2012-09-14

Ground Support in Deep Underground Mines

Brad Simser Ground Control Engineer

Note photos are from various mines from past 20 years content represents viewpoint of the author

~1.5km

Intense stress fracturing of hard igneous rock Pre-mining sigma1

~ 70 MPa but stress raiser from local faulting

Stress fracturing exposed by underhand c & f

What is deep?
if observations indicate that a mine experiences stress-driven failures in a significant
proportion of its excavations Potvin, Hadjigeorgiou, Stacey, Challenges in Deep and High Stress mining.
standard safety factor design calculations e.g. weight of the wedge versus capacity
of the bars doesnt cater for all the potential problems. B.S.
- Deformation driven failure (especially squeezing ground), bursting (dynamic loads),
Shearing for bolts designed as pure tensional elements, un-raveling around the bolts

2012-09-14

Deep mining is a relative

term

Example of fracturing/loosening
Around shallow opening
Open cut exposed old room &
Pillar coal mine

Stress/strength
Mining layouts can create deep
Conditions in otherwise decent
Ground
Sill pillars, NPV designs.

Deep in the Ground Control context - ? Stuff that accelerates hair loss

Dont want updated photo

2012-09-14

Ground Support Design

need some calcs/rational behind the support design
reality is numerous assumptions go into the calcs

support element
bolt/liner
#6 gauge mesh
#4 gauge mesh
#6 gauge reinforced SC
fibrecrete
rebar 20mm
rebar 22mm
soft yielding bolt
mid stiffness yielding bolt
steel stretch bolt 1
steel stretch bolt 2
friction type 1
inflatable type 1

static
dynamic characteristic deformation limit
kN kN/m2 kJ kJ/m2 mm
26
5.0
187
38
7.5
212
50
7.5
80
25
2.5
40
180
9.5
31
232
12.2
31
55
30.0
695
95
43.0
750
256
45.0
187
279
56.0
225
50
10.0
140
85
10.0
125

source of information
Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook 1996
Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook 1996
Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook 1996
Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook 1996
CANMET average split tube and plate hit for dynamic
estimated by ratioing up 20mm results
CANMET
CANMET
CANMET
CANMET
Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook 1996
Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook 1996

Sample factor of safety calculations for support systems component capacities

have to decide whether you use averages, lower limits, take it to max displacement

Numbers used to be very hard to find CANMET, WASM dynamic testing programs
Going a long way to fill in the blanks, as well as earlier work by Ortlepp/Stacey
Kaiser/Tannant etc.

2012-09-14

bolt spacing
m
m
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5

elements
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5
1
1.2
1.5

22mm rebar, #4 gauge mesh

22mm rebar, #4 gauge mesh
22mm rebar, #4 gauge mesh
22mm steel stretch, #4 gauge mesh
22mm steel stretch, #4 gauge mesh
22mm steel stretch, #4 gauge mesh
22mm rebar, #4 gauge mesh, +SC first
22mm rebar, #4 gauge mesh, +SC first
22mm rebar, #4 gauge mesh, +SC first
friction1/#4gauge second pass 22mm rebar
friction1/#4gauge second pass 22mm rebar
friction1/#4gauge second pass 22mm rebar
inflatable1/#4gauge second pass 22mm rebar
inflatable1/#4gauge second pass 22mm rebar
inflatable1/#4gauge second pass 22mm rebar
softyield/#4gauge/22mm rebar
softyield/#4gauge/22mm rebar
softyield/#4gauge/22mm rebar
midyield/#4gauge/22mm rebar
midyield/#4gauge/22mm rebar
midyield/#4gauge/22mm rebar

system capacity
F of S
kN/m2
kJ/m2
static
270.0
19.7
199.1
16.0
141.1
12.9
317.0
63.5
231.8
46.4
162.0
32.4
295.0
22.2
224.1
18.5
166.1
15.4
320.0
29.7
233.8
22.9
163.3
17.4
355.0
29.7
258.1
22.9
178.9
17.4
325.0
49.7
237.3
36.8
165.6
26.3
365.0
62.7
265.1
45.9
183.3
32.1

6.1
4.5
3.2
7.2
5.2
3.7
6.7
5.1
3.8
7.2
5.3
3.7
8.0
5.8
4.1
7.4
5.4
3.8
8.3
6.0
4.2

F of S
shear failure in bolt
dynamic static
dynamic
1.0
4.0
0.7
0.8
3.1
0.6
0.6
2.3
0.5
3.1
4.7
2.0
2.3
3.5
1.5
1.6
2.5
1.1
1.1
4.6
0.9
0.9
3.6
0.7
0.8
2.8
0.7
1.5
4.7
1.0
1.1
3.5
0.8
0.9
2.6
0.7
1.5
5.2
1.0
1.1
3.9
0.8
0.9
2.8
0.7
2.5
4.8
1.6
1.8
3.6
1.2
1.3
2.6
0.9
3.1
5.3
2.0
2.3
3.9
1.5
1.6
2.8
1.1

Sample calculations numbers all open to debate

Safety factor load/capacity
Load is educated guess in this example 4.5 t/m2 dead weight
20 kJ/m2 dynamic load
Roughly 5x5 opening with fracture zone ~1/3 span (dead weight)
Whack that at 3m/s

Lots of issues with safety factor

Approach, especially for dynamic
Support
-Soft retention (mesh, TSL)
-Relatively stiff bolts
-Cant act in perfect unison
- so how do you add up the capacities?
- component testing cant address
this in isolation

Ortlepp & Stacey drop testing on support

systems

-System testing very expensive

And difficult, how do you account
for load/transfer energy loss?
-Blasting always tough to get right
(ACG Heal et al probably came closest)
-In situ shearing, local strain energy,
deformation sucks up system
capacity, QA/QC, corrosion
Excellent work but cant get clean kJ/m2

2012-09-14

Some of the assumptions / issues buried in the safety factor approach

Zone of influence around each bolt

So there is a practical bolt spacing to ensure liner doesnt get over loaded
1 giga J bolt can satisfy the math. But one bolt wont work

tunnel

2012-09-14

Load/deformation characteristics of retaining elements (screen) and holding

Elements (bolts) very different reality is mesh will balloon out
Well beyond the bolts, especially chainlink

Stiffness contrast between bolt and surface support can be problematic

- Case for yielding tendons

Thanks rick

2012-09-14

FS46in 33mm hole

oops

Some safety factor erosion factors

-Installation quality
-corrosion

Heavily wrapped post pillar with remote scoop inadvertently scraping off support

2012-09-14

Hand model = rick

Speed wobbles in three different
bursts, three different mines, three
distinctly different rockmasses
Shearing in the stress induced
fracture zone pre-dynamic loading
can cause bar lock up for example
many yielding bolts use toe anchor
plowing mechanism which is verified
by 900 tensile testing.
Never a perfect world underground.

Planned back

In the deep mine context, more than just gravity

loading, also have to cater for on going deformation, in
situ stresses plus the influence of mining

2012-09-14

Rockmass bulking
Slowly uses up
Deformation capacity
Of support systems

Shotcrete and rebar

Good at resisting
Bulking, limit
dilation

2012-09-14

10

2012-09-14

However S/C notoriously

Limited under high
deformation or bursting

Fibres only go so far, material is fundamentally

brittle

11

2012-09-14

Thanks rick
Mesh can handle a fair amount of
Bulking
However the problem is a
fundamental change in how the
ground support interacts
Most bolts are friction bolts, dilated
material puts low confinement on the
tendon so you end up with glorified
rockbolts, anchor to solid, hold at the
plate.

For more extreme

Ground movement
150x150mm plates
And fibrecrete not
Enough retainmnet

12

2012-09-14

Clearly the use of better load spreaders such as mesh plates, straps, butterfly plates can
Make a huge improvement

13

2012-09-14

Rebar and cables are still essentially friction bolts, shaking loose rock around them
Without excellent retainment system, results in more naked tendons than broken tendons

Use of mixed mode ground support

-Stiff support to limit dilation / bulking
- keep laminated beam
- confinement around the bolts
- yielding support to handle bursting / squeezing

-S/C is expensive, limited in deformation capacity

- but 100% coverage and very effective at resisting dilation, blast
damage, equipment damage
- more work to do to quantify the cost/benefits of different approaches
- tight bolting? Mix of soft + stiff bolts, different surface support.

14

2012-09-14

Mesh reinforced S/C one step up

Example of blow out where the screen
Reinforcement stopped

Example of bolter
Mining, S/C stops
This in most cases

Some deep mines are going to screen

Over shotcrete S/C to keep ground
Tight, mesh to take over if bursting or
High deformation takes place

15

2012-09-14

ACG (Potvin)
High energy absorption mesh

Old school safety nets = chainlink or

expanded metal mesh combined with
lacing, empirically works well but
expensive because difficult to automate
Upper right ACG newer version (easier
to mechanize)

Dynamic loading is more complex more guess work in SF calculation required

Potentially over looked phenomenon

Stored strain energy local to the drive
damage is often not closest opening to the event
often cant explain observed ejection velocity versus ppv predicted
from magnitude / distance relationships
coiled spring that gets released by far field seismic wave

wave amplification around fracture zone interface & free surface

observe the effects, but may not have good enough understanding
to quantify
likely some earthquake engineering literature to delve into

16

2012-09-14

A recognized omission from the 1996

Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook
Is the influence of strain energy around
the excavation (coiled spring)

Coil spring (strain energy released by seismic event)

Examples..

Sub level cave

Eventually gets deep enough
Where high stresses hit
Main haulages

Upper left/lower right

Corner of strike drives
High stress

34

17

2012-09-14

Hard to see but

Floor heave in
Lower right corner

Large bump caused damage over

Long section of strike drive
(coiled spring triggered by fault
slip event)

Pillar burst mechanism

Is about stored strain
Energy, bump sometimes
Is just trigger

Sill elevations in horizontal

Stress field, steep deposit
Eventually get enough vertical
Load in draw point pillars as
Overall extraction progresses
Can be ticking time bomb

18

2012-09-14

Mn 2.0 32m away, had to

Be significant strain energy
Stored locally, bump released coiled
spring

Seismic Wave amplification

Google search yields loads of references in earthquake engineering
frequency-dependent amplification of seismic waves by near
surface low velocity layers is a well known phenomenon
Mn2.4 30m
Away
Often seems
Like fracture
Zone gets spit
out

PPVs estimated
from Magnitude
& distance
usually low
versus observed
ejection velocity

e.g. Hedley
Formula yields
0.33m/s, but rock
Blew off the wall
(a few m/s)

19

2012-09-14

Dynamic ucs testing

Lots of examples of seismic waves hitting underground openings (see Rock Fracture and
Rockbursts an illustrative study Dave Ortlepp) but S/C posts provide some of the clearer
visuals because they are stiff and connected to floor and back

Contradictions
-Good to keep rubble in place to dampen the blow of a rockburst
- in some cases better not to de-bag the screen and scrape to solid
- rubble zone doesnt store local strain energy
- but bolts become glorified mechanical bolts hanging the loose to toe anchor
- How do the surface waves interact with both the fracture zone (low velocity
layer) and the free surface (Raleigh & love waves)
- how much amplification do we really get?

Ideally keeping the fracture zone tight (laminated beam) is best

-Still fractured rock so wont store local strain energy
- reduces naked tendon potential
- Help rock support itself

20

2012-09-14

Conclusion 1
Standard safety factor calculations for support design in deep mining
ball park estimates
Snapshots in time
deformation eats up capacity
dynamic and static

Light at the end of the tunnel empirical experience

21

2012-09-14

Empirical experience has some success stories (Kidd, Brunswick,

Sudbury, others.) - In this case floor heaved +60cm, destroyed 1.8m
diameter shotcrete posts, major cracks, Mn 3.3 ground motion hitting
High stress area, but dynamic bolts, straps, chain-link over original
rebar + shotcrete system survived

Dave Black photo

STRAPS ON SEAMS

1.6 Mn
Thanks rick
Stiff bolts with heavy retainment (rebar, straps, mesh plates, small aperature mesh)

22

2012-09-14

Late 90s
really wasnt off the shelf yielding bolts in Canada
debonded cables probably closest thing
Now a lot to choose from!
database of dynamic testing building
CANMET
WASM

Emerging technology

23

2012-09-14

Numerical modeling tools

Getting sophisticated enough to give realistic load/displacement
Histories of tendons in areas where significant mining induced stress change occurs
-? Use to estimate strain energy store around openings ?
- can simulate dynamic waves

3D laser scans and/or photographic methods getting accurate enough to do real

Convergence monitoring logistically a bit awkward but mm accuracy possible

24

2012-09-14

Bulls eye for equipment

Damage
-Manual readings, slow
- can miss critical changes between readings
- improving logistics = easier to read more
instruments
Enabling technology to estimate loss of support capacity with time/mining
Wireless technology is now working underground to remotely measure ground control
Instruments (smart cables, extensometers, instrumented bolts..)

High resolution seismic monitoring MS-RAP type analysis to understand failing

Zones, failed zones (seismic dead zones), strain energy storing, sensitive structures.

25

2012-09-14

Beck/Westman image
Passive tomography utilizing recorded seismicity to track damage zones, high stress
Areas (for example Westman Virginia Tech, also Golders Montreal)

Offset blast locations

Actual drive
Actual drive
Offset blast locations

Currently some resolution problems particularly with constant velocity model for Seismic location
Top left example ray path goes through a significant fault (not shown) causing
Slower effective velocity than constant velocity assumption, and location offsets
Top right example blasts offset from actual drive due to ray path going around stopes
And fractured ground causing slower velocity than assumed in location algorithm, also fringe
Of array
Ray tracing algorithms (ESG, IMS), and variable velocity models are emerging, but not
Routinely applied to every event

26

2012-09-14

Thanks for your attention

Any questions?

102 t sulphides
12 t fibrecrete

27