Authors: Mikula, P; Gebremedhin, B

Open access courtesy of:

Cite As:
Mikula, P & Gebremedhin, B 2017, 'Empirical selection of ground support for dynamic conditions using charting of support performance at Hamlet mine', in J Wesseloo (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 625-636.

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero

This paper demonstrates assessment of ground support dynamic performance, using charting of easily available mine site data, to provide guidance for support selection for dynamic conditions. The process is transparent and accessible to site engineers, and is described for the Hamlet gold mine in Australia. The process defines the relationships between three factors: the seismic event magnitude, the level of damage caused, and the installed ground support. The process is firmly based on the recorded history of these three factors at the mine. Site geotechnical engineers need a simple yet defensible support selection method for seismic conditions that can be used with confidence. The aim is to enable selection of the appropriate ground support according to the expected or forecast level of seismic hazard. Empirical charting represents one way of bracketing the performance of particular ground support schemes in dynamic conditions. It assesses the past performance of the installed ground support, to provide guidelines for forward selection of support. This approach has limitations and uncertainties which add to the scatter of the data points in the charts. However, the approach has the advantages of including the actual installed bolts, seismic events, site geology and support performance, making the results calibrated to, and applicable to, the mine. It also benefits by not requiring estimation of quantities, including the ground motion (peak particle velocity) at the location of a support element, the site effect, and the energy and load capacities of those elements during dynamic disturbances. The empirical charts are not transferable between mine sites. It is hoped that the description of the methodology in this paper will encourage engineers to explore similar work for their sites, and gain better understanding of the in situ performance of their ground support under dynamic conditions. Keywords: ground support system, dynamic, support selection, support performance, seismicity, empirical, mining

Keywords: ground support system, dynamic, support selection, support performance, seismicity, empirical, mining

ASTM International 2008, Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Rock Anchor Capacities by Pull and Drop Tests, Designation D7401 – 08, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, pp. 7.
Heal, D 2007, ‘Ground support for rockbursting conditions – Theory and Practice’, Section 5, Advanced Ground Support in Underground Mining Course, presented by Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Western Australia, Course No. 0703.
Heal, D, Potvin, Y & Hudyma, M 2006, ‘Evaluating rockburst damage potential in underground mining’, in DP Yale, SC Holtz, C Breeds & U Ozbay (eds), Proceedings of the 41st US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, ref. no. ARMA/USRMS 06 – 1020, American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria, Virginia.
Kaiser, PK, McCreath, DR & Tannant, DD 1995, Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook, Geomechanics Research Centre, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
Liang, G, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Thibodeau, D 2011, ‘Evaluation of Performance of support systems at Vale's Coleman and North Mine’, in A Innacchione, G Esterhuizen & A Tutuncu (eds), Proceedings of the 45th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, ref. no. ARMA 11-289, 26–29 June 2011, San Francisco, California, American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria, Virginia.
McGarr, A 1991, ‘Observations constraining near-source ground motion estimated from locally recorded seismograms,’ Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 96, no B10, pp. 16495–16508.
Mendecki, A 2016, Mine Seismology Reference Book – Seismic Hazard, Institute of Mine Seismology, pp. 88.
Mikula, PA 2009, Dynamic Ground Support Selection Chart for Longshaft Nickel Mine, Eastern Australian Ground Control Group meeting presentation, May 2009.
Mikula, PA 2011, Selection of Dynamic Ground Support – Progress in Empirical Charting, presentation to Mining Initiative for Development of Ground Support Systems and Equipment (MIGS), Workshop WP10 on Usefulness of Seismic Systems for Decisions on Mine Design and Mine Operation.
Mikula, PA & Lee, MF 2007, ‘Empirical performance chart for ground support in seismic conditions at Mt Charlotte’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Western Australia, pp. 325–334.
Scott, C, Penney, AR, Fuller, P 2008, ‘Competing Factors in Support Selection for the West Zone of the Beaconsfiled Gold Mine, Tasmania’, in S Dominy (ed), Proceedings of the Narrow Vein Mining Conference 2008, 14–15 October 2008, Ballarat, Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Carlton South, Victoria, pp. 173–178.
Stacey, TR 2012, ‘A philosophical view of the testing of rock support for rockburst conditions’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, vol. 112, August 2012, pp. 703–710.

© Copyright 2018, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Please direct any queries to or error reports to