of welding is good or bad and whether the bolt plates are
installed properly or not. Despite this, since the limitations of the
modeling are no worse than the laboratory testing and considering
the other significant benefits described in this paper, numerical
modeling may be used as a routine design tool for the welded wire
mesh selection.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
The authors would like to thank Dennis Dolinar of the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for sharing
some of his tested data and for the many stimulating discussions on
the engineering behavior of the welded wire mesh.
Reference to some products in the paper does not constitute
endorsement of the product by Peabody Energy or its affiliates.
REFERENCES
1. Manual of Standard Practice –Structural Welded Reinforcement
(WWR-500). Wire Reinforcement Institute, Inc., Hartford, CT,
1999, 35p.
2. Villaescusa, E. Laboratory testing of weld mesh for rock support.
Paper in the Proceedings of International Symposium on Rock
Reinforcement Practice in Mining’, Kalgoorlie, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1999, pp. 155-159.
3. Coates, D. F. Rock Mechanics Principles. Energy Mine
Resources Canada, Monograph 874, 1981, 410 p.
4. Molinda, G., and Mark, C. The coal mine roof rating (CMRR)-A
practical rock mass classification for coal mines. USBM IC 9387,
1994, 83 p.
5. Pakalnis, V., and Ames, D. Load tests on mine screening.
Ontario Ministry of Labour Report, 1983, 16 p.
6. Tannant, D. D. Load capacity and stiffness of welded-wire mesh.
Paper in the Proceedings of 48th Canadian Geotechnical
conference, CIMM, Vancouver, 1995, pp. 729-736.
 25th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
7. Thompson, A. G., Windsor, C. R., and Cadby, G. W.
Performance assessment of mesh for ground control applications.
Paper in the Proceedings of International Symposium on Rock
Reinforcement Practice in Mining, Kalgoorlie, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1999, pp. 119-130.

8. Tannant, D. D. Load capacity and stiffness of welded wire, chain

link, and expanded metal mesh. Chapter 46 in Surface support in
mining. Australian Center for Geomechanics, 2004, pp. 387-390.

9. Dolinar, D. Load-Displacement Tests on Welded Wire Screen

Attached with HILTI Fasteners, 2006 (personal communication).

10. Itasca: Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3 Dimensions.

Version 3.0, User’s guide, Minneapolis, USA, 2005.

151