A proposal for determining fall of ground potential risk in underground mines through numerical QA/QC and geotechnical risk rating method

Authors: Yeni, O Download Paper Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2465_55

Cite As:
Yeni, O 2024, 'A proposal for determining fall of ground potential risk in underground mines through numerical QA/QC and geotechnical risk rating method ', 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. 881-888, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2465_55



Abstract:
Fall of ground (FOG), a prominent catastrophic risk in underground mines, poses a significant threat to the underground personnel, production, equipment, and company finances and reputation. Mining companies employ various methods and techniques to prevent and critically control these risks. These include safety by design, excavation methods, ground support, training and competency, all of which necessitate quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) activities to verify their efficiencies and performances and to identify areas for improvement through monitoring. Many mining companies use QC methods without QA, often referring to them as QA/QC. However it is crucial to understand that QC detects defects while QA prevents defects. Both approaches are essential for a comprehensive risk assessment strategy. Testing the final products at the end of the production line differs from the proper QA/QC application, which involves testing every component before assembly, and the final product once completed, and managing all activities by allocating resources for ultimate efficiency and to prevent defects. Installed ground support elements are some final products mining companies use to prevent FOG. Testing the final product (i.e. rockbolt pull test, shotcrete strength test) with QC methods only while those areas are already accessible is not like testing an aeroplane full of passengers right after it comes off the production line or testing a car after the sale. Can mining companies set their acceptable quality limits (AQL)? Can only QC methods be called QA/QC? Can QA/QC activities be numerically scored for each critical control implemented to assess FOG potential? Can numerical scores be used to identify the geotechnical risk rating (GRR) to determine the FOG risk and its probability? This paper introduces a specific QA/QC methodology designed to manage and confirm the efficiencies and performances of the implemented critical controls. It also presents a unique numerical approach utilising the GRR process to assess potential FOG risk. The aim is to identify the areas where proactive action is needed and evaluate the probability of FOG in underground mines.

Keywords: geotechnical risk rating, fall of ground, quality assurance, quality control, underground

References: