DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2465_0.03
Cite As:
Yadav, P 2024, 'Geomechanical evolution of the Nickel Rim South Mine ', in P Andrieux & D Cumming-Potvin (eds),
Deep Mining 2024: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 61-84,
https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2465_0.03
Abstract:
Glencore’s Nickel Rim South Mine, located in the Sudbury Basin, Ontario, Canada, has been operating at intermediate depths (1,105–1,720 m below surface) since 2007. The mine is ramping down production activities and has transitioned to care and maintenance in July 2024. The mine delivered an unprecedented production ramp-up and has consistently achieved or exceeded the planned life of mine production target while maintaining an excellent safety record. The mine’s achievements are a testament to the mining culture, operational excellence, engineering design, and ground control program.
The mine was initially designed with a primary ground support system comprising fibre-reinforced shotcrete and resin rebar, unique to the Sudbury Basin. The project assumption for pre-mining development (first stopes were in 2009) was that the shotcrete and resin rebar support would be sufficient to withstand the potential mining-induced stresses and the associated deformations. However, as mining progressed, it became evident very early in the mining sequence (by 2011) that the original support design basis underestimated the dynamic loading and rockburst risk, which resulted in a fundamental shift in the mine’s approach toward dynamic ground support design. Over the life of the mine, a series of upgrades to the ground support systems were made, including ‘prehabbing’ several kilometres of excavations. The ground support performance is presented with select case studies, highlighting key considerations and limitations of current dynamic ground support design methods.
At the time of Nickel Rim South Mine’s inception, there was limited experience with bulk open stope mining in footwall (copper) style deposits within the Sudbury Basin, which was recognised during the initial mine design, resulting in a conservative extraction strategy to manage dilution and associated stope instabilities. As additional data was collected and more experience was gained, the rock mass behaviour of the relatively weak copper veins contrasting with the highly competent host rock became more evident. Underground observations, seismic data analysis, and numerical modelling enabled the mine to adapt to the improved understanding of the rock mass behaviour and implement significant strategic changes to the original mine design. Key strategic changes are presented, with discussions on the geomechanical back analyses and the realised operational flexibility.
This paper presents key strategic and tactical controls utilised to manage seismic hazards and rockburst risks at Nickel Rim South Mine and compares the final implementation to the initial geomechanical assessment of these controls. Generally, there is a significant gap in the knowledge of rock mass behaviour in the infancy of a mine, which is often bridged with assumptions and empirical rules. An important consideration is that most empirical design approaches and guidelines are based on shallow mines and may not necessarily translate to mines at greater depths. The paper also promotes discussions on what this might mean for future deep mining operations as well as emphasises the necessity of a robust and effective ground control program that not only considers and manages ongoing operational geomechanical risks but also systematically validates and challenges the original underlying design assumptions based on observed and measured rock mass behaviour to inform and support the optimisation of the mine design.
Keywords: deep and high-stress mining, dynamic ground support, seismic hazard, rockburst risk
References:
Aki, K & Richards, PG 1980, Quantitative Seismology: Theory and Methods, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.
Cai, M 2024, ‘Rockburst risk control and mitigation in deep mining’, Deep Resources Engineering, vol. 1, issue 2,
Cichowicz, A, Milev, A & Durrheim, R 2000, ‘Rock mass behaviour under seismic loading in a deep mine environment: implications for stope support’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 121–128.
Dunn, MJ 2017, ‘Dynamic ground support — design methodologies and uncertainties’, in J Wesseloo (ed.), Deep Mining 2017: Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 637–650,
Durrheim, R, Spottiswoode, S, Roberts, M & Brink, AvZ 2005, ‘Comparative seismology of the Witwatersrand Basin and Bushveld Complex and emerging technologies to manage the risk of rockbursting’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 105, no. 6, pp. 409–416.
Hadjigeorgiou, J & Potvin, Y 2022, ‘Benchmarking face support practice in seismically active mines’, Mining Technology, vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 159–168,
Hall, A, Simser, B & Cai, M 2024, ‘Preconditioning blasting for a deep blind sink shaft excavation’, in P Andrieux & D Cumming-Potvin (eds.), Deep Mining 2024: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1221–1236.
Heal, D 2010, Observations and Analysis of Incidences of Rockburst Damage in Underground Mines, PhD thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Jalbout, A & Simser, B 2014, ‘Rock mechanics tools for mining in high stress ground conditions at Nickel Rim South Mine’, in M Hudyma & Y Potvin (eds), Deep Mining 2014: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 189–208,
Kaiser, PK & Cai, M 2013, ‘Critical review of design principles for rock support in burst-prone ground – time to rethink!’, in Y Potvin & B Brady (eds), Ground Support 2013: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 3–37,
Kaiser, PK & Moss, A 2022, ‘Deformation-based support design for highly stressed ground with a focus on rockburst damage mitigation’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 50–66,
10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.05.007
Kalenchuk, KS 2022, ‘2019 Canadian Geotechnical Colloquium: Mitigating a fatal flaw in modern geomechanics: understanding uncertainty, applying model calibration, and defying the hubris in numerical modelling’, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 315–329,
Kleyn, L & Knox, G 2019, Dynamic Test Report: VB-203924 at 47 kJ, 5.4 m/s (20190510-VB-203924), New Concept Mining, Johannesburg.
Kleyn, L & Knox, G 2020, The Evolution of the PAR1 Resin Bolt (P1R-RPP0001 Rev. 00), New Concept Mining, Johannesburg.
Knox, G 2023, ‘Laboratory-based drop testing of rock reinforcement’, in J Wesseloo (ed.), Ground Support 2023: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ground Support in Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 23–38,
Morissette, P & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2019, ‘Ground support design for dynamic loading conditions: A quantitative data-driven approach based on rockburst case studies’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 909–919,
Ortlepp, WD, Murphy, S & Van Aswegen, G 2004, ‘The mechanism of a rockburst - an informative case study’, Proceedings of the 2nd International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, pp. 23–40
Potvin, Y & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2020, Ground Support for Underground Mines, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth.
Potvin, Y & Wesseloo, J 2013, ‘Towards an understanding of dynamic demand on ground support’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 113, no. 12, pp. 913–922.
Roy, JM, Eberhardt, E, Bewick, RP & Campbell, R 2023, ‘Application of data analysis techniques to identify rockburst mechanisms, triggers, and contributing factors in cave mining’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 2967–3002,
Sasseville, G, Grenon, M & Morissette, P 2019, ‘Assessing the contribution of seismicity to the demand on ground support elements at LaRonde mine’, in J Hadjigeorgiou & M Hudyma (eds), Ground Support 2019: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 155–168,
Sasseville, G, Turcotte, P & Falmagne, V 2022, ‘Control measures to manage seismic risk at the LaRonde mine, a deep and seismically active operation’, Proceedings of the 56th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria,
Simser, BP 2007, ‘The weakest link - ground support observations at some Canadian shield hard rock mines’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Deep Mining 2007: Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 335–348,
Simser, B 2016, ‘Design of rockburst support systems for deep hard rock mines’, Excavation, Support and Monitoring, volume 4, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Simser, B 2018, ‘Rock burst observations from hard rock mines: failures, successes, lessons learned’, Rock Dynamics and Applications, volume 3, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 3–11.
Simser, B 2019, ‘Rockburst management in Canadian hard rock mines’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 1036–1043,
Simser, B & Butler, T 2016, ‘Ground support practice at Glencore’s nickel rim south mine – with a link to seismic monitoring data’, in E Nordlund, TH Jones & A Eitzenberger (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå.
Simser, B & Butler, T 2022, ‘The value of recording small mining induced microseismic events with examples from Glencore’s Nickel Rim South Mine’, RaSim10: Proceedings of Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Engelwood.
Stacey, T & Rojas, E 2013, ‘A potential method of containing rockburst damage and enhancing safety using a sacrificial layer’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 113, no. 7, pp. 565–573.
Turcotte, P 2014, ‘Practical applications of a rockburst database to ground support design at LaRonde Mine’, in M Hudyma & Y Potvin (eds), Deep Mining 2014: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 79–91,
Van Sint Jan, M & Alviña, N 2008, ‘Ground movement amplification around underground excavations’, Australian Centre for Geomechanics Newsletter, vol. 31.
Wesseloo, J 2018, ‘The spatial assessment of the current seismic hazard state for hard rock underground mines’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1839–1862,
Yadav, P, O’Connor, C & Maldonado, C 2024, ‘Developing a hybrid strength model for complex orebody in a deep hard rock mine’, in J Hazzard, M nelson, T Katsaga & J Sanftenberg (eds.), 6th International Itasca Symposium on Applied Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics, Itasca International, Inc, Toronto.
Zhang, P, Nordlund, E, Swan, G & Yi, C 2018, ‘Velocity amplification of seismic waves through parallel fractures near a free surface in fractured rock: a theoretical study’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 199–213,
10.1007/s00603-018-1589-8