ArticlePloS one2026
Experimental study on the inhibitory effect of bolting position on crack propagation in cavity-containing sandstone.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study systematically investigated the effects of seven bolt anchorage positions on the mechanical behavior and failure of single-hole sandstone specimens using uniaxial compression tests and PFC2D simulations, with emphasis on crack-propagation suppression. The results showed that: (1) Anchorage position strongly influenced the stress-strain response, mechanical parameters, crack initiation, and final failure morphology. When the bolt passed through the cavity center (1#) or was tangent to the cavity crown (2#), both strength and stiffness decreased, the pre-peak response showed multiple stress drops, and post-peak failure remained brittle. By contrast, anchoring 12-18 mm from the cavity center (3#-4#) increased strength and E, and the post-peak response shifted from brittle to more ductile (plastic-like) behavior. Position 3# yielded the best overall performance, with peak strength, E, secant modulus, and crack initiation stress increasing by 42.72%, 44.61%, 71.93%, and 44.39%, respectively. (2) Failure patterns depended on bolt location: near-cavity anchoring promoted stress concentration and a V-shaped crown collapse; intermediate anchoring (3#-5#) produced a distinct partitioned failure between upper and lower regions; more distant anchoring (6#-7#) increased damage severity and led to more complex fracture morphologies. (3) Simulations indicated that position 3# achieved the highest energy storage capacity (Kmax = 0.91) and the greatest resistance to instability, whereas position 2# showed the lowest capacity (Kmin= 0.29) and the highest failure susceptibility. Positions 4#-5# formed a favorable range in which higher bolt axial forces generated a localized displacement field that inhibited crack growth and confined the damage zone. These findings show that selecting an appropriate anchorage position can markedly improve stiffness, load capacity, and crack resistance of cavity-containing sandstone, providing quantitative guidance for bolt layout in engineering practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.