Duan, W, Wesseloo, J & Potvin, Y 2015, 'Evaluation of the adjusted rockburst damage potential method for dynamic ground support selection in extreme rockburst conditions', in Y Potvin (ed.), Design Methods 2015: Proceedings of the International Seminar on Design Methods in Underground Mining
, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 399-418, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1511_24_Duan
As modern underground mining progresses deeper, the elevated stress condition often translates to a greater seismic and rockburst hazard. The sudden and often violent failure of rock associated with rockbursts poses a significant threat to the safety and profitability of the operation. There is a wide range of practices and strategies for managing seismic and rockburst risks which are currently accepted and implemented in the mining industry. The rockburst damage risk, however, is currently managed, amongst other techniques, with the implementation of dynamically resistant support systems.
The current engineering design of dynamic support systems for rockburst prone excavation is plagued with uncertainties and unknowns (Potvin & Wesseloo 2013b). Because of the complex nature of rockburst damage, an empirical approach of dynamic support selection is often preferred over a theoretical approach. The adjusted rockburst damage potential (RDP) method, re‐interpreted by Duan (2015) and based on the original RDP developed by Heal et al. (2006) and Heal (2010), is an empirical approach of dynamic support selection that utilises five rockburst damage contributing factors.
In this paper, the adjusted empirical method was applied to two historic rockburst cases to assess its performance under extreme rockburst conditions. The study’s results, key findings and recommendations are presented in this paper.
Counter, DB 2012, Kidd Creek Mine geotechnical mine design package and 2011 annual mine stability Review, Xstrata Copper Canada, Timmins, ON internal report.
Duan, W 2015, ‘An assessment of the significance of factors affecting the occurrence of rockburst damage’, Master’s thesis, The University of Western Australia.
Duan, W, Wesseloo, J & Potvin, Y 2015, An assessment of the significance of factors affecting rockburst damage severity, The University of Western Australia, Perth.
Heal, DP 2010, ‘Observations and analysis of incidences of rockburst damages in underground mines’, PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia.
Heal, DP, Potvin, Y & Hudyma, MR 2006, ‘Evaluating rockburst damage potential in underground mining’, in DP Yale (ed.), Proceedings of the 41st US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), American Rock Mechanics Association, Minneapolis.
Hudyma, M & Potvin, Y 2010, ‘An engineering approach to seismic risk management in hardrock mines’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 43, pp. 891-906.
Kaiser, PK, McCreath, DR & Tannant, DD 1996, Canadian rockburst support handbook, Geomechanics Research Centre, Sudbury.
Kaiser, PK, Tannant, DD, McCreath, DR & Jesenak, P 1992, ‘Rockburst damage assessment procedure’, in PK Kaiser & D McCreath (eds), Rock support in mining and underground construction, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Morissette, P, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Thibodeau, D 2014, ‘Investigating the dynamic-load demand on support systems using passive monitoring data’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 67, pp. 115-126.
Potvin, Y & Wesseloo, J 2013a, ‘Improving seismic risk management in hardrock mines’, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, pp. 371-386.
Potvin, Y & Wesseloo, J 2013b, ‘Towards an understanding of dynamic demand on ground support’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 113, pp. 913-922.
Potvin, Y, Wesseloo, J & Heal, D 2010, ‘An interpretation of ground support capacity submitted to dynamic loading’, Mining Technology, vol. 119, pp. 233-245.