Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0 INTRODUCTION
With the increasing demand for resources; technological advancements and
innovations in mining and gradual decrease of shallow resource, a large number of mines
have entered into a state of deep resource mining. With the mining depth increasing
gradually, more and more mining hazards phenomenon appears. The remarkably rich and
persistent gold and platinum deposits in South Africa stimulated the development of a
deep mining industry. The challenges of mining laterally extensive ore bodies at depths
as great as 4000m include high rock stress and temperature, and large vertical and
horizontal distances over which personnel, materials and rock must be transported (Guo
and Huo, 2014; Durrheim, 2014).
As mines progress to depths for which the induced stress levels exceed the intact
strength of the host rock, significant challenges related to rock mass instability must be
met. However, given complexity and the scale of ore bodies in deep mines, it is
increasingly more challenging to predict/pinpoint where and when stress levels will
become problematic. Prediction of where and when large scale instabilities will occur
continues to be the holy grail of rock mechanics in deep mining. There is no perfect
solution; however, there have been a number of technological advancements that greatly
helped to develop our understanding of rock mass behaviour and the risks pertaining to
deep hard rock mines (Cotesta et al., 2014).
High stress areas, which can lead to rockbursts, are a reality in deep mining
environments around the world. The unpredictable nature, and sometimes fatal
consequences of rockbursts, makes working towards identifying increases in strain that
occur prior to failure events, of principal importance for mine safety. As an important line
of defence, ground control measures and burst-resistant rock support are used to prevent
or minimize damage to excavations and thus to enhance workplace safety. The
implementation of real time monitoring of these signals has the potential to significantly
improve deep mine safety by mapping the evolution of strain underground and indicating
potential areas susceptible to failure (Schaub and Smith, 2014; Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
This seminar report discusses rock behaviour under high stress; design of pillars and
supports and stoping methods for deep deposits. Before concluding the report it includes
geomechanic challenges related to deep metalliferous mines.
Fig. 2.1 Distribution of RMR Database with Depth (Sourineni et al., 2014)
At depth, the rock is highly stressed, thus closer to failure, and often highly confined
which leads to a higher interlocking with elevated strength but more brittleness. At depth,
the excavation-induced stresses are typically high enough to exceed the rock mass
strength, at least near the excavation walls at relatively low confining stresses. In the
immediate vicinity of an excavation, the confining pressures are typically less than
UCS/10 for hard, brittle rocks and these rocks tend to fail by spalling or shear slip induced
extension fracturing.
The interlock causes a rapid strength increase at low confinement with much reduced
rock strength degradation (typically as little as 10 to 15%) at a confinement exceeding
UCS/10. Such reduced strength degradation is also observed during shear rupture in
massive brittle rock. While recent attempts have been made by Barton and Pandey to
adapt the Q classification system for rock mass strength determination, the only rock mass
characterization approach for strength determination that has been sufficiently tested is
the GSI. Hoek and Brown presented GSI-based strength equations for isotropic rock
masses containing block forming joints and blocks without defects. They indicated that
the underlying GSI experience is from excavations where block rotation primarily
contributes to the failure process (Kaiser et al., 2015).
Rock mass strength as estimated from classification systems such as by the GSI
approach were calibrated by observations of the rock mass response near underground
openings where the confinement drops to low values near the boundary. There are
indications that the degradation rate from intact to rock mass strength is not independent
of confinement. Hence, the degradation factors under high confinement, may be higher
than those obtained from calibrations at low confinement and the rock masses under
confinement may be significantly stronger than anticipated using conventional
approaches (Kaiser et al., 2010).
The rock mass strength, extrapolated from low to high confinement can be as low as
50% of the anticipated confined rock strength with interlocked and shear rupture
behaviour. This also applies when laboratory data is fitted using the Hoek-Brown
criterion. When collected data is indiscriminately used to estimate the rock mass strength,
even when following standard logging, testing and interpretation procedures, the resulting
properties may often not be representative of the actual rockmass behaviour (Kaiser et al.,
2015).
4
2.2 Rockburst
A rockburst is defined as damage to an excavation that occurs in a sudden and violent
manner and is associated with a mining-induced seismic event, and may cause an
unacceptable workplace hazard. Additionally, large scale deformations in drives, or
squeezing ground conditions in hard rock underground mines have major economic
implications (Hayman, 2014).
Rockbursts are explosive failures of rock which occur when very high stress
concentrations are induced around underground openings. The problem is particularly
acute in deep level mining in hard brittle rock. Fig. 2.2 shows the damage resulting from
a rockburst in an underground mine. The deep level gold mines in the Witwatersrand area
in South Africa, Kolar gold mines in India, nickel mines centred on Sudbury in Canada,
mines in the Coeur dAlene area in Idaho in the USA and the gold mines in the Kalgoorlie
area in Australia, are amongst the mines which have suffered from rockburst problems
(Hoek, 2006).
There is a clear linkage between rockburst activities and mining depth. As mining
migrates to deeper ground, in-situ stress becomes high relative to the rock strength and
the likelihood of rockburst drastically increases. Rockbursts are mostly associated with
hard rocks and geological structures such as faults and dykes and in mining are often
related to high extraction ratios and associated with mining methods causing unfavourable
stress conditions (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
In our country the gold mines at KGF enjoy the distinction of being among the oldest
and deepest mines of the world, which are nearly 120 years old and where some of the
workings reached a maximum depth of 3300 m below ground level. However, as the
richness of the orebody considerably depleted with time, mining in the deeper levels was
discontinued towards the end of 1991 due to economic constraints. Not different from the
other hard rock underground mines in the world, one of the most severe problems related
to mine safety and ground control was the phenomenon of rockbursts in and around the
mining excavations at KGF. Rockburst occur largely in the regions of moderate-to-high
horizontal compressive tectonic stresses (Arora et al., 2000).
2.2.1 Types of rockburst: Rockbursts are classified into five types (strainburst, buckling,
face crush/pillar burst, shear rupture, fault-slip burst). In a broad sense, buckling type
rockbursts can be grouped into strainbursts, and shear rupture type rockbursts can be
considered as fault-slip rockbursts. Rockbursts are either mining-induced by energy
release causing damage at the source (e.g. strainburst without significant dynamic stress
increase from a remote seismic event) or dynamically-induced rockbursts with damage
caused by energy transfer or significant dynamic stress increase from a remote seismic
event (e.g. strainburst with dynamic stress increase caused by a remote seismic event)
(Cai, 2013).
Rock mass failure occurs when the excavation induced stress exceeds the peak
strength of the rock mass. In many deep underground excavations, strainbursts are the
most common rockburst type; they can be mining-induced due to static stress change
caused by nearby mining or dynamically induced due to dynamic stress increase caused
by a remote seismic event (called dynamically-induced strainbursts) ( Kaiser and Cai,
2012).
Fig. 2.3 Strainburst Damage in a Supported Excavation (Kaiser and Cai 2012)
Two conditions must be met for a strainburst to occur. First, the tangential stress (the
maximum principal stress) must be able to build up in the immediate skin of the
excavation. Second, the rock mass surrounding the fracturing rock must create a relatively
soft loading environment such that the rock fails locally in an unstable, violent manner.
The energy released by a strainburst comes from the stored elastic strain energy in the
failing rock and the surrounding rock mass (not from the seismic source). In mining, stress
changes in the drifts (horizontal tunnels in a mine) may occur after development due to
stoping activities; consequently, mining-induced strainbursts can happen during the
production stage (Kaiser and Cai, 2012)
Shear rupture is a failure process which occurs in brittle rocks under confined
conditions and is the process which leads to the creation of some faults. In mining, this
failure process can occur under a variety of boundary conditions ranging from constant
stress to constant stiffness. Depending on the boundary condition surrounding the rupture
process, different rupture creation processes and behaviours occur. Under constant normal
stress boundary conditions, the shear rupture process, the rupture mechanism, rupture
zone geometry, and shear stress versus horizontal displacement response of intact brittle
rocks are dependent on the normal stress to uniaxial compressive strength ratio (Bewick
et al., 2014).
Pillar burst, as the name implies, is defined as a violent failure in the pillar core or the
complete collapse of a pillar. Pillar bursts often occur in deep mines when the extraction
ratio is high at a later stage of mining. The volume of failed rock and the affected
surrounding rock mass is usually larger than that involved in a strainburst and hence the
released seismic energy is much greater. Similar to strainburst, pillar burst can be
classified into mining-induced pillar burst and dynamically induced pillar burst. A
mining-induced pillar burst is caused by static stress increase from increased room span
or nearby stope extraction.
A fault-slip burst is caused by the dynamic slippage along a pre-existing fault or along
a newly generated shear rupture. A critically stressed fault, with shear stresses exceeding
the shear strength, can slip when the degree of freedom is changed as it is intersected by
a mine opening. Alternatively, it may slip when the shear strength is reduced due to a
drop in clamping stress or water infiltration into the fault.
Similar to pillar burst, fault-slip rockbursts occur in deep mines when the extraction
ratio is high and large closures are allowed to persist over large mining volumes.The most
plausible cause of fault-slip along a pre-existing fault is the reduction of normal stress
acting on the fault as a result of nearby mining, although an increase in shear stress or a
combination of normal stress decrease and shear stress increase can similarly cause a fault
to slip. This type of rockburst may release a large amount of seismic energy, coming from
the instantaneous relaxation of elastic strain stored in a large volume of highly stressed
rock surrounding the slip or rupture area (Kaiser and Cai, 2012)
2.2.2 Rockburst mechanism: Understanding the rockburst source mechanism is critical
to deriving strategies to eliminate and mitigate rockburst hazard, and a thorough
understanding of the rockburst damage mechanism is needed to work out tactics to
implement rockburst support. Kaiser classified rockburst damage into three types, i.e.
rock bulking due to fracturing, rock ejection due to seismic energy transfer, and rockfall
induced by seismic shaking . Rock bulking due to rock fracturing can be caused by both
a remote seismic event and the bursting event itself (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
Depending on the post-peak stiffness of the rock mass and the system stiffness of the
rock surrounding the fractured rock mass, some of the stored strain energy in the rock
mass can be transferred to the fractured rock mass, causing rock ejection at a high ejection
velocity. The ejected rock blocks possess kinetic energy; therefore, the applied rock
support must be able to absorb or dissipate this kinetic energy (Cai, 2013).
Seismic hazard in mines is positively correlated with the following natural factors:
virgin rock stress, which is a combination of depth and tectonic stress, mechanical
strength of the rock, the degree of homogeneity, or smoothness, of the rock mass that
includes the presence and the nature of geological features specifically those with shear
strength comparable to the shear stresses induced by mining excavations. In addition there
is a number of mining related factors that may exacerbate the intensity of the seismic rock
mass response to mining, among them: the extraction ratio, the extent of the mined-out
area, the rate and spatial and temporal sequence of extraction, additional stress induced
by adjacent mining, and the smoothness of the mine layout itself and in relation to the
geological structures. Smoothness can be defined by the dimensionality of the object, as
measured by its fractal dimension the lower the fractal dimension the smoother the
object. The bulk of seismic activity in mines starts with rock extraction, increases with
the extraction ratio of the ore body and with the depth of mining and tails off with the
cessation of mining (Mendecki, 2013).
3.0 DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES ADOPTED FOR DESIGN OF DEEP MINES
The challenges unique to deep mining are well known. There are countless examples
of underground mines that have gradually progressed downwards and been forced to
reassess their engineering design as they did so. The seemingly incidental difference of
depth dictates a substantial change in design. In most cases, but not all, this translates into
larger engineering requirements for the deeper mine. But it is not merely the amount of
care that goes into engineering design; the process that is used in this work also contrasts
to a considerable degree (Anderson, 2014).
10
11
If one considers the percentage of area over peak being a proxy for pillar stability, it
can be seen that a pillar with a W/H-ratio of 1.0 considering the modified, s-shaped failure
criteria will be in the same relative stability state as a pillar with a W/H-ratio of 1.7
considering the general HoekBrown failure criteria. In other words, if the validity of the
modified s-shaped failure criteria can be demonstrated, there is much potential for
improving the optimisation of pillar design (Kaiser et al., 2010).
3.2 Support Design Tools
The mechanics of rock support is complex, and no model exists that can fully explain
the interaction of various support components in a rock support system. Kaiser
summarized three key support functions as: (1) reinforce the rock mass to strengthen it
and to control bulking, (2) retain broken rock to prevent fractured block failure and
unraveling, and (3) hold fractured blocks and securely tie back the retaining element(s) to
stable ground. Under high stress conditions, fractured rocks between the reinforcing or
holding elements may unravel if they are not properly retained. Widely used retaining
elements are wire mesh, reinforced shotcrete, strap, steel arch, or cast-in-place concrete.
Shotcrete needs to be reinforced by fiber or mesh to increase its tensile strength and
toughness. Mesh-reinforced shotcrete or mesh over shotcrete offers a much superior
retaining function under rockburst conditions.
The supreme excellence in rock support in burst-prone ground is to avoid rockburst
conditions. Hence, the best strategy is to stabilize the rock without fighting against the
loads and stresses in the rocks using heavy rock support. The second principle advocates
the use of yielding support in bursting grounds. When a brittle rock fails, it is always
associated with large rock dilation and may be subjected to large impact energy.
Therefore, the installed rock support system must be deformable and able to absorb
dynamic energy (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
Mine geology and infrastructures are complex and three-dimensional in nature.
Presently in mining practice, either rockburst support is selected based on site specific or
global experience or the design is performed using often simplistic spreadsheet
calculations. However, rock support design cannot be carried out in a systematic manner
without taking into account geometric (mine excavations) and geological complexities.
12
13
In recent years, many new support products have been developed. This provides an
enhanced pallet of support options for the users but also introduces a level of uncertainty
as not all new products act in the same manner and have a proven track record. Prudence
is advised when considering products as specified performances may not be achievable
under field conditions. Support systems for rockburst conditions are selected on the basis
of their load-displacement characteristics and the expected nature and severity of rock
mass failure, by combining different holding, reinforcing, and retaining elements and
ensuring the overall integrity of the support system (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
4.0 STOPING METHODS
The deep mining layouts in the gold mines of South Africa evolved gradually over
time in an attempt to control the rockburst problem. Scattered mining with mine pole or
mat pack supports, often supplemented with pillars and sand fill, was used with
considerable success in shallow mining areas. Longwall stoping was introduced to reduce
the problems related to mining-induced seismicity. Hill showed that more than 90% of
the seismicity that occurred could be linked to the isolated pillars left behind by the
scattered mining layouts. He proposed that these pillars could be largely avoided by
implementing the longwall mining method.
The longwall layouts seemed to be largely successful, except for large damaging
seismic events that still occasionally occurred. This was particularly problematic when
mining through or in close proximity to geological structures, and became worse as the
mining depths increased. A few years later, stability pillars where introduced. Studies
showed that the occurrence of rockbursts was significantly reduced in the mining areas
protected by the stability pillars compared with areas where no pillars were used. Large
seismic events are likely to occur infrequently and that the level of seismicity in areas
protected by stability pillars will be lower than traditional longwall faces without pillar
protection. Unfortunately, the rockburst problem in the mining industry did not disappear
with the introduction of the modified layouts (Jooste and Malan, 2015).
14
In recent years, deep-level mines situated in the West Rand region of the
Witwatersrand goldfields adopted layouts that incorporate the systematic use of dip
stabilizing pillars. This layout is largely motivated by its flexibility for mining an orebody
that is disrupted by geological structures, situations where the reef grade is erratic, and
with the occurrence of damaging seismic events associated with the geological structures.
The other major contributor to the selection of the sequential grid method in preference
to the mini-longwall method is the stability of the pillars (dip versus strike pillars).
The mining sequence of the original sequential grid method can be described as follows:
Overall sequence is mining outwards from the shaft on strike, moving from
raiseline to raiseline to the eastern and western boundaries of the mine (dip towards
the south).
Deeper levels will be started up later than the shallower sections, resulting in a V
shaped down-dip mining configuration.
Mining at each new raiseline proceeds first towards the shaft to form the next pillar.
If the pillar formation is completed, mining commences on the opposite side of the
raiseline, mining away from the shaft towards the next pillar position.
Fig. 4.1 Typical sequential grid layout (Jooste and Malan, 2015)
15
To address the issue of slow production rates, a change to the original design was
proposed where multiple raises are mined simultaneously. The multi-raise mining method
differs from the sequential grid method mainly by the number of raiselines that are being
mined on a specific mining level. Stoping therefore occurs in a number of raiselines
simultaneously on the various mining levels. The major advantage of this method
compared to the sequential grid method is that the extraction rate is higher, resulting in a
decrease in the extraction time of a specific mining block due to increased flexibility of
the mining plan (Jooste and Malan, 2015).
The following tables show the depth and stoping methods used in some deep mines
of India and World.
Table 4.1 Details of a Few Deep Mines in India (Source: http://www.miningtechnology.com, 2016)
S.NO.
CURRENT
DEPTH(m)
PROPOSED
DEPTH(m)
3300
closed
Champian Reef
Mine(KGF)
Hutti Gold Mine
Mosaboni Mine
1300
Jaduguda
Uranium Mine
Rampura
Agucha Mine
905
Currently not
under
operation
1000
600
1100
NAME OF
MINE
923
STOPING METHOD
16
Table 4.2 Details of a Ten Deepest Underground Metalliferous Mines in the World
(Source: http://www.mining- technology.com, 2016)
CURRENT
DEPTH(m)
PROPOSED
DEPTH (m)
STOPING METHOD
Mponeng Gold
Mine (South
Africa)
>4000
5000
Sequential grid
mining
TauTona Gold
Mine (South
Africa)
1850 to 3900
3900
3700
4000
Sequential grid
mining
Driefontein Mine
(South Africa)
3400
4000
Kusasalethu Gold
Mine (South
Africa)
3270
3600
Longwall and
scattered mining
methods
Sequential grid
mining
Moab Khotsong
Gold Mine (South
Africa)
3000
3400
2950
3500
Kidd Creek
Copper and Zinc
Mine (Canada)
2920
3100
Great Noligwa
Gold Mine (South
Africa)
2600
3000
Pillar or remnant
mining
10
Creighton Mine
(Canada)
2500
3000
Mechanised undercut
and fill mining
Scattered mining
method with an
integrated backfill
support system
Fully mechanised
drift and fill and
longhole
stoping
Blasthole stoping with
cemented backfill
17
18
20
The trend in numerical modelling has been toward more and more complex models,
including plasticity (perfectly plastic, postpeak strain softening/hardening, dilatency),
discrete fracture networks, fracture nucleation and propagation, simulated seismicity, etc.
The generalised HoekBrown and MohrCoulomb failure criteria, however, remain the
most widely accepted and used criteria for intact rock and fractured rock mass behaviour
and are incorporated in virtually all commercial complex nonlinear models. Recent
approaches to address the constitutive behaviour of fractured rock masses include the
development of particle flow code (PFC) models and the numerical representation of
21
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Our predecessors developed solutions to the problems of their time that we continue
to use, albeit with mixed results. As our mines continue to go deeper, so do the solutions
of our predecessors continue to become less adequate in terms of their predictive abilities.
Increasing computing power is not accompanied by a similar ability to collect and
determine appropriate rock properties for our powerful and complex numerical modelling
codes. Indeed, field work and laboratory investigations are now being replaced with
computer simulations and laboratories are shutting down. We need to reverse course, as
computer simulations need realistic inputs to be valid (Sourineni, 2014).
Rockbursting is a complex mining-induced phenomenon occurring in deep
underground construction. Much effort has been put into research to understand why
rockburst happens and what the anticipated damage processes are. Unfortunately, due to
the complexity of rock mass and the boundary conditions, we still do not have great
confidence in predictive means and reality repeatedly reminds us of current deficiencies.
As mining progresses to greater depths, violent rock failure cannot be avoided and it will
have to be dealt with on a routine basis by implementing rockburst resistant support
strategies (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
22
23