GSSO-Book Sample 01 04 2020 2 PDF

Ground Support
for underground mines

Yves Potvin & John Hadjigeorgiou
Australian Centre for Geomechanics Copyright and Disclaimer
© Copyright 2020. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, The University of Western Australia. All rights
reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form without the
prior permission of the Australian Centre for Geomechanics, The University of Western Australia.
The information contained in this publication is for general educational and informative purposes only.
Except to the extent required by law, the Australian Centre for Geomechanics, The University of Western
Australia, makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or
completeness of the information stored therein. To the extent permitted by law, the Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, The University of Western Australia, exclude all liability for loss or damage of any kind at
all (including indirect or consequential loss or damage) arising from the information in this publication or
use of such information. You acknowledge that the information provided in this publication is to assist you
with undertaking your own enquiries and analyses and that you should seek independent professional
advice before acting in reliance on the information contained herein. While all care has been taken in
presenting the information herein, no liability is accepted for errors or omissions. The views expressed in
this publication are those of the authors and may not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, The University of Western Australia.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Production team: Paul Burnett, Garth Doig, Candice McLennan, Christine Neskudla, Josephine Ruddle
and Stefania Woodward, Australian Centre for Geomechanics; Kerry Coyle, Coyle Editing Services; and
Ian Pavey, Vectis Digital Graphics.
Cover photograph by John Hadjigeorgiou, with permission from Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd.
ISBN 978-0-9876389-5-3
Australian Centre for Geomechanics

The University of Western Australia
35 Stirling Highway (M600)
CRAWLEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIA 6009
Telephone: +61 8 6488 3300
publications-acg@uwa.edu.au
www.acg.uwa.edu.au
ABN 37 882 817 280
ii
Preface
Recent years have seen considerable progress in In preparing the book, we have been fortunate to
ground support technology and design techniques in have the support of many practising ground support
underground mines, resulting in significant advances and mining engineers worldwide. Numerous
in safety and productivity. This book came about as colleagues made important contributions to specific
a direct recommendation from the sponsors of the chapters. In particular, Associate Professor Johan
Ground Support Systems Optimisation (GSSO) Wesseloo, William Joughin and Joseph Mbenza, as
research project conducted by the Australian Centre well as Philani Mpunzi and Denisha Sewnun,
for Geomechanics and initiated in 2011. A strong contributed to Section 5 on ‘Probabilistic approach
consensus emerged for a state-of-the-art book on to ground support design’. Professor Phil Dight
ground support technology and design techniques contributed to Chapter 6 on ‘Rock stress data’,
for underground mines. while Gordon Sweby co-authored Chapter 11:
Ground Support for underground mines was ‘Numerical modelling for ground support design
written to provide a comprehensive reference book – mining applications’. Emeritus Professor Dick
for practising geotechnical and mining engineers Stacey, Dr Peter Mikula and Associate Professor
faced with the task of designing ground support Johan Wesseloo reviewed the manuscript and
systems in underground mines. In this context, made several insightful comments and suggestions
the authors reviewed international best practices for improvement. The authors are indebted for
and describe existing and novel ground support all their help and gratefully acknowledge their
design methods. Throughout the book there is an contributions. We further acknowledge the many
emphasis on both theory and practical tools to aid individuals, publishers and organisations who gave
practising engineers in all steps of the ground support permission for the reproduction of data, figures
design process. and photos.
In practice, the selection of ground support Funding for the development of this book
systems is not only dictated by the design process and was provided by the Ground Support Systems
rock engineering criteria but also by other factors, Optimisation research project Phase 1. Major
including workforce skill level, access to ground sponsors were: Minerals Research Institute of Western
support supplies, local mining culture and corporate Australia (MRIWA), Codelco Chile, Glencore Mount
risk tolerance. These can have a significant influence Isa Mines, IGO Limited, MMG Limited, and the
on ground support strategies and installation Australian Centre for Geomechanics. Minor project
practices. Nevertheless, given that ground support sponsors were: Atlas Copco Australia Pty Limited
failures can have catastrophic consequences, every (now Epiroc), DSI Underground, Fero Strata Australia
ground support system implemented in mines (now DSI Underground), Golder Associates Pty Ltd,
should be justified by sound engineering design Geobrugg AG, and Jennmar Australia.
principles. Ground Support for underground mines
has been specifically written to assist practitioners in
fulfilling this requirement. Yves Potvin & John Hadjigeorgiou
iii
Industry Sponsors
The Australian Centre for Geomechanics gratefully acknowledges the industry sponsors who provided funding
for the development of this book by supporting the ACG Ground Support Systems Optimisation research
project Phase 1.
Major Project Sponsors
Minerals Research Institute

of Western Australia
Minor Project Sponsors
iv
Contents
Preface
Industry Sponsors
Contents
Section 1 : Ground support selection and design considerations
Chapter 1 : Introduction
1.1 The principal objective of ground support...................................................................................... 3
1.2 Ground conditions............................................................................................................................... 5
1.2.1 Normal conditions................................................................................................................... 6
1.2.2 High stress conditions............................................................................................................ 8
1.2.3 Large deformations................................................................................................................. 8
Chapter 2 : Rock mass behaviour and failure mechanisms

2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 15
2.2 Loading and failure mechanisms.................................................................................................... 15
2.2.1 Gravity failures driven by stress relaxation.......................................................................... 18
2.2.2 Failures driven by compressive stress................................................................................ 19
2.2.2.1 Progressive or brittle failure (stiff loading)�� 20
2.2.2.2 Sudden and violent failure (soft loading)�� 21
2.3 Summary of typical failure mechanisms in underground mines................................................ 23
2.4 Stress path.......................................................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 3 : Rock reinforcement behaviour, anchoring mechanisms

and specifications
3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2 Rock reinforcement behaviour........................................................................................................ 27
3.2.1 Strong versus weak rock reinforcement............................................................................. 28
3.2.2 Stiff versus soft reinforcement elements............................................................................. 28
3.2.3 Post-peak behaviour: brittle versus ductile ....................................................................... 29
3.2.4 Low versus high energy absorption rock reinforcement................................................... 30
3.2.5 Rock reinforcement and rock mass behaviour.................................................................. 30
3.3 Point anchor bolts............................................................................................................................. 32
3.4 Continuous anchor bolts.................................................................................................................. 35
3.4.1 Continuous chemically bonded anchor bolts..................................................................... 35
3.4.1.1 Resin anchor bolts�� 36
3.4.1.2 Cement-grouted continuous anchor bolts�� 37
v
3.4.2 Continuous friction bond anchor bolts................................................................................ 39
3.4.2.1 Friction rock stabilisers�� 39
3.4.2.2 Expandable bolts�� 41
3.5 High energy absorbing or yielding bolts........................................................................................ 43
3.5.1 Debonded yielding reinforcement........................................................................................ 43
3.5.2 Chemically bonded yielding anchors.................................................................................. 44
3.5.3 Expandable bolt with a debonded point anchor................................................................ 46
3.5.4 Hybrid bolts............................................................................................................................ 46
3.5.5 Self-drilling bolts.................................................................................................................... 47
3.6 Cable bolts.......................................................................................................................................... 48
3.6.1 Prestressed cable bolts........................................................................................................ 49
3.6.2 Resin-grouted cable bolts.................................................................................................... 49
3.6.3 Debonded cable bolts.......................................................................................................... 49
3.7 Surface fixtures.................................................................................................................................. 49
3.7.1 Rockbolt and plate interaction............................................................................................. 49
3.7.2 Cable bolt surface fixtures.................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 4 : Surface support behaviour

4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 55
4.2 Mesh.................................................................................................................................................... 55
4.2.1 Weldmesh.............................................................................................................................. 56
4.2.1.1 Weldmesh behaviour�� 57
4.2.2 Chainlink mesh...................................................................................................................... 57
4.2.2.1 Chainlink mesh behaviour�� 57
4.3 Straps.................................................................................................................................................. 58
4.3.1 Steel straps............................................................................................................................ 58
4.3.2 Mesh straps........................................................................................................................... 58
4.3.3 Osro straps............................................................................................................................ 59
4.3.4 Cable (or rope) lacing............................................................................................................ 59
4.4 Shotcrete............................................................................................................................................. 60
4.4.1 Basic components of shotcrete........................................................................................... 60
4.4.1.1 Cement�� 60
4.4.1.2 Aggregates�� 61
4.4.1.3 Admixtures�� 62
4.4.1.4 Cementitious products�� 62
4.4.2 Shotcrete reinforcement....................................................................................................... 63
4.4.2.1 Mesh-reinforced shotcrete�� 63
4.4.2.2 Fibre-reinforced shotcrete�� 63
4.4.3 Shotcrete thickness.............................................................................................................. 65
4.4.4 Shotcrete stabilisation mechanisms.................................................................................... 68
4.4.5 Reinforced shotcrete arches................................................................................................ 68
4.4.6 Shotcrete pillars..................................................................................................................... 69
4.4.7 Thin spray-on liners............................................................................................................... 73
vi
Section 2 : Data required for ground support design
Chapter 5 : Rock mass data
5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 77
5.2 Rock mass characterisation............................................................................................................ 77
5.3 Data collection................................................................................................................................... 80
5.4 Exploration and geotechnical boreholes....................................................................................... 80
5.5 Core drilling and logging.................................................................................................................. 81
5.5.1 Total core recovery................................................................................................................ 82
5.5.2 Fracture frequency................................................................................................................ 82
5.5.3 Rock quality designation...................................................................................................... 82
5.5.4 Structure orientation from core............................................................................................ 83
5.6 Mechanical properties of intact rock.............................................................................................. 85
5.6.1 Uniaxial compressive strength............................................................................................. 87
5.6.2 Triaxial compressive strength............................................................................................... 88
5.6.3 Tensile strength...................................................................................................................... 90
5.6.4 Field estimates and index tests for intact rock................................................................... 90
5.6.4.1 Schmidt hammer�� 91
5.6.4.2 Point load strength test�� 91
5.7 Mechanical properties of discontinuities....................................................................................... 92
5.8 Structural mapping............................................................................................................................ 96
5.8.1 Digital characterisation.......................................................................................................... 97
5.9 Rock mass classifications................................................................................................................ 98
5.9.1 Rock Mass Rating system................................................................................................... 99
5.9.2 Q-system.............................................................................................................................. 100
5.9.3 The mining or modified RMR (MRMR).............................................................................. 101
5.9.4 Geological Strength Index.................................................................................................. 101
5.10 Practical considerations in data collection for rock mass classification................................ 103
5.10.1 Core logging for rock mass classification purposes........................................................ 103
5.10.2 Surface exposure mapping for rock mass classification purposes............................... 104
5.11 Interpretation and use of rock mass classifications.................................................................. 106
5.11.1 Rock mass classification as a design tool........................................................................ 106
5.11.2 Personnel............................................................................................................................. 108
5.11.3 Scale..................................................................................................................................... 109
5.11.4 Reality check........................................................................................................................ 110
5.11.5 Statistical correlations between rock mass classification systems................................ 110
5.12 Large-scale rock mass properties................................................................................................ 111
5.12.1 Modulus of elasticity........................................................................................................... 111
5.12.2 Estimating the strength of rock masses........................................................................... 111
5.13 Concluding remarks........................................................................................................................ 114
vii
Chapter 6 : Rock stress data
6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 117
6.2 Pre-mining stress regime and trends........................................................................................... 117
6.2.1 Global stress regime trends............................................................................................... 118
6.2.2 Stress regimes and trends in Canada....................................................................................119
6.2.3 Stress regimes and trends in Australia.............................................................................. 122
6.3 Techniques for assessing in situ stress........................................................................................ 123
6.3.1 Overcoring............................................................................................................................ 126
6.3.1.1 CSIRO HI Cell�� 127
6.3.1.2 The modified doorstopper�� 128
6.3.2 Stress memory techniques from core............................................................................... 129
6.3.3 Core discing......................................................................................................................... 131
6.3.4 Borehole breakout method................................................................................................ 132
6.4 Presentation and interpretation of stress measurement results.............................................. 134
6.5 Understanding the stress at a mine site...................................................................................... 134
6.6 The Final Rock Stress Model methodology................................................................................ 136
6.7 Monitoring of stress change.......................................................................................................... 136
Chapter 7 : Ground support performance data

7.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 141
7.2 Data for ground support subjected to static load...................................................................... 143
7.2.1 Laboratory static tests on reinforcement elements......................................................... 143
7.2.2 In situ pull tests on rock reinforcement............................................................................. 151
7.2.2.1 Friction rock stabiliser tests�� 151
7.2.2.2 Grouted and expandable bolt tests�� 153
7.2.2.3 Indicative working capacity of rockbolts�� 154
7.3 Static tests on surface support..................................................................................................... 154
7.3.1 Static tests on mesh........................................................................................................... 156
7.3.2 Static tests on shotcrete.................................................................................................... 158
7.4 Data for ground support subjected to dynamic loading........................................................... 162
7.4.1 Dynamic capacity of ground support estimated from drop tests.................................. 162
7.4.2 Compilation of published results from drop testing......................................................... 164
7.4.2.1 Reinforcement results�� 164
7.4.2.2 Surface support results�� 168
7.4.3 Dynamic system testing..................................................................................................... 171
7.4.4 In situ dynamic drop tests.................................................................................................. 173
7.4.5 Dynamic capacity of ground support estimated from simulated rockbursts.....................173
viii
Chapter 8 : Geomechanical data confidence and reliability
8.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 179
8.2 Organising datasets into models.................................................................................................. 179
8.3 Geomechanical model confidence............................................................................................... 180
8.3.1 Constructing geotechnical models.................................................................................... 182
8.4 Statistical approaches to geomechanical data sampling......................................................... 182
8.5 Structural data................................................................................................................................. 183
8.6 Laboratory data............................................................................................................................... 186
8.7 Practical implications...................................................................................................................... 196
Section 3 : Ground support design methods

Chapter 9 : Analytical ground support design methods
9.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 199
9.2 Role of reinforcement and surface support................................................................................ 200
9.3 Reinforcement design..................................................................................................................... 200
9.3.1 Closed form solutions......................................................................................................... 201
9.3.2 Convergence confinement or ground reaction curve method....................................... 201
9.3.3 Stress-induced buckling..................................................................................................... 203
9.3.4 Structural or limit equilibrium design......................................................................................203
9.3.4.1 The beam concept for bedded rock�� 204
9.3.4.2 Rock reinforcement unit (RRU)�� 204
9.3.4.3 Reinforcement guidelines based on the rock arch concept�� 204
9.3.4.4 The parabolic arch concept�� 204
9.3.4.5 Two-dimensional wedge analysis�� 207
9.3.4.6 Three-dimensional wedge analysis�� 208
9.3.5 Discrete fracture network-based reinforcement analysis................................................ 211
9.4 Surface support............................................................................................................................... 212
9.4.1 Design of mesh.................................................................................................................... 213
9.4.2 Design of shotcrete............................................................................................................. 213
9.4.2.1 Shotcrete failure mechanisms�� 213
9.4.2.2 Two-dimensional wedge analysis for shotcrete support�� 214
9.4.2.3 Three-dimensional wedge analysis for shotcrete support�� 214
Chapter 10 : Empirical ground support design methods

10.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 219
10.2 Empirical ground support design based on rock mass classification............................................ 219
10.2.1 Support pressure................................................................................................................ 220
10.2.2 Support recommendations based on RMR and MRMR................................................. 221
10.2.3 Ground support recommendations based on the Q-system......................................... 223
10.2.4 Issues related to the implementation of the Grimstad and Barton chart in mining........ 225
ix
10.3 New empirical ground support design guidelines for mining drives....................................... 227
10.3.1 Scope of the new guidelines.............................................................................................. 227
10.3.2 Methodology........................................................................................................................ 228
10.3.3 Ground support design guidelines for mining drives....................................................... 231
10.3.4 The limitations of the ground support guidelines............................................................. 232
Chapter 11 : Numerical modelling for ground support design –

mining applications
11.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 237
11.2 Two-dimensional numerical analysis of tunnels......................................................................... 238
11.3 Instability zone approach............................................................................................................... 239
11.3.1 Analysis based on elastic modelling.................................................................................. 240
11.3.2 Analysis based on elasto-plastic modelling...................................................................... 241
11.4 Comparative approach................................................................................................................... 242
11.5 Explicit modelling of ground support approach......................................................................... 246
11.5.1 Design specification............................................................................................................ 246
11.5.2 Rehabilitation scheduling.................................................................................................... 246
11.5.3 Residual capacity................................................................................................................ 248
11.6 Inputs and sensitivity...................................................................................................................... 249
11.6.1 Rock mass strength and deformability............................................................................. 249
11.6.2 Discontinuity strength and deformability........................................................................... 251
11.6.3 Ground support strength and deformability..................................................................... 252
11.6.4 Sources of inherent variability............................................................................................ 253
11.6.4.1 Actual versus design excavation geometry�� 253
11.6.4.2 Joint network geometry�� 255
11.6.5 Mesh dependence.............................................................................................................. 258
11.7 Discontinuum models..................................................................................................................... 258
11.7.1 Explicit representation of ground support in discontinuum models............................... 260
11.7.2 Continuous versus discontinuous models........................................................................ 263
11.8 Confidence in numerical modelling results................................................................................. 263
11.8.1 Code verification.................................................................................................................. 264
11.8.2 Model calibration and validation........................................................................................ 264
11.9 Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 265
Section 4 : Extreme ground conditions

Chapter 12 : Ground support in squeezing ground
12.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 269
12.2 Squeezing mechanisms................................................................................................................. 269
12.3 Complete shear failure.................................................................................................................... 270
12.3.1 Empirical approaches for complete shear failure mechanism........................................ 271
12.3.2 Numerical modelling of squeezing in civil engineering tunnels....................................... 273
x
12.4 Buckling failure mechanism: squeezing in foliated ground...................................................... 273
12.4.1 Observations of buckling mechanism in underground mines........................................ 274
12.4.2 The hard rock squeezing index.......................................................................................... 279
12.4.3 Forecasting convergence in foliated squeezing ground.................................................. 281
12.4.4 Numerical modelling of buckling failure mechanism in foliated squeezing ground...... 283
12.4.5 Explicit modelling of reinforcement in squeezing ground................................................ 286
12.5 Context for ground support application in civil and mining squeezing ground ................... 288
12.6 General approaches to manage squeezing ground in mines ................................................. 290
12.6.1 Support system concepts.................................................................................................. 291
12.6.2 Containing the excavation surface.................................................................................... 291
12.6.3 Reinforcing squeezing ground........................................................................................... 292
12.6.4 Ground support coverage.................................................................................................. 293
12.6.5 Connection between surface support and reinforcement.............................................. 294
12.6.6 Deep anchoring of the reinforced shell............................................................................. 294
12.6.7 Rehabilitation....................................................................................................................... 294
12.6.8 Umbrella arch method........................................................................................................ 294
12.6.9 Other ground support approaches in very weak and squeezing ground conditions... 297
12.7 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 297
Chapter 13 : Ground support design for rockburst prone conditions

13.1 Background...................................................................................................................................... 301
13.2 Ground support subjected to dynamic loading – a case of design indeterminacy.............. 301
13.2.1 Scale–distance relationship and dynamic demand expressed as ppv.......................... 302
13.2.2 Radiation pattern................................................................................................................. 307
13.2.3 Reflection and refraction of the stress wave.................................................................... 307
13.2.4 The site effect...................................................................................................................... 309
13.2.5 Effect of rock brittleness..................................................................................................... 311
13.3 Seismic events and rockburst damage mechanisms and demand on ground support...... 312
13.4 Dynamic capacity of ground support systems........................................................................... 314
13.4.1 The weakest link.................................................................................................................. 315
13.4.2 Challenges in using drop test results for dynamic ground support system design..... 316
13.5 Dynamic ground support design................................................................................................... 317
13.5.1 The Canadian Rockburst Handbook (CRH) approach.................................................... 318
13.5.1.1 Static loading demand calculation�� 318
13.5.1.2 Displacement demand estimation�� 318
13.5.1.3 Dynamic displacement demand�� 319
13.5.1.4 Dynamic load or kinetic energy demand estimation�� 319
13.5.1.5 Typical ground support capacity requirements�� 320
13.5.1.6 Ground support capacity estimation�� 320
13.5.2 The rockburst damage potential approach...................................................................... 321
13.5.2.1 Static stress condition factor E1�� 321
13.5.2.2 Ground support capacity factor E2�� 322
13.5.2.3 Excavation span factor E3�� 323
13.5.2.4 Geological structure factor E4�� 323
xi
13.5.2.5 Rockburst damage scale (RDS) and rockburst damage potential (RDP)
graph�� 323
13.5.2.6 Rockburst damage potential used as a design and risk management tool
�� 323
13.5.2.7 LaRonde modified rockburst damage potential�� 327
13.5.3 The Western Australian School of Mines (WASM) approach......................................... 327
13.5.4 Empirical charting................................................................................................................ 330
13.5.4.1 Acceptable (S0 to S2 – SC0 to SC2)�� 331
13.5.4.2 Tolerable (S3 – SC3)�� 331
13.5.4.3 Intolerable (S4 to S5 – SC4 to SC5)�� 331
13.5.5 Passive monitoring.............................................................................................................. 334
13.6 Evolution of ground support selection for rockburst conditions............................................. 338
13.6.1 Strategy change at Creighton, Copper Cliff and Coleman mines.................................. 339
13.6.2 Kidd Mine ground support adjustments........................................................................... 339
13.6.3 Examples from other Canadian mines.............................................................................. 340
13.7 Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 340
Chapter 14 : Long-term performance of ground support – corrosion

14.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 345
14.2 Fundamentals of corrosion............................................................................................................ 347
14.2.1 Corrosion environments..................................................................................................... 347
14.2.2 Forms of corrosion.............................................................................................................. 353
14.3 Ground support corrosion.............................................................................................................. 353
14.3.1 Corrosion rates.................................................................................................................... 358
14.3.2 General corrosion investigations using coupons............................................................. 358
14.3.3 Friction rock stabilisers....................................................................................................... 359
14.3.4 Expandable bolts................................................................................................................. 361
14.3.5 Rebar.................................................................................................................................... 361
14.3.6 Cable bolting........................................................................................................................ 362
14.3.7 Mesh..................................................................................................................................... 364
14.4 Mitigation of corrosion effects....................................................................................................... 365
14.4.1 Selection of ground support type...................................................................................... 365
14.4.2 Material selection of ground support................................................................................ 367
14.4.3 Protective coatings.............................................................................................................. 367
14.4.4 Installation practice............................................................................................................. 369
14.5 Characterising and monitoring the performance of ground support to corrosion................ 369
14.5.1 Characterisation of the environment................................................................................. 369
14.5.2 Visual monitoring of corroded support............................................................................. 370
14.5.3 Use of a borehole camera probe....................................................................................... 370
14.5.4 Pull tests............................................................................................................................... 370
14.5.5 Overcoring............................................................................................................................ 370
14.5.6 Mesh..................................................................................................................................... 370
14.5.7 Fracture analysis.................................................................................................................. 370
xii
14.6 Rehabilitation guidelines................................................................................................................ 371
14.7 Summary........................................................................................................................................... 373
Section 5 : Probabilistic approach to ground support design

Chapter 15 : Probability, risk and design
15.1 Design acceptance criteria............................................................................................................ 377
15.1.1 Factor of safety as an acceptance criterion..................................................................... 378
15.1.2 Probability of failure as a design acceptance criterion.................................................... 378
15.1.3 Risk as a design acceptance criterion.............................................................................. 379
15.1.4 Factor of safety, probability of failure, and risk in the design process........................... 379
15.2 Important concepts related to probabilistic and risk-based design....................................... 380
15.2.1 Statistical and probabilistic analyses................................................................................. 380
15.2.2 State of mind or state of nature......................................................................................... 381
15.2.3 Frequency of occurrence and degree of belief................................................................ 382
15.2.4 Uncertainty and variability................................................................................................... 382
15.2.5 Correlations between factor of safety and probability of failure..................................... 383
15.2.6 Voluntary and involuntary risk............................................................................................ 383
15.2.7 Corporate and individual risk............................................................................................. 383
15.2.8 Evaluating total risk............................................................................................................. 384
15.2.9 Accuracy of risk assessment............................................................................................. 384
15.3 Design acceptance levels.............................................................................................................. 384
15.3.1 Economic risk...................................................................................................................... 385
15.3.2 Safety risk............................................................................................................................. 387
15.4 Safety risk acceptance levels........................................................................................................ 389
15.4.1 Accepted individual safety risk........................................................................................... 390
15.4.2 Accepted societal safety risk............................................................................................. 392
15.4.3 Concluding remarks............................................................................................................ 395
Chapter 16 : A risk-based approach to ground support design

16.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 399
16.1.1 Risk-based ground support design in a mining context................................................. 399
16.2 Probabilistic stress damage analysis........................................................................................... 400
16.2.1 Input data............................................................................................................................. 401
16.2.2 Elastic superposition........................................................................................................... 403
16.2.3 Elasto-plastic analysis......................................................................................................... 409
16.2.4 Damage risk model (frequency and extent)...................................................................... 413
16.3 Probabilistic analysis of structurally defined failures................................................................. 417
16.3.1 Input data............................................................................................................................. 419
16.3.2 Ground support system...................................................................................................... 419
16.3.3 Analysis of structurally defined failures.............................................................................. 420
16.3.4 Rockfall cumulative distributions....................................................................................... 420
16.4 Economic risk evaluation............................................................................................................... 421
xiii
16.5 Safety risk evaluation...................................................................................................................... 424
16.5.1 The safety risk model.......................................................................................................... 424
16.5.2 Failure probability................................................................................................................ 425
16.5.3 Individual safety risk............................................................................................................ 427
16.5.3.1 Temporal coincidence�� 427
16.5.3.2 Spatial coincidence�� 427
16.5.3.3 Personnel failure coincidence for an individual�� 428
16.5.3.4 Exposure mitigation�� 428
16.5.3.5 Assessment of individual safety risk�� 428
16.5.4 Societal safety risk.............................................................................................................. 428
16.5.4.1 Temporal and spatial coincidence�� 429
16.5.4.2 Exposure mitigation�� 429
16.5.4.3 Assessment of societal risk�� 429
16.5.4.4 Application of the safety risk model�� 429
Appendix 1 : Rock mass ratings

Ratings for the RMR-system parameters................................................................................................. 437
Rock mass rating 1989 (RMR89).................................................................................................................. 438
Appendix 2 : Q-system
Ratings for the Q-system parameters....................................................................................................... 445
Appendix 3 : Techniques for probabilistic and risk calculations

A3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 453
A3.2 Monte Carlo method....................................................................................................................... 453
A3.2.1 Random variate sampling................................................................................................... 453
A3.2.2 Illustrated example.............................................................................................................. 453
A3.2.3 Number of required samples............................................................................................. 456
A3.2.4 More efficient sampling methods...................................................................................... 456
A3.3 Point estimate method (PEM)........................................................................................................ 456
A3.3.1 Rosenblueth–Harr two-point estimate method................................................................ 457
A3.3.1.1 Point estimates�� 457
A3.3.1.2 Point estimate method trials�� 458
A3.3.1.3 Weighting of results�� 458
A3.3.1.4 Calculation of the mean and standard deviation of the results�� 459
A3.3.2 Special case for independent and symmetric parameters............................................. 460
A3.3.3 PEM example: Hoek–Brown failure criterion.................................................................... 461
A3.3.3.1 Calculation of the Hoek–Brown rock mass parameter, s�� 461
A3.3.3.2 Calculation of the Hoek–Brown rock mass parameter, mb�� 462
A3.3.3.3 Calculation of the Hoek–Brown global rock mass strength, σ'cm �� 462
A3.3.3.4 Probability distributions of the rock mass parameters�� 464
A3.3.4 The estimation of higher order moments with the PEM.................................................. 464
A3.3.5 Computational efficiency.................................................................................................... 464
xiv
A3.4 The response surface method (RSM)........................................................................................... 464
A3.4.1 Surface functions................................................................................................................ 466
A3.4.2 RSM design of experiment................................................................................................. 467
A3.4.3 RSM example: Hoek–Brown failure criterion.................................................................... 468
A3.4.3.1 Calculation of the Hoek–Brown rock mass parameter, s�� 468
A3.4.3.2 Calculation of the Hoek–Brown rock mass parameter, mb �� 469
A3.4.3.3 Calculation of the Hoek–Brown ‘global rock mass strength’, σ'cm �� 470
A3.5 Response influence factor method (RIF)..................................................................................... 470
A3.5.1 RIF design of experiment.................................................................................................... 473
A3.5.2 RIF example: Hoek–Brown failure criterion....................................................................... 474
A3.5.2.1 Calculation of the Hoek–Brown global rock mass strength, σ'cm �� 474
A3.6 A systematic approach to the design of experiment................................................................. 475
A3.6.1 Optimising the design of experiment................................................................................ 476
A3.6.2 Staged execution of the design of experiment................................................................ 476
A3.6.3 Targeting specific areas on the response surface........................................................... 477
A3.7 Redundancy in calculations........................................................................................................... 477
A3.8 Decomposition techniques for assessing risk............................................................................ 479
A3.9 Fault trees......................................................................................................................................... 480
A3.9.1 Fault tree example: rockfall due to stress damage and excessive deformation.......... 482
A3.10 Event trees........................................................................................................................................ 482
A3.10.1 Event tree example: consequence of drive deformation............................................... 485
A3.11 Concluding remarks........................................................................................................................ 486
References.............................................................................................................................................. 489
Index............................................................................................................................................................ 513
xv
1
Chapter 1 : Introduction
Courtesy Brad Simser

Introduction
CHAPTER ONE
1
1.1 The principal objective of The design of an effective ground support system
ground support requires an appreciation of potential failure or instability
mechanisms. These can be the result of relatively high
Ground support has been used to stabilise underground
stress-to-strength ratios, inducing failure of intact
excavations in rock since Roman times. In a review of the
rock or rock mass. Alternatively, structural instability
evolution of ground support and reinforcement, Brown
is gravity driven and is a function of the geological
(1999) refers to De Re Metallica (Agricola 1556), which
describes timbering in shafts, tunnels and drifts used as structure. Rock mass instability can also result from
a means of protection against collapse and risk of injury. a combination of stress or structurally driven failure
Stabilisation of the immediate boundary of a rock mass modes. In addition, other factors, such as mining-
surrounding an excavation is often referred to as ‘local induced seismicity, can aggravate existing conditions,
support’. Until the 1950s, timbering remained one of the and trigger failure.
main means of local support. Since then, it has gradually A primary effect of constructing an excavation in
been replaced by internal reinforcement techniques, rock is the resulting displacement of surrounding rock
such as dowels installed inside a drilled hole. and the potential for structurally defined rock blocks
Advances in ground support techniques, critical to to slide into the excavation. ‘Improvement’ provided by
both safety and economic success in modern mining, reinforcement comes primarily from resisting rock mass
have gathered pace since the 1980s. The terminology deformation at the excavation boundary.
associated with ground support has also evolved (Brady Maximum displacement is most likely to occur
& Brown 2006). Although there are few universally at the weakest part of the rock mass, along natural
accepted definitions, it is convenient to distinguish discontinuities, exhibiting a shearing or sliding
between support and reinforcement, as put forward mechanism. A conceptual model of displacement is
by Windsor and Thompson (1993): “Support is the shown in Figure 1.1. The green arrows show the initial
application of a reactive force at the face of the excavation.” natural response of the rock mass at the boundary of
And… “Reinforcement is considered to be an improvement the excavation. As a result of this initial movement,
of the overall rock mass properties from within the rock dilation along discontinuities (blue arrows) becomes
mass and will therefore include all devices installed possible, and this enables sliding of blocks along
in boreholes.” discontinuities (red arrows). The behaviour of
The application of both surface support and discontinuities under load has been investigated
reinforcement to stabilise an excavation in rock extensively in rock mechanics. This has resulted in
constitutes the ground support system. a series of representative failure criteria capturing
Surface support is generally installed on the surface the influence of different parameters such as joint
of excavations (roofs and walls) to catch rock material roughness, asperities and scale effects; for example
that may detach from the boundary, hence maintaining Patton (1966), Barton (1976) and Bandis et al. (1983).
its integrity and limiting deformation or ‘bulking’ of the The impact of reinforcement on individual
surface. The timbering described in Agricola (1556), as discontinuities is complex. It is influenced by the
well as in early mining textbooks such as Peele (1941), discontinuity characteristics, the properties of the
was in fact a form of surface support. In modern mining, reinforcement system and loading conditions. This
mesh and shotcrete have replaced timbering. has been the topic of several investigations: laboratory,
In this book, the term ‘ground support’ is used to refer to analytical and numerical. Bjurström (1974) undertook
both surface support and reinforcement. some of the earliest laboratory tests to investigate
3
This book is available from the ACG store
https://acg.uwa.edu.au/shop/gsso/
--
........
--
a e
•
2
Chapter 2 : Rock mass behaviour and

failure mechanisms
Courtesy Mount Isa Mines, A Glencore Company

Rock mass behaviour and
CHAPTER TWO
2
failure mechanisms
2.1 Introduction
Identifying the behaviour and potential failure function of the ratio of the maximum far field stress to
mechanisms of the rock mass around underground the unconfined compressive strength (σ1/σc). Rock mass
excavations is critical to the selection and design of quality was assigned based on rock mass rating (RMR)
appropriate support systems. An important objective values (Bieniawski 1989).
of ground support is to resist rock mass deformation The inherent assumption behind most of these tunnel
resulting from mining activities and changes in stress
instability mechanisms is that the rock mass is isotropic.
conditions. It is therefore essential that the rock mass
In reality, rock mass anisotropy is quite common and can
deformation process is understood.
have a significant impact on ground behaviour and failure
Rock mass instability is an ever-present threat to mechanisms. Anisotropy implies that rock properties
both the safety of people and equipment in the mine. vary with direction. Rock mass anisotropy is observed
It can be very intricate and may involve multiple in several rock types such as schists, slates, phyllites
complex processes. In Chapter 1, a simple grouping was and gneisses. Anisotropic behaviour is also observed in
proposed whereby mining geomechanics environments regularly jointed and bedded rock masses. Specifically,
were distinguished as ‘normal’, ‘high stress’ and ‘large when a rock mass has one of its discontinuity sets with
deformations’. All three types may occur in different a spacing much smaller than other discontinuities, the
places in one mine or even in the same place at different rock mass discontinuity fabric will have a laminated
times. The failure mechanisms associated with these
shape. Colloquially, such a rock mass can be referred to
environments generally are:
as bedded, foliated or laminated rock. The most frequent
• discrete gravity-driven wedge failure failure mechanism in laminated rock masses is flexural
• stress-driven rock failure exhibiting progressive failure (buckling of layers) as shown in Figure 2.2(a),
fracturing and accumulated damage (spalling and which can result in gravity fall or slabbing (Figure 2.2b).
crushing) or sudden violent failure (rockburst)
Anisotropic rock masses exhibit different behaviour
• stress-driven large deformations defined by a when loaded or unloaded in different directions.
weak rock mass or the presence of discontinuities
Therefore, the relative orientation of the layers compared
(squeezing ground).
to the excavation surface and the stress field influence
Conceptual models of typical failure mechanisms the potential for and severity of failure. The thickness of
related to underground excavations in hard rock have the layers also has a significant influence on the stability
been proposed by Stillborg (1994), Hoek et al. (1995), of anisotropic rock masses.
Kaiser et al. (1996) and Palmström and Stille (2007). This
chapter extends some of the existing concepts to present a
simple framework to categorise typical ground behaviour 2.2 Loading and failure mechanisms
and failure mechanisms in underground mines. To understand rock mass failure mechanisms, it is
Hoek et al. (1995) provided a conceptual basis for important to examine the driving forces that act on the
identifying potential tunnel instability modes as a rock. In Section 1.2, three generic mining geomechanics
function of in situ stress (low or high) and rock mass environments are defined based on relative stress and
quality (massive, jointed and heavily jointed rock). rock mass conditions and, in Figure 2.1, rock behaviour
Martin et al. (1999) expanded this to a 3 × 3 matrix is divided into categories also based on stress levels and
by including an intermediate in situ stress component rock mass quality. This is a logical basis for considering
(Figure 2.1). They further defined the stress levels as a loading and failure mechanisms. The fundamentals
15
Chapter 2 : Rock mass behaviour and failure mechanisms
2.3 Summary of typical failure loading and soft loading conditions. The matrix shows
mechanisms in underground the probable failure mechanisms resulting from the
mines combination of loading conditions and rock masses.
Based on the scenarios involving different rock masses

and loading conditions discussed in this chapter, we have 2.4 Stress path
developed a matrix to summarise and categorise the One of the major differences between civil tunnelling
potential failure mechanisms commonly encountered and mining excavation is that, in civil works, the
in underground hard rock mines. The new matrix is stress fields tend to remain constant throughout the
shown in Figure 2.13. serviceable life of the tunnel. In mining excavation,
Rock masses are divided into isotropic and anisotropic the stress fields may change significantly, depending
materials. Like the Martin et al. (1999) matrix on their proximity to production mining where large
(Figure 2.1), the isotropic category is subdivided according excavations are created. The difference is illustrated
to competency into massive, moderately fractured in Figure 2.14, which suggests that in civil tunnelling,
(jointed) and heavily fractured (jointed) categories. A excavation-induced stresses peak at a distance of about
block size scale is provided as a rough guide to assist in three tunnel diameters behind the tunnel while mining-
categorising the rock mass competency. Anisotropic rock induced stresses can continue to increase.
masses are subdivided according to the relative angle of Ground support systems in mining must therefore
the foliation compared to the excavation surface (parallel cater for the potential range of variations in the stress
or perpendicular) and subdivided again according to the field. In some instances, the magnitude may be more
spacing between the foliation planes. These are the two than double the original stress, creating high compressive
main parameters controlling the failure mechanisms. stress conditions, and subsequently decrease to virtually
The loading conditions are divided into low stress and no stress, creating a low confinement environment. The
high stress. The high stress is further subdivided into stiff principal stresses can also experience severe rotation at
Low stress High stress
Stiff loading Soft loading
Massive
N/A Spalling Rockburst
Isotropic rock mass
rock mass
Block size scale (cm)
100+
Large
50 Jointed Gravity wedge
Crushing/shearing Rockburst
rock mass shakedown
Small
10
Heavily Unravelling
jointed Squeezing Squeezing
1 shakedown
rock mass
Foliation spacing (cm)
90° >10
Thick layers
N/A Spalling Rockburst
Relative angle of foliation Ψ
Anisotropic rock mass
Thin layers <1 Buckling Crushing Crushing/buckling

Foliation spacing (cm)
Thick layers
>10 Gravity slabbing
Buckling Rockburst
shakedown
Unravelling
0° Thin layers <1 Squeezing Squeezing/buckling
shakedown
FIGURE 2.13 Rock mass behaviour and failure mechanism matrix
23
--
........
--
a e
•
3
Chapter 3 : Rock reinforcement behaviour,

anchoring mechanisms and
specifications
Courtesy Glencore Canada

Rock reinforcement behaviour, anchoring
CHAPTER THREE
3
mechanisms and specifications
3.1 Introduction Chapter 2 focused on the behaviour of a rock mass
around excavations and potential failure mechanisms.
A wide variety of ground support products is available
This chapter describes the load–displacement behaviour
to the mining industry worldwide. The list of new
products is constantly expanding but, at the same time, of rock reinforcement, providing the background for
certain products fall out of favour and are withdrawn selecting the elements that meet the rock mass demand.
from the market. For example, as patent protection Anchoring mechanisms and specifications of available
expires, more companies sell different versions of some reinforcement elements are summarised.
bolts and so the presentation of a definitive list cannot
be included. In the introductory chapter, we divided 3.2 Rock reinforcement behaviour
ground support elements into two broad categories:
The behaviour of rock reinforcement elements can be
reinforcement applied internally to the rock mass and
quite complex. For practical purposes, it is usual to test a
surface support applied externally. This chapter focuses
on reinforcement elements. Surface support will be reinforcement element by subjecting it to an axial tensile
discussed in Chapter 4. force and recording the displacement to produce a
force–displacement (or load–displacement) graph
Reinforcement elements in underground mines
(Figure 3.1). In this context, ‘working capacity’ is the
can be subdivided into short and long bolts. Rockbolts
load on the reinforcement element at which significantly
generally aim at stabilising a shallow zone within 2–3 m
increasing displacement begins and ‘ultimate capacity’ is
of the excavation surface. Cable bolts are designed for
the maximum load sustained by the element.
deeper reinforcement, from about 3–15 m and beyond,
depending on the application. The use of multiple
connectable bolt segments to form a longer rockbolt fall
under the deep reinforcement category.
Since rock reinforcement is installed internally, it is
intimately coupled to the rock mass. The behaviour of Ultimate capacity
the reinforcement and, more specifically, its deformation

Working capacity
characteristics when subjected to load, must therefore
match the deformation in the rock mass. Otherwise
decoupling will occur, triggering failure of the rock
Load
reinforcement bond or, if the bond is strong enough,

failure of the reinforcement element itself. Consequently,
it is important to understand the behaviour of rock
reinforcement in the context of its interaction with the
rock mass.
In Chapter 1, we proposed the following three broad
Displacement
geomechanics environments or ground condition
categories, based on the relative level of stress compared
to the strength of the rock mass and on the deformation
characteristics of the rock mass: ‘normal’, ‘high stress’, FIGURE 3.1 Typical load versus displacement
and ‘large deformation’. behaviour of a rockbolt pull test (after ASTM D4435–13)
27
I IV
Axial stress in bolt

σ0
Shear/axial stress
Shear stress on bolt
σ0
FIGURE 3.10 Stress distributions along the length of a point anchor bolt when subjected to a pull load at the bolt head
(after Li et al. 2014)
In the past, mechanical anchor bolts were widely used point anchor bolt overcomes many of the mechanical
in underground mines throughout the world. In recent anchor quality control issues but it has its own resin
years, due to a number of limitations and quality control mixing issues. The low stiffness of the point anchor bolt
issues with the shell anchor, their use has been reduced is considered a disadvantage in normal conditions (i.e. a
significantly. The shell anchoring mechanism tends low-stress environment and stiff rock masses).
to loosen with time and blasting-induced vibrations.
Consequently, these bolts generally require repeated
retorquing to maintain their capacity. Furthermore, the
mechanical shell anchor does not grip well in very hard Bail
rock and can over-expand in very soft rock. If faceplate
support is lost, the bolt may perform inefficiently. Also, Wedge
corrosion may degrade these anchors.
Point anchoring can also be achieved by grouting a
section of a rebar or a thread bar at the toe of the borehole Segments
(Figure 3.9b). A fast-setting resin cartridge is inserted at Sleeve

the toe of the hole. The fast-setting resin usually takes
less than 30 seconds to set, after which it is possible to
install the surface fixture and tension the bolt using a nut
and plate, in a similar way to the shell anchor. In most
Friction flares
applications, a resin cartridge is used for grouting but
cement cartridges are also available.
A long curing time makes cement anchored bolts FIGURE 3.11 Components of an expansion shell
impractical for point anchoring applications. The resin anchor: the bail, wedge, segments, sleeve and friction flares
34
4
Chapter 4 : Surface support behaviour

Surface support behaviour
CHAPTER FOUR
4
4.1 Introduction takes advantage of the strength and yielding properties of
different support elements. However, success depends on
Reinforcement and surface support elements interact
the connection between the reinforcement and surface
to form an integrated ground support system.
support being strong enough to transfer and share the
Independently, they each have a role to play based
load as a fully integrated support system.
on their mode of interaction with the rock mass.
Reinforcement elements penetrate the rock mass, resist In this chapter, we discuss the three main types
internal rock movement and preserve the integrity of of surface support products: steel mesh, straps and
the rock mass as a structural material. Surface support shotcrete. We describe their behaviour, specifications
links reinforcement elements together at the rock and applicability to different ground conditions.
surface to resist surface deformation and contain rock Further details of surface support in underground
fragments from falling or ejecting. mining, including case studies, can be found in Potvin
et al. (2004a) and Hadjigeorgiou and Potvin (2011a).
Steel mesh was the principal means of surface support
The fundamentals of shotcrete are described in ACI
in underground mines until the 1990s when the use
506R-16 (American Concrete Institute 2016) and of
of shotcrete became more widespread. The mesh was
fibre-reinforced shotcrete in ACI 506.1R-08 (American
intended to retain smaller pieces of loose rock between
Concrete Institute 2008).
the reinforcement elements. Essentially, rockbolts were
designed to support larger wedges or rock blocks while
mesh was installed in the roof of mine drives to prevent 4.2 Mesh
fallout of smaller rock between the rockbolts. Given Following the rapid mechanisation of mines in the
that reinforcement patterns generally vary from about late 1970s, the size of mine equipment has increased
1 × 1 m to 1.5 × 1.5 m, the maximum weight of a rock significantly and so has the requirement for larger
prism that can detach from between bolts is about 20 kN. underground excavations. Consequently, the probability
Therefore, mesh commonly used in underground mines of rockfalls has increased due to the larger spans
has a load-bearing scope capable of holding that weight. involved. At the same time, the ability of mine workers
In this context, mesh acts as passive support. to manage this risk by regularly inspecting and scaling
The introduction of shotcrete in underground mines possible loose ground has been hampered by limited
has extended the capacity of surface support to provide visual and manual reach to high backs. This has led to an
a more active and immediate reaction to rock movement increased need for surface support. Nowadays, in most
and to preserve the self-supporting capability and mining jurisdictions, it is mandatory that miners are
confinement of the rock mass. never exposed to unsupported ground because it is seen
In poor ground conditions, especially where stress as an unsafe practice.
exceeds rock mass strength, the concept of larger and The modern way to manage the risk of smaller
smaller wedges is no longer the primary concern for rockfalls in large excavations is by systematically
designers because in these situations the rock mass often installing surface support to the back of drives that
deforms significantly as a volume of material instead exceed 3.5 m in height. Mesh (also referred to as ‘screen’
of as discrete block failure. Reinforcement and surface in North America) is the main type of surface support
support must then work together as a system to contain applied worldwide in underground mines. Depending
the volumetric deformation. Combinations of surface on the ground conditions and the mandatory
support elements, such as shotcrete and mesh or mesh and requirements, the installation of mesh is often extended
straps, are often used in these situations. This approach down to the shoulder of the excavation (3.5 m from
55
conversely, a drive with a high profile factor that would The application of shotcrete in mining is different.
probably require > 50 mm of shotcrete. First, the vertical walls allow bending in the layer.
Consider a case where the ground condition factor Second, the liner thickness is relatively rarely extended
to the floor. In fact, in many instances, the lower wall
is fair, the drill and blast process is also fair, and a
is not covered (Figure 4.20). Therefore, the shotcrete
75 mm shotcrete liner is proposed. The excavation
support reaction in mining relies on adhesion to the
profile roughness factor as read from Table 4.4 is 1.61.
rock surface to prevent rock mass deformation and
Moving to Table 4.5, a roughness factor combined with a
interlocking rock mass joints, and on the transmission
75 mm liner implies a roughness factor of 1.10 and a
of the load from the surface to the reinforcement.
volume increase factor of 1.8.
Stacey (2001) considered in some detail the
Several Australian mines establish the roughness factor
interaction between deforming rock masses and the
based on site-specific visual observations as illustrated in
stabilisation mechanisms of liners, including shotcrete
Figure 4.18. The roughness factor varying from 1.3 to 1.9 and thin spray-on liners (TSL). He proposed several
can be applied as a multiplier of the volume of shotcrete stabilisation scenarios that are regrouped here into five
required to cover a flat surface. main mechanisms and summarised in Figure 4.21.
As an alternative, a rule of thumb for increasing wet Stacey (2001) also proposed a pictorial description of
shotcrete volume in Australian mines based on ground loading and failure scenarios for liners that are regrouped
conditions is 1.3 for excellent conditions, 1.5 for average here under three main mechanisms and summarised in
conditions and 1.7 for very poor conditions. Figure 4.22. Note that some of the diagrams of failure
mechanisms in Figure 4.22 are similar to the stabilising
4.4.4 Shotcrete stabilisation mechanisms mechanism shown in Figure 4.21.
In civil tunnelling and shaft applications where

excavations are circular, shotcrete is often applied as a 4.4.5 Reinforced shotcrete arches
closed ring designed to ensure it acts in compression. In very poor ground conditions, or when dealing
Even when a horseshoe-shaped civil tunnel is used, with very high stress, the common combination of
which is much closer to a mining drive shape, shotcrete reinforcement and surface support may not be sufficient
is applied all the way down to the floor and the floor to keep deformation under control. Shotcrete arches
itself is sometimes covered. Clements (2009) used simple have been used with some degree of success in such
diagrams (Figure 4.19) to illustrate how the vertical load conditions (Gaudreau et al. 2004; Ferland & Fuller 2011).
is transferred from the overlying rock mass to the floor, The construction of reinforced shotcrete arches is
through the arched shotcrete liner, with the arch shape rapid as it utilises a variety of prefabricated steel frame
promoting compression within the liner. modules made, for example, of 9.5 mm (#3) rebars and
C
L C
L C
L C
L
1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
FIGURE 4.18 Guide for assessing drive profile roughness factor to estimate the volume of shotcrete required
68
--
........
--
a e
•
5
Chapter 5 : Rock mass data

Rock mass data
CHAPTER FIVE
5
5.1 Introduction convenient to characterise independently the intact rock,
individual discontinuities and the rock mass. In recent
Ground support design requires an understanding of the
years, it has also been recognised that the presence of
relationship between the size and shape of an excavation,
veins in an intact rock matrix merits individual attention
the stress regime, the surrounding rock mass and the
for caving applications. Rock mass characterisation is
strength and displacement capacity of the ground
not entirely based on quantitative measurements or
support system. There is no unique approach to the
qualitative observations, but on a combination of both.
design of ground support. An effective design requires
the availability of adequate and representative rock mass A comprehensive rock mass characterisation process
data and an understanding of the potential loading and should contain all information necessary to enable
failure mechanisms and their interaction with the ground future desktop classification of the rock mass, using any
support system. This allows the treatment of ground of the popular classification systems. It should provide
support design as a capacity and demand problem. In information relevant to all the likely failure mechanisms,
practice, it is often difficult to quantify the capacity of, so that these and their appropriate failure criteria can be
and demand on, an engineered structure (in this context, taken into account in the support design.
an excavation in rock). This has led to the development The rock mass characterisation process should be
of a range of empirical tools for the design of ground independent of the design process and, as a result, a given
support in parallel with analytical approaches. Both the rock mass volume has a unique rock mass characterisation.
analytical and empirical approaches require knowledge Consequently, sound rock mass characterisation should
of the intact rock and rock mass strength. This chapter provide information on the rock mass character at different
provides an overview of rock mass properties taken into scales. For example, tunnel-scale characterisation should
consideration in the design of ground support. not ignore the larger scale structures spaced at intervals
that are greater than tunnel scale. Such structures may have
It is useful to make the distinction between rock
a significant impact on the design of larger engineering
mass characterisation and classification. Rock mass
structures, such as open stopes, but are not represented
characterisation is the process of identifying features or
appropriately in the rock mass classification systems that
parameters of importance for an engineering project.
were originally developed for tunnelling design. From a
This involves measuring and/or describing these rock
ground support perspective, rock mass characterisation
properties and assigning values or ratings based on
can provide the necessary input parameters to rock mass
their structure, composition properties and mechanical
classification schemes, and rock strength and failure
behaviour. Rock mass classification on the other hand
criteria used in the analysis and design of ground support.
is the process of assigning rock mass properties into
classes with the purpose of reaching a better overview The fundamental distinction of rock compared to
and understanding of a set of data for applying empirical other engineering materials is the presence of fractures
design methods. or discontinuities. Brady and Brown (2006) describe
the intact rock between discontinuities as rock material,
and the total in situ medium containing bedding planes,
5.2 Rock mass characterisation faults, joints, folds and other structural features as the
Rock mass characterisation focuses on characterising rock mass. The International Society for Rock Mechanics
the intact rock properties, the intensity, orientation, (ISRM 2007) identified 10 parameters that can be used to
persistence of natural fractures (joint sets) and the characterise a rock mass, and Hudson (1989) provided the
conditions of each joint set. For engineering purposes, it is conceptual representation illustrated in Figure 5.1.
77
--
........
--
a e
•
and of fractures and other defects along the borehole.

Televiewer images can be used as a means of quality
control and assurance by providing a reconciliation
is
ax
α-angle of the recorded images to core. Figure 5.7(a) provides
e
or
illc
an example of sample optical and acoustic televiewer
Dr
images in a jointed zone resulting in broken core while
Figure 5.7(b) shows the photographed core box interval
axis between 48.5 and 52 m, showing the broken core zone.
β-angle el ong
Ellips
Although constructing reliable structural models from
e
lin
e
core is not a trivial subject, it is often not done with the

nc
re
fe
required level of detail and precision unless explicitly

Re
is e
ax cor
Bottom of core
requested by the design team and management. A further
ill
Dr
concern is that most methods for determining the

orientation of planar structures from drillcore are designed
to work with full core, as retrieved directly from a drillhole.
FIGURE 5.6 Measurement of orientation of
discontinuity in oriented drillcore In most mining and exploration circumstances,
mass quality from boreholes. The ISRM has proposed a critical intervals of the core are cut in half for assay
method for rock fracture observations using a borehole purposes, as soon as possible after drilling. There are
digital optical televiewer (Li et al. 2015). limited approaches to determine orientation from half
The use of optical and acoustic geo-cameras or core, for example, the method by Blenkinsop and Doyle
televiewers provides a valuable tool in obtaining 360° (2010), and it is difficult to establish how these methods
digital colour images of the walls inside a borehole are applied.
(a)
Depth Geology Optical televiewer Acoustic televiewer Caliper Televiewer structure Televiewer tadpoles Core logged tadpoles Jt ship Joint
1m:25m 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 3.75 4.5 0° 90° 180° 270° 0° 0° 90° 0° 90° Rough Alt’n
48.0
UN,SM 4
UN,RO 1
PL,RO 1
Zone of broken core
Granite
49.0
UN,RO 4
UN,RO 3
50.0
PL,RO 4
UN,RO 3
(b)
FIGURE 5.7 (a) Optical and televiewer images reconciled with photographed core; and (b) Photographed core for the
same length as in (a) (courtesy Golder Associates)
84
6
Chapter 6 : Rock stress data

J Hadjigeorgiou, PM Dight and Y Potvin

Rock stress data
CHAPTER SIX
6
6.1 Introduction the influence of mining-induced stresses and the
resulting rock mass behaviour around excavations. Still
Excavations in rock redistribute the in situ or virgin
further analysis will estimate the potential load and
stresses around an opening, inducing a new set of
displacement demand to which the ground support will
stresses. Knowledge of the orientation and magnitude
be subjected. In effect, good geomechanical practices
of these stress fields contribute to an understanding of
require an understanding of both in situ and induced
ground behaviour and potential failure mechanisms
stress fields.
of the rock mass. This was illustrated in the developed
ground behaviour matrix introduced in Chapter 2. The Hudson et al. (2003) provide a roadmap for developing
in situ, or pre-mining, stress field is usually estimated an improved understanding of the in situ stress field. The
or measured, while mining-induced stress is calculated objective of their incremental approach, as summarised
by analytical solutions or determined by stress analysis in Table 6.1, was to build up knowledge of the rock
software, which facilitates the introduction of multiple stress tensor (a tensor is a quantity with magnitude
excavations and more complex geometries. The in situ and direction acting across a plane). The table includes
stress field is an important component in assessing the respective steps in the important tasks of hydraulic
underground excavation design, since in many cases, fracturing and overcoring techniques. In practice, both
the strength of the rock is exceeded and the resulting for practical and economic reasons, not all of these steps
instability can have serious consequences on the are used to construct stress models at a specific mine site.
behaviour of the excavations. Selected elements of the steps presented in Table 6.1 are
discussed further in this chapter.
A simplifying assumption (and not valid in all
environments) is that vertical stresses (σv) at depth Before commencing a campaign of stress estimation,
are directly related to the weight of the overlying rock it is important to establish the objectives (e.g. mine
or overburden. It is also convenient to discuss the activity, productivity, costs) and acknowledge specific
magnitude of horizontal stresses (σh) as a function of site conditions, such as the presence of large-scale
the vertical stress, where k = σh/σv. The principal stresses structures and rock mass heterogeneity. Further, any
are the normal stresses in the directions where the shear interpretation of the results of stress measurements
stress is zero. They are represented by the major (σ1), should comment on the reliability of these results with
intermediate (σ2) and minor (σ3) principal stresses. reference to intrinsic and natural uncertainty, as well
From an engineering perspective, any discussion of as the reliability associated with analysis of the data.
stress should recognise the inherent variations of stress Amadei and Stephansson (1997) warn that “an exact
as a function of scale. This includes the regional stresses, prediction of the in situ stresses in rock and their spatial
the mine-site scale and the excavation scale, all of which variation is very difficult and for all practical purposes
are important for the design of ground support. At the impossible, as the current stress state is the end product of
same time, it is important to acknowledge the influence a series of past geological events and the superposition of
of stress variations at the borehole scale and its impact on stress components of several diverse types”.
stress measurements.
Selecting an appropriate ground support system is a 6.2 Pre-mining stress regime and
progressive process. A first step is determining whether trends
a geotechnical domain qualifies as a high or low stress Rock stress measurements are required as input
zone, is based on the depth of mining, the local ‘k’ ratio information for design. For a given project, pre-mining
(σ1/σ3) and an estimate of rock mass strength. stresses can be determined in two ways. One is to
Subsequent (more detailed) analysis will consider undertake a direct stress measurement campaign; the
117
The elastic modulus and Poisson’s ratio are measured extreme temperatures, either low or high, or due to core
onsite, with least delay time, using a biaxial cell. disking, overcore breakout, or in poor/highly fractured
Generally, several measurements, taken close to each ground conditions).
other, are made in the same or adjacent boreholes to
investigate the inherent variability of the results and 6.3.1.2 The modified doorstopper
obtain higher confidence in the data. Challenges may The original CSIR doorstopper equipment and procedure
arise when some measurements differ from others, as it is has been described by Leeman (1971). A borehole is
sometimes difficult to identify whether the difference is drilled into the rock and the strain cell is glued on the
due to a local stress effect or simply a poor measurement flattened end of the borehole. The rock carrying the cell
result. is overcored, thus relieving the stresses present on the
The CSIRO HI Cell has been widely used in mines flattened and ground smooth end of the borehole. The
for at least 40 years. Like all overcoring methods, it strains are recorded before and after overcoring, and the
has significant limitations. An important limitation is stresses at the end of the hole are determined based on
that the measurements site needs to be more distant the elastic properties of the rock.
from a mine access than a radius of about three times
The latest version of the modified doorstopper cell and
the opening width (i.e. 15 m away for a 5 m drive).
wireless datalogger by Corthésy et al. (2016), as shown
During the feasibility stage of a greenfield project, where
in Figure 6.10, provides continuous monitoring of the
pre-mining stress data are required for mine design
strain gauges, of a resistance temperature detector (RTD)
purposes, such access rarely exists. Another significant
and of a reference gauge. It can be attached to the rock
limitation is the underlying assumption in transforming
in water-filled boreholes. A stress reduction procedure
strain into stress using the elastic properties of intact
suggested by Corthésy et al. (1994) allows the calculation
rock. This assumption implies that the rock is continuous,
homogeneous, isotropic and has perfectly elastic of four stress components from only one measurement
behaviour. Unless these assumptions are met at the scale in a single borehole, and the complete 3D stress tensor
of the core, an error is introduced in the interpretation can then be obtained from measurements performed
of the measurement data. The error and suitability in two non-parallel or non-perpendicular boreholes.
of overcoring is a function of the nature of the rock Recent improvements to this procedure, as discussed by
(e.g. anisotropy, non-linearity, non-homogeneity). Corthésy et al. (2016) and Corthésy & Leite (2017), allow
Therefore, one of the most important criteria in selecting the simultaneous consideration of rock anisotropy and
an area suitable for measurements is the quality of the progressive rock failure during the stress relief process.
core and absence of structures. An advantage of the modified doorstopper, compared
Based on anecdotal evidence and discussions with to other overcoring methods, is that the overcore length
practitioners, a success rate of about 70% can be expected does not have to be long, making it very expedient in
with HI Cell measurements in normal conditions. weak and fractured ground in highly stressed rock
Invalid measurements can occur when the glue does not masses. An example of a recovered rock core in a highly
cover the strain gauge properly (due to air bubbles or fractured rock mass is reproduced in Figure 6.11.
FIGURE 6.10 The modified doorstopper cell (after Corthésy & Leite 2017)
128
--
........
--
a e
•
7
Chapter 7 : Ground support

performance data
Courtesy Natural Resources Canada

Ground support performance data
CHAPTER SEVEN
7
7.1 Introduction Numerical modelling methods can model ground
support explicitly or non-explicitly. As with the limit
The choice of a particular approach to ground support
equilibrium approach, non-explicit design will generally
design has significant implications for the type of input
require only load and/or displacement capacity of ground
data required. While previous chapters have focused on
support to compare with the weight of a calculated failed
stress and rock mass data collection, this chapter reviews
zone or deformation of a failed rock mass. Explicit
the various techniques for determining ground support
modelling of ground support is a more complex approach
data that characterise reinforcement and surface
that requires intricate data on the performance of ground
support behaviour.
support elements.
There are three main approaches in ground support
For the more commonly used analytical methods and
design: (a) empirical, (b) analytical, and (c) numerical
non-explicit numerical modelling, the data requirements
modelling. Input data requirements are different for each
generally focus principally on static, and sometimes,
method.
dynamic load and displacement capacity of ground
Empirical, and in particular, rock mass classification support elements. These are the main topics covered in
methods, do not usually rely on any ground support this chapter.
performance data for design. They typically provide
The performance of ground support elements is
ground support recommendations based on a rock
generally investigated using standard laboratory tests
mass classification rating and the excavation span. In
or in situ (often underground) testing. Laboratory tests
this way, they bypass capacity and demand calculations
are useful because they are performed using standard
and usually make no distinction on the type of bolt or
procedures with reliable equipment and tend to produce
energy capacity required. An exception to this is the
repeatable results. However, their capacity to simulate
use of support pressure estimates as a function of a
classification system rating. For example, Barton et al. real conditions has known limitations.
(1974) proposed relationships for support pressure, In situ tests allow the assessment of the performance
p, in MPa as a function of the rock mass rating Q. of ground support elements under real conditions, and in
Hutchinson and Diederichs (1996) suggested that this an evolving environment throughout the mine life. Many
support pressure can be loosely related to the installed aspects of interactions between, for example, rockbolts,
bolt capacity per unit area of excavated rock face or to an bonding agent and the rock mass, or the friction capacity
equivalent cable bolt spacing. of anchors in different ground conditions, can only be
Analytical limit equilibrium methods typically require investigated with in situ testing programs.
further information on ground support capacity and A significant number of tests have been proposed
demand. The demand is based on the dead weight of and used over time, both for laboratory and in situ
failed ground or wedges and is compared to ground conditions. It is useful to separate testing programs of
support capacity. As such, some form of assessment data ground support according to the objective of the test.
for load bearing ground support performance is required The first and most common objective is to perform tests
when using a limit equilibrium approach. However, for the purpose of quality assurance/quality control
the use of limit equilibrium analysis is problematic for (QA/QC). Figure 7.1 provides a classification tree of
dynamic support as it is extremely difficult to estimate different QA/QC testing methods that may be applied
the dynamic demand on the ground support system as to reinforcement and surface support elements under
well as the dynamic capacity of the system. laboratory and in situ conditions.
141
Chen and Li (2014) used the same apparatus as Stjern

(1995) to further investigate the influence of loading
30
under a combination of pull and shear, by applying
28 Resin-grouted 22 mm
26
diameter fibreglass rod both a lateral shear displacement (Ds) and an axial
24 pull displacement (Dp) to the bolt (Figure 7.10). They
22
Resin-grouted 20 mm
defined the angle between these two displacements as
diameter steel rebar
20
the displacing angle α:
Cement-grouted
Load (tonnes)
18 20 mm diameter
steel rebar
16
Ds
14 α = arctan Dp
7.1
EXL Swellex dowel
12
to 150 mm
10 Expansion shell anchored
8
17.3 mm diameter
rockbolt The loading angle was denoted as the angle between
6 the lateral shear load (Fs) and the axial pull load (Fp):
4 to 150 mm
Type SS 39
2 Split Set stabiliser Fs
θ = arctan Fp
7.2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Displacement (mm)
In a series of tests on cement-grouted rebars, at a range
of displacing angles (α) from 0° (pure pull) to 90° (pure
FIGURE 7.6 Load–displacement curves obtained shear), they demonstrated that ultimate displacement
from laboratory pull tests on a variety of commonly used
at failure decreases with an increase in the displacing
rockbolts (based on Stillborg 1994 and compiled by Hoek
et al. 1995) angle. Chen and Li (2015) undertook further tests using
Shear cube
Bolt
Tension cube
Loadcell
LVDT
WP
WP WP
Shear cylinder
WP
(500 kN)
WP Wire potentiometer
Tension cylinder
LVDT Linear variable differential transducer
(2 × 300 kN)
FIGURE 7.7 Schematic illustration of full-scale Norges Tekniske Hogskøle (NTH) test rig (after Stjern 1995)
146
I IV
8
Chapter 8 : Geomechanical data

confidence and reliability
Courtesy MMG Dugald River Mine

Geomechanical data confidence
CHAPTER EIGHT
8
and reliability
8.1 Introduction in both the geological and the geomechanical models.
Read and Stacey (2009) refer to a rock mass model as a
The data required for the design of ground support
subcomponent of the geomechanical model. In practice,
under static loading conditions essentially comprises
there is no standardised way to organise mine design
parameters characterising the rock mass combined with
data but it is generically convenient to construct a series
the stress field to assess the demand on ground support,
and laboratory and/or field testing data to assess the of databases or models.
capacity of the support elements. The construction of a mine geomechanical model
The specific data required to undertake an analysis that was briefly discussed in Chapter 5 was undertaken
is necessarily a function of the support design method during the scoping and feasibility study and evolved
selected. For example, numerical modelling may as the mining project developed into an operating
require different data than empirical design approaches. mine. Commonly, the mining industry refers to five
A probabilistic approach will need to meet certain data stages of mine design using the following standardised
sampling protocols while rules of thumb can be applied terminology (Table 8.1).
on more limited and simplified datasets. Nevertheless,
TABLE 8.1 Stages of mining project development
there exists a common basis of raw geomechanical data (after Read 2009)
that are used as input by most ground support design
methods. The purpose of this section is to present relevant Mining project (or mine design) stages
information from the literature to help practitioners 1 Conceptual (or scoping) study
obtain meaningful datasets for ground support design.
2 Prefeasibility study
3 Feasibility study
8.2 Organising datasets into models
Ground support design is generally one of many 4 Detailed design and construction
tasks to be completed within a general mine design 5 Operations

context. Mine design is a complex process and relies on
numerous sources of data. The datasets used for mine Most models, and geotechnical models in particular,
design work, including ground support design, are become increasingly populated from Stages 1 to 5. It is
often organised into models. Some of the commonly generally assumed that the level of confidence in the
used models include: quantity and quality of geotechnical data should increase
• geological models focusing on orebody grade from one project stage to another throughout the timeline
• structural models displaying major structures of a mine operation. Hence, an important consideration
such as faults and shear zones and containing when undertaking data collection for design purposes is
information on their characteristics the quantity and variability of geotechnical data required
• geomechanical models containing intact rock to meet the target levels of data confidence (TLDC)
properties and rock mass characterisation data. relevant to each stage of the mine project. The TLDC is
an important concept for the interpretation of data.
A model may be defined as a representation of the
environment, built to show assumed important indicators Although uncertainty, input data variability, reliability
of reality. The boundaries between different models and confidence level are terms that have different
and the content of each model are not consistent from meanings, they are sometimes used interchangeably.
mine to mine. For example, structures may be included Baecher and Christian (2003) distinguish two types of
179
Chapter 8 : Geomechanical data confidence and reliability
The practical implication is that it may be beneficial to

select a higher p resulting in a slightly lower bound for
2.2
CI instead of collecting additional data to increase CI.
Average UCS = 18.4 MPa
2.0 Furthermore, in their analysis of UCS data from
Cl = 86%
a South African mine, Fillion and Hadjigeorgiou
1.8 (2017) illustrated the significant difference in the
Precision index (p)
minimum number of specimens required for the same

1.6 confidence interval in different geotechnical domains
Cl = 61% (Figure 8.9). For a CI of 90%, the minimum number of
1.4 specimens needed ranged from four in the kimberlite
Cl = 47%
domain to 127 in the Vryheid siltstone, sandstone and
1.2 conglomerate domain.
Cl = 23%
The different steps in the use of the methodology
1.0 for determining the minimum number of specimens
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
required for laboratory testing to reach a targeted level
of confidence and precision index on the confidence
FIGURE 8.8
interval is outlined in Table 8.9, based on Fillion and
Example of the influence of the precision
index p on the resulting confidence interval for lognormally Hadjigeorgiou (2017).
distributed UCS data (after Fillion & Hadjigeorgiou 2017)
(adapted by permission from Springer Nature Customer
Service Centre GmbH: Springer, Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering)
300
250
Vryheid siltstone, sandstone and conglomerate
Kimberlite
Minimum number of samples needed
Dolerite
200
150
100
50
0
70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Confidence interval Cl (%)
FIGURE 8.9 Minimum number of specimens needed as function of confidence intervals for different
geotechnical domains (after Fillion & Hadjigeorgiou 2017)
191
--
........
--
This book is available
a e from the ACG store
•
9
Chapter 9 : Analytical ground support

design methods
Courtesy John Hadjigeorgiou

Analytical ground support design methods
CHAPTER NINE
9
9.1 Introduction In previous chapters, we established that the data
required for design of ground support is related to the
The design of underground excavations in rock has
design approach to be implemented. A number of design
been reviewed in multiple publications, textbooks and
methods are available to practitioners. Groupings of these
handbooks. Bieniawski (1992) has written extensively
methods seem to vary in the technical literature. For
on design for rock engineering, suggesting that the
example, Choquet and Hadjigeorgiou (1993) identified
following principles should be an integral part of
design methods as empirical, rational and observational.
all design processes: clarity of design objectives and
functional requirements; minimum uncertainty • Empirical – which quite often involves rock
mass classification schemes accompanied by a
of geological conditions; simplicity of design
set of design recommendations or employing
components; state-of-the-art practice; optimisation;
sets of rules based on acceptable practice.
and constructability. Stacey (2004) explored the link
between the design process in rock engineering and • Rational – which make use of analytical
solutions and numerical modelling to predict
the code of practice to mitigate rockfall and rockburst
the influence of different support designs on the
accidents and suggested a distinction between defining
overall stability of an excavation.
and executing the design.
• Observational – which call for the
In a mining context, there is a need to construct instrumentation of the excavation and the
both geological and geomechanical models, employ implementation of support as the design is
classification systems, build structural models and assess developed. This is demonstrated in the new
the necessary input data into 2D and 3D numerical stress Austrian tunnelling method (NATM) and the
analysis models. All these processes have different data ground reaction curve (GRC) or convergence
requirements. Unless these needs are understood and confinement methods.
communicated to the personnel responsible for data Bieniawski (1992) refers to analytical, observational
collection, there is a risk that the data collected will be and empirical methods while Stille and Palmström (2003)
inadequate for the purpose of support design. prefer the following groupings: empirical and classification
In conceptual design diagrams, data collection usually methods; numerical analyses and other calculations; and
precedes analysis and design. This sequential process may observational methods. Although many authors suggest
be appropriate and applicable in civil engineering projects the use of observational methods, the application of such
but it is not necessarily the case in mining projects methods implies a reliance on instrumentation feeding
(Hadjigeorgiou 2012). In a mining context, what is more back into the design during the development of the
applicable is a continuous process where several steps are infrastructure. In a mining context, this is not a common
run either in parallel or through several iterations. practice. Instead, as the mine matures and encounters
A further issue, sometimes overlooked, is that the more demanding ground conditions, an enhanced ground
engineering design process has become tool driven. support design is implemented. This is based on visual
Therefore, unless there is a clear understanding, a priori, observations of the ground support system performance,
of the input data needed to apply these tools, the required but generally without the use of instrumentation. As
data will invariably not be collected. As a result, further such, it does not qualify as an ‘observational method’ as
data collection campaigns may become necessary or, described in literature.
alternatively, the gaps may be tentatively filled by other In this book, the following three categories are
means, such as extrapolating available data or using used: analytical, empirical and numerical modelling
default values suggested in different software. methods. The current chapter describes analytical
199
Chapter 9 : Analytical ground support design methods
recent years, the trend has been to use 3D wedge analysis

Type B length: L = D/2 + 3 9.6 software Unwedge (RocScience 2012) to assess ground
support requirements in large spans and intersections.
K Rosengren (personal communication, 2018)
suggested that this method provides conservative 9.3.4.5 Two-dimensional wedge analysis
estimates of ground support. He also provided One of the most common failure mechanisms is fall of
design charts for wide spans (Figure 9.11) and for blocks through sliding or falling from the back of an
intersections (Figure 9.12). excavation. Figure 9.13 summarises a limit equilibrium
Based on extensive application in Australian solution for a block or wedge susceptible to slide and
underground mines of this design concept during the a wedge vulnerable to fall. It is important to reiterate
past 50 years, the method appears to mitigate the majority some of the inherent assumptions. The first one is that
of gravity/structurally driven roof failures. However, in the potentially unstable wedges are clearly delineated
by the dominant structures. In this respect, the role
of rock bridges, which may be beneficial, is ignored.
Another assumption is that defined wedges are rigid
(i.e. non-deformable).
A further implicit assumption is that the shear
strength of the weakness planes or joints is mobilised
simultaneously along the full length of the slip
surface. This is an important assumption in that if the
shear strength drops post-peak, the mobilised shear
strength may be lower than the peak strength.
The choice of a factor of safety can differ significantly
to account for the consequences of failure. Therefore,
the traditional values for wedges at the back of a drive
susceptible to fall under the effect of gravity is significantly
higher (2 to 5) than for wedges sliding along the sidewall
of a drive (1.5 to 2). In these circumstances, the type of
reinforcement element used also influences the factor
FIGURE 9.8 Compression zone formed by tensioned of safety. The assumption being that the long-term
bolts (after Schach et al. 1979) performance of point anchored bolts may be lower
L a L a L a
L L L
a = 2.0 a = 1.6 a = 1.33
Broad Narrow None

compression zone compression zone compression zone
FIGURE 9.9 Establishing a prestressed arch (after Schach et al. 1979)
207
--
........
--
a e
from the ACG store
•
10
Chapter 10 : Empirical ground support

design methods
Reproduced with the permission of BHP (Source: BHP)

Empirical ground support design methods
CHAPTER TEN
10
10.1 Introduction mass classification systems were reviewed in Chapter 5,
Section 5.9. The current chapter focuses on empirical
The traditional definition of empiricism is the practice
ground support design methods and how they apply to
of relying on observation and experiment. The mining
underground mining.
industry has relied heavily on experience to address
mining challenges, including ground control. This
experience is often transcribed as ‘rule of thumb’. 10.2 Empirical ground support design
In an earlier compilation of the Hard Rock Miner’s based on rock mass classification
Handbook (de la Vergne 2003), the following definition Empirical ground support design techniques based on
for a rule of thumb was used: “An easy to remember guide rock mass classification systems rely on a systematic
that falls somewhere between an engineered solution and approach and on an extensive database of observations.
an experienced guess.” They enable users to account for not only the span and
In a mining context, they suggested that: “… a Rule of the function of the excavation but also for variations of
Thumb is an empirical standard. It is further defined as a ground conditions.
pragmatic guideline or “norm” related more to the art than Rock mass classification systems originated from civil
the science of mining. A Rule’s main roles are to provide engineering with a strong emphasis on tunnelling, but
the perspective required to ensure practical concepts and they are used widely in rock engineering for a variety
designs, and to facilitate finding pragmatic solutions for of applications. Over the years, the mining industry has
operating problems.” tended to apply the results of rock mass classification
Over the years, several rules of thumb have been systems for a variety of purposes well beyond the
proposed to determine reinforcement patterns and lengths limits of their constitutive databases. At the same time,
of ground support elements. Charette and Hadjigeorgiou numerous publications have identified the limitations of
(1999) reviewed the rules employed for mining classification systems, the pertinence of their constitutive
applications. These rules, which are still employed today, parameters, the weight assigned to the different
have been derived from work in Canada, the United States, parameters and even the concept of an index or a ‘unique
the United Kingdom, Australia and South Africa. Several value’ that captures the rock mass behaviour.
rules of thumb applicable to the selection of reinforcement Nevertheless, rock mass classification systems are the
type and dimensions also exist; for example, rules from link between rock mass quality and the choice of support.
Laubscher (1984), Farmer and Shelton (1980) and the US An important assumption of these systems is that the
Army Corps of Engineers (1980). classification adequately captures rock mass conditions.
It should also be noted that most empirical rules are Terzaghi’s (1946a) work is of interest in that it was the
based on past practice, which is often influenced by a first classification system proposed and it recognised the
variety of non-technical factors such as legislation and importance of geological structure: “From an engineering
site preferences. In fact, some of these rules are simply point of view, knowledge of the type and intensity of the rock
based on geometry (e.g. the length of a roof bolt can defects may be much more important than the type of rock
be one-third of the span). As it is difficult to justify a which will be encountered.” Terzaghi’s system provided
ground support design that ignores ground conditions, guidelines for estimating the loads to be supported by
the rules of thumb for ground support design in mines steel arches in tunnels. In the 1970s, a number of new
have been to a large degree superseded by empirical and more elaborate classification systems were developed
methods based on rock mass classification systems. Rock (Table 10.1) with similar objectives:
219
Chapter 10 : Empirical ground support design methods
Despite the small database, the general trend of using show the ground support stopping around mid drift.
thicker reinforced shotcrete layers in poorer ground When ground conditions are fair or good (Q74 > 4.0), it
is observed. In most cases where Q74 > 1, a 50 mm is more common to have the wall support reaching only
thickness was employed. When Q74 < 1.0, either 75 or the shoulder of the drive, leaving about 3 m or more of
100 mm shotcrete thickness was applied. Although the unsupported wall height.
data is scarce, 100 mm layers tend to be used when
Q74 < 0.2.
10.3.3 Ground support design guidelines
Figure 10.8 shows the extent of reinforcement and for mining drives
surface support coverage applied to walls, expressed as
the distance between ground support and the floor (or Interpretation of the data described in the previous
the height of the unsupported wall). Three coverage section has been compiled and rounded up to produce
categories are defined: the guidelines shown in Figure 10.9. These guidelines
• floor – when the ground support coverage provide recommendations for the preliminary design
extends down to within 1 m of the floor of reinforcement and surface support for drives in
• mid-drift – when the ground support coverage metalliferous mines.
terminates around the mid height of the drive, These are general guidelines intended only as a ‘first
1–3 m from the floor pass’ design at the early stages of mine life (pre-feasibility,
• shoulder – when the ground support coverage feasibility studies and early mine development). They
terminates more than 3 m from the floor. reflect safe practices documented in the GCMPs of many
When Q74 < 1.0, the reinforcement and surface Australian and Canadian mines. The support design
support coverage is often extended to near the floor. is likely to be refined as experience in local ground
In poor ground (1.0 < Q74 < 4.0), the majority of cases conditions is gained.
Extremely poor Very poor Poor Fair Good Very

good
Minimum bolt density 0.85 0.70 0.65 0.55

with mesh (bolts/m2)
Minimum bolt density

with reinforced 0.65 0.50 0.45 0.40
shotcrete (bolts/m2)
Reinforced shotcrete
thickness 100 mm 75 mm 50 mm
Wall support coverage To floor Mid drift Shoulder
0.01 0.04 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 4 10 40 100
Rock mass quality Q = ( RQD

J ) ( J ) ( SRF)
n
×
J
× r
a
J w
FIGURE 10.9 Ground support guidelines for mine drives of 4–6 m span (Potvin & Hadjigeorgiou 2016)
231
--
........
--
a e
•
11
Chapter 11 : Numerical modelling for

ground support design –
mining applications
G Sweby, J Hadjigeorgiou, J Wesseloo and Y Potvin
Numerical modelling for ground support
CHAPTER ELEVEN
11
design – mining applications
11.1 Introduction analyses can be performed easily as post-processing
exercises. Hence, elastic analysis is very useful for
Desktop-based numerical analysis tools have been
estimating the size and shape of a zone of potential
available to practitioners of mining rock mechanics
instability. This ability will be discussed further in
for nearly 30 years. Examples include software suites
this chapter.
from Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Rocscience Inc. and
When calibrated, elastic estimates of the shape and zone
Map3D International Ltd. Early versions of software
of potential instability are generally reliable. However, in
provided the means to study rock mass behaviour and
cases where the potential yielding zone is quite large, and
potential instability, either perfectly elastic or with the
where adjacent excavations allow interaction between
inclusion of rock mass yielding, predominantly in 2D
yielding zones, elasto-plastic analysis will be more
(plane strain, plane stress or axisymmetrical analyses).
useful. With 2D modelling, the underlying assumptions
With advancement in computing power came the are related to geometry, stress field and emerging failure
ability to model larger and more complex geometries mechanisms, as these are limited to the analysis plane.
in 3D. More recently, the introduction of ground Analyses in 2D are therefore easier to set up and quicker
support elements (rockbolts and liners) expanded the to run, and the results are simple to display. Thus,
functionality of computer codes still more to include 2D analysis is well suited for ‘what-if ’ analyses and
analysis of ground support/rock mass interactions. testing numerous scenarios but is generally not able to
adequately represent the real 3D mine geometry, stress
A wide range of modelling approaches and software
field, failure and deformation mechanisms.
packages is available. In this chapter, we refer to various
commercially available software packages that are Continuum models consider the rock mass as a
commonly used in mining; however, ground support continuous material that can deform in all directions.
designers may choose to use or have access to different Conversely, the rock mass in discontinuum models is
software to achieve the same results. represented as an assemblage of blocks that can deform
and interact with neighbouring blocks, enabling the
Analysts have the choice of 2D or 3D simulations,
simulation of complex rock mass failure mechanisms.
complex local or mine-wide geometries and elastic and Table 11.1 (Stead et al. 2006) provides a summary
elasto-plastic solutions, with or without ground support of advantages and limitations of continuum and
in addition, and a wide range of possible rock mass discontinuum modelling. The first part of this chapter
constitutive models. will focus on continuum approaches. Discontinuum
In the context of ground support, numerical modelling approaches will be discussed in more detail later in
approaches can be classed into three broad categories, the chapter.
each of which requires a different methodology and Ground support standards in mines are not designed
different types and levels of data. These categories are: on a cut-by-cut basis but rather on a geotechnical
• elastic or elasto-plastic domain basis. The prevailing conditions in different
domains are therefore crucial. To delineate zones of
• 2D or 3D
similar ground support requirements within a mine,
• continuum or discontinuum. 3D modelling on a mine scale may be needed to define
Compared to elasto-plastic analysis, elastic analyses the boundary conditions of smaller scale models. After
are quick to run and require only elastic parameters the zones of similar ground support requirements have
as inputs. Strength factor calculations occur been identified, further small-scale analysis, potentially
post-processing; and sensitivity analysis and ‘what-if ’ including smaller scale 2D and 3D models, can be run,
237
given in Table 11.7. For comparison purposes, the liner the as-built tunnel profile, the yield zone is appreciably
was modelled using finite elements rather than by the larger than for the design profile.
formulation for the built-in liner element. Comparing rockbolt loading, the design profile
As a basis for comparison, the size of the yield zone is (left-hand wall) indicates higher maximum loading
shown in Figure 11.25. It can be seen that in the case of than the as-built profile, with the distribution of
TABLE 11.6 Summary of shotcrete strength gain with time
Time Strength (MPa) Elastic modulus (GPa)
7 hours 6 12
1 day 10 15
3 days 21 22
7 days 33 27
21 days 40 32
(a) Design profile – yielded zone (b) As-mined profile – yielded zone
FIGURE 11.25 The yielded zone indicated by plastic volumetric strain contours is more extensive in the as-mined
case on the right
(a) Design profile – rockbolt loads (b) As-mined profile – rockbolt loads
FIGURE 11.26 Rockbolt loads represented as filled bar charts plotted along bolt axes. Significant differences in the
load distribution are evident
254
I IV
12
Chapter 12 : Ground support in

squeezing ground
Courtesy Agnico Eagle

Ground support in squeezing ground
C H A P T E R T W E LV E
12
12.1 Introduction criterion for squeezing cannot reasonably be established
solely on ground conditions, since there is always
Squeezing is a term used to describe the behaviour of
interaction between the deforming ground and the
tunnels that undergo large deformations over time. These
installed support.
conditions are encountered in tunnelling and in mining
drives in weak or poor quality rock and in structurally In a mining context, squeezing ground conditions are
defined rock masses. encountered when the excavation convergence, even with
Terzaghi (1946b) provided one of the earliest ground support, exceeds 2% (Hadjigeorgiou et al. 2013).
definitions of squeezing rock behaviour with respect In general, this suggests that the total displacement of the
to tunnelling: “Squeezing rock slowly advances into the drive closure will reach at least tens of centimetres within
tunnel without perceptible volume increase. Prerequisite the life expectancy of a supported drive. In general,
of squeeze is a high percentage of microscopic and sub- mine drives are designed to be in operation for up to
microscopic particles of micaceous minerals or of clay 18 months to two years. Furthermore, it is also implied
minerals with a low swelling capacity.” Furthermore, he that in squeezing ground conditions, the resulting loads
distinguished between squeezing rock at moderate depth will be greater than the capacity of a ‘stiff ’ support system.
and squeezing rock at great depth to provide estimates of This often results in significant failure of ground support
the resulting rock loads on the roof of tunnels. Terzaghi and necessitates extensive rehabilitation work.
made a clear distinction between squeezing rock and
swelling rock, which is limited to rocks that contain clay 12.2 Squeezing mechanisms
minerals such as montmorillonite.
Squeezing ground has been observed in a range of ground
Barla (1995) proposed a widely cited definition:
conditions including massive (weak and deformable)
“Squeezing of rock is the time dependent large deformation
rocks and in highly jointed rock masses with large-scale
which occurs around the tunnel and is essentially
defects such as joints, foliation and bedding. Aydan et al.
associated with creep caused by exceeding a limiting shear
(1993) has provided a phenomenological description of
stress. Deformation may terminate during construction
squeezing in rocks, distinguishing between three types of
or continue over a long time period.” Einstein (1996)
failure mechanisms (Figure 12.1).
proposed another definition: “Time dependent shearing
of the ground, leading to inward movement of the tunnel A complete shear failure (Figure 12.1a) implies that
perimeter.” This is similar to the definition for swelling the shearing of the rock mass is of sufficient magnitude
as a “time dependent volume increase of the ground, to destroy or seriously endanger the tunnel structure.
leading to inward movement of the tunnel perimeter” . The This is observed in continuous ductile rock masses or
definitions are similar but swelling is usually associated what is often referred to as ‘weak’ rock masses. Gao et
with ‘a combination of physical–chemical reaction al. (2015) reported cases of complete shear failure of the
involving water and stress relief ’ while squeezing is rock around excavations in coal mines.
a mechanical process. Although both swelling and Buckling failures (Figure 12.1b) are observed in
squeezing can result in an inward movement of the metamorphic rocks (i.e. phylitte, mica schists) and
tunnel periphery over time, most occurrences of swelling thinly bedded ductile sedimentary rocks (i.e. mudstone
ground are associated with argillaceous (clay-rich) soil shale, siltstone, sandstone, evaporitic rocks) (Aydan et
or rock. al. 1993). These types of failures have been observed
None of the proposed squeezing definitions are in several underground hard rock mines (Potvin &
universally accepted. Schubert (2015) has argued that a Hadjigeorgiou 2008).
269
No squeezing Low squeezing – bolts take the load
Moderate squeezing – convergence Extreme squeezing
Rehabilitated drift Purged drift

FIGURE 12.18 Examples of drifts subjected to squeezing at the Lapa and LaRonde mines (after Hadjigeorgiou
et al. 2013)
in FLAC3D using an explicit representation of foliation. damage, the squeezing mechanism cannot be well
The model captured failure along the foliation, indicated represented. To better replicate the mechanism, foliation
by separation of joints, but did not correctly predict the should be modelled explicitly to allow block rotation and
location and degree of stress-induced fracturing. buckling. Continuum modelling using finite element or
Numerical modelling in squeezing ground using the finite difference methods with explicit representation
GSI for reducing intact rock parameters has similar of foliation can provide an improved representation of
limitations in anisotropic conditions. Although the squeezing mechanisms observed in hard rock mines.
modelled deformation in these cases may match observed However, the foliated squeezing mechanism is still not
284
I IV
13
Chapter 13 : Ground support design for

rockburst prone conditions
Ground support design for
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
13
rockburst prone conditions
13.1 Background further as a combination of excavation vulnerability
and workforce exposure, expressed as follows:
The trend towards exploiting deeper mineral resources
is a natural evolution of underground mining as near Excavation
Seismic risk = Seismic × vulnerability × Workforce 13.1
surface reserves become progressively depleted. The hazard potential exposure
deepest mines in the world are currently operating
at depths of 3–4 km below the surface. The challenges where:
associated with deep mines are numerous but perhaps • seismic hazard is the probability of initiation of
the prime risk and concern in many of these mines is a seismic source to produce a certain magnitude
rockbursting. Intense rockbursts may cause death or event.
injury to workers and significant loss of assets. Rockburst • excavation vulnerability potential is the probability
is a difficult risk to manage due to the unpredictable of damage occurring at each excavation site of
interest and involves local site characteristics and
nature of seismic hazards.
the proximity of the seismic hazard.
In addition to the moral obligation to protect • workforce exposure is the probability of people
workers’ safety, Potvin and Wesseloo (2013) argue exposure to harm as a result of a seismic event.
that mine seismicity and, more specifically, the In this context, the concept of seismic risk is not a
possibility of experiencing a seismic event resulting single point estimate but a range of values reflecting the
in one or multiple fatalities has become the most probability of harm to people.
important financial risk in underground hard
A number of measures can be implemented to
rock mines operating in developed countries. The
mitigate seismic risks by reducing the seismic hazard,
financial consequences of a fatal accident resulting
excavation vulnerability and workforce exposure. This
from a seismic event is likely to involve a long-term
chapter focuses on reducing excavation vulnerability
shutdown; this cost alone will generally far exceed the
through the design and implementation of dynamic
total cost associated with any other type of fatality in resistant ground support.
underground mines.
For example, two separate rockburst fatal accidents
13.2 Ground support subjected to
in Australian mines (at Beaconsfield in 2006 and Big
dynamic loading – a case of
Bell in 2000) closed operations for well over one year to
design indeterminacy
allow mining methods and sequences to be completely
redesigned. In addition to the tragic loss of human It is important to recognise that the design of ground
lives, the financial costs resulting from these accidents support for seismically active conditions does not replace
were extremely high. the design requirements for static loads. Dynamic loading
of ground support occurs as a result of mine-induced
From time to time, seismic risk has also resulted in
seismicity – repeated discrete seismic events of varying
significant loss of mineral reserves. Numerous mines
magnitude and location. In between seismic events,
and deep orebodies around the world have been
and in addition to the seismic loads, a ground support
abandoned as unminable due to unmanageable seismic system must continue to fulfil its role of maintaining
risk, among other factors. the integrity of an excavation while subjected to static
The definition of risk as a function of the likelihood loading. In effect, the design for seismic conditions is
of a hazard occurring and the consequence is well additional or complementary to the design process for
established. Heal (2010) decomposed the consequence static conditions.
301
--
........
--
a e
•
Chapter 13 : Ground support design in rockburst prone conditions
MN Distance Twin Cone 0 Gauge SS * Rebar * WWM * SS * Rebar * WWM * SFRS

m cables Yield Lok strap <1 m2 <1 m2 <1 m2 >2 m2 >2 m2 >2 m2
> 50
<1 10–50
< 10
> 50
1–2 10–50
< 10
> 50
2–3 10–50
< 10
> 50
3+ 10–50
< 10
SS = Split Set WWM = Welded wiremesh SFRS = Steel fibre-reinforced shotcrete

* Density expressed as square metres per tendon. > or < inferred as ‘or equal to’.
# Mesh without secondary reinforcement can fail at low MN resulting in tendon stripping.
FIGURE 13.35 Kidd Mine’s ground support survivability chart for events from 0.5 to 3.8 by support type
(after Counter 2017) (courtesy Glencore Canada Corporation, Kidd Mine Operations)
• accidents, including work stoppages

• work stoppages not associated with accidents
• poor quality excavation, blasting and support,
leading to less stable excavations
• clean-up costs and rehabilitation costs
• loss of production in operations directly affected
by the damage
• loss of production in areas more remote from
the damage, owing to loss of access, such as
blockages of tunnels, damage to roadways, and
damage to ventilation
• reassignment of crews
• loss of ore
• difficult-to-quantify factors such as public
FIGURE 13.36 Example of low displacement perception, reduction of mining company share
compatibility between the stiff reinforcement and soft price, reduced worker morale and labour unrest.
surface support (courtesy Brad Simser) It was argued that full quantification of these risk
financial terms. The argument was made that rockburst considerations would almost certainly justify the
damage can be the cause of significant direct and indirect extra cost of employing extensive dynamically capable
costs associated with: rock support.
341
14
Chapter 14 : Long-term performance of

ground support – corrosion
Courtesy Jean-Francois Dorion

Long-term performance of
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
14
ground support – corrosion
14.1 Introduction • short term (less than two years), e.g. crosscuts
and temporary openings, including big stopes
The selection, design and implementation of a ground
support strategy considers the ground conditions, the • medium term (2–5 years), e.g. exploration drifts
significance of the excavation and the anticipated service • long term (5–10 years), e.g. level accesses and
life of the mine. The effectiveness of a support system can ventilation drifts
change over time due to a multitude of external factors. • life of the mine (more than 10 years), e.g. main
Experience has been that any reinforcement or surface accesses, ramps, shafts and garage crusher
support element is susceptible to degradation, potentially stations.
leading to failure (Hadjigeorgiou 2016). This process can
From the moment a reinforcement or support element
be triggered or accelerated by the following factors:
achieves its initial performance level, it is susceptible to
• mine-induced seismicity degradation. The rate and severity of degradation can
• drive convergence resulting in loading of be influenced by increased demand or damage to the
individual reinforcement or support elements support system (Table 14.1). A conceptual representation
• blast damage associated with explosive gases of the degradation of two ground support systems is
and flyrock presented in Figure 14.1.
• material quality and the presence of In the first case, the system degrades until it reaches
manufacturing flaws a critical performance level when it is considered to
have failed. In the second case, the system degrades
• installation issues, such as bolt orientation,
without reaching the critical performance level during
grout quality, damage to protective coatings
its service life.
or galvanisation
This system has experienced loss of performance
• damage to reinforcement or support caused
but for practical purposes has not failed. In reality, the
by equipment
degradation process of ground support may be more
• corrosion of support systems. complex, with multiple factors interacting. For example,
In this context, the service life of an operation imposes ground support may substantially degrade due to
further constraints on the choice of ground support. corrosion and then fail when loaded by a seismic event,
The following guidelines provide an indication of the resulting in either an impact load or further degradation
anticipated service life of mining excavations: until failure (Figure 14.2).
TABLE 14.1 Causes for degradation of support
Increased demand Damage to support
Changes in stress Loading: static and dynamic
Rock mass degradation Corrosion of support
Increase in excavation dimensions Blast damage (flyrock)
Mine-induced seismicity Equipment damage
Loading: static and dynamic
345
Level 1: Negligible corrosion
Level 2: Localised corrosion
Level 3: Surface corrosion
FIGURE 14.9 Visual assessment of corrosion levels of ground support (modified from Dorion & Hadjigeorgiou 2014)
356
15

J Wesseloo and WC Joughin
Courtesy LKAB Kiruna

Probability, risk and design
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
15
15.1 Design acceptance criteria it will be with sufficiently high reliability. A design
acceptance criterion focused on stability is appropriate
The geomechanical engineer is tasked with designing
for civil engineering structures designed to be stable
and managing geomechanical structures in spite of
for long periods and with the public having access to
being faced with incomplete and inadequate data and
these structures. In mining, the safety of personnel and
knowledge. By its nature, geomechanical engineering
optimised economic value, rather than exclusive stability,
is subject to uncertainty and variability that need to
are the aims.
be taken into account in the design process and in
Improved safety can be achieved not only by
the management of geomechanical risks. Amid this
increasing stability, but by monitoring of behaviour
uncertainty, the engineer faces the most fundamental
and management of personnel exposure. Personnel
questions in engineering design: “When is my design
exposure can be managed and significantly reduced
good enough and how will I know? What confidence can
with the effective use of monitoring, or even eliminated,
I have in my design?”
by using remotely controlled or autonomous
These questions are not trivial and the answers equipment. Under the latter circumstances, a design
are highly dependent on the non-technical mining acceptance criterion focused on stability is not
environment. Often the engineer applies widely used optimum and should be replaced with a criterion that
design acceptance levels without evaluating their quantifies the financial risk associated with the design.
applicability to the actual situation he or she is required In other circumstances, economic risk and safety risk
to design for – for example, by choosing a factor of safety need to be evaluated in parallel.
of 1.5 (FS = 1.5) as a design acceptance criterion without If one considers the fact that mining is about
considering whether a design based on the available managing the risk–reward balance for the
information will be sufficiently reliable at FS = 1.5. shareholders without endangering personnel, it
Three types of acceptance criteria can be used in is clear that design acceptance criteria in mining
mining geomechanics—namely, factor of safety (FS), should be based on risk and not exclusively on FS
probability of failure (PF) and risk. FS is defined as the or PF. In this context, quantitative risk-based design
ratio of capacity over demand: is a continuation of the probabilistic design process
taken to its natural conclusion.
Capacity The common use of the word ‘risk’ includes a wide
FS = 15.1
Demand variety of meanings and sometimes with different
meanings in different industries (Baecher & Christian
The use of FS has been a standard approach in many 2003). In the engineering definition, risk is the
branches of engineering for more than a century. FS product of the likelihood and the consequence of a
as a design acceptance criterion is used even when the particular event:
other two acceptance criteria (PF and risk) are employed.
PF is used to quantify the reliability of a design when Risk = (Probability of an event) • (Consequence of the event)
faced with uncertainty and variability in the design Risk = P[X] • C[X] 15.2
parameters. It is commonly defined as the probability of
FS < Stability Limit, generally accepted as FS < 1. where:
Both the FS and PF focus on stability – that is, defining P[X] = probability of event X occurring.
a criterion to ensure that when a design is accepted C[X] = consequence of the occurrence of X.
377
--
........
--
a e from the ACG store
•
in a fraction of the mine being analysed (SR) of about 40 criteria applicable to a range of different lengths is shown
and a design acceptance criterion of about C = 1.5 × 10-3. in Figure 15.11. These two figures illustrate the concept
of evaluating total risk discussed in Section 15.2.8. If
The design acceptance criterion applicable to a
a tunnel section of 10 m is evaluated in isolation, the
500 m length is shown in Figure 15.10 whilst the same
acceptance level needs to be lower for the total risk
associated with a longer length of tunnel to fall below
societal risk acceptance levels.
1.00E-02
It is interesting to note the similarity between this
Unacceptable;
risk cannot be justified proposed criterion and the design acceptance level
Ac
1.00E-03 ce
prescribed by the Hong Kong Planning Department
Probability of N or more fatalities per year
Ho pt
an
ng ce
Ko lev
el
for slope stability along highway/freeway development
50 ng 50
0 Pla
1.00E-04
m n
to nin
0
m (Hong Kong Government Planning Department 1994).
p (β
of g D =
AL ep
AR rta
0.
1) The Hong Kong Planning Department’s criterion is a
P me
Ac
ce
nt risk neutral criterion proposed for rock engineering-
1.00E-05 pt
Ho
an
ce related aspects only and is applicable to a 500 m
ng lev
K
50 on
el
50 section of road. The criteria derived here and the
0 gP 0 ALARP
m m
1.00E-06 bo annl
tto in
(β
=
acceptance level prescribed by the Hong Kong Planning
m gD 0.
01
of ep
AL ar
) Department, both for an applicable length of 500 m, are
AR tm
P ent shown in Figure 15.10. In the figure, the dashed lines
1.00E-07
1 10 100 1000 are the acceptance levels prescribed by the Hong Kong
Estimated number of fatalities
for scenario under consideration Planning Department.
In lieu of a government-prescribed risk acceptance
FIGURE 15.10 Safety risk acceptance levels derived level, the method described here can be used to develop a
for Australian mining industry based on a national risk site-specific risk acceptance level. Figures 15.10 and 15.11
acceptance level shown with the criterion for the Hong
summarise a general risk acceptance level applicable to
Kong Government Planning Department (1994)
Australian mines.
1.00E-02 15.4.3 Concluding remarks
Acceptance level 1000 m A design acceptance criterion for safety was developed
1.00E-03
500 m in this chapter in a transparent manner. It is important
Probability of N or more fatalities per year
200 m
to note that the development of design acceptance levels
100 m
for safety risk is not a moral issue nor does it impose
1.00E-04
any level of risk on society. Rather it is an attempt to
quantify the level of risk already accepted by society as
1.00E-05 being reasonable. It is clear that the last word on this
subject has not been written and much more can, and
50 m should, be done to improve these guidelines. We do,
1.00E-06 20 m
however, provide a start that is meant to enable the
10 m
use of a risk-based approach for geomechanical design
1.00E-07 in underground mines. The lack of official guidelines
1 10 100 1000
Estimated number of fatalities should not prevent an engineer from performing a
for scenario under consideration
quantitative risk-based design. The safety risk design
acceptance levels developed here are proposed for use
FIGURE 15.11 Upper ALARP safety risk acceptance where no other guidelines are available.
levels derived for the Australian mining industry (solid
line) and Hong Kong Planning Department criterion The process of risk-based design is discussed with a
(dashed line) safety risk example application in Chapter 16.
395
16
Chapter 16 : A risk-based approach to

ground support design
WC Joughin, J Wesseloo, J Mbenza, P Mpunzi and D Sewnun

A risk-based approach to
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
16
ground support design
16.1 Introduction installed ground support is not sufficient and the drive
may experience damage.
This book has addressed all elements of ground support
design in underground mines. The previous chapter Two potential failure modes are considered – excessive
discussed the importance of risk-based design and deformation due to stress driven damage (Figure 16.2a)
risk-based decision making. This chapter provides an and structurally controlled failure (Figure 16.2b). If
example of the risk-based design process for ground a rockfall occurs, some rehabilitation effort will be
support in an underground mine. It illustrates the use of required, depending on the size of the rockfall. The
quantitative risk-based design methods by focusing on original ground support system will be able to cater for a
two mechanisms – excessive deformation due to stress limited amount of stress damage. When the deformation
damage of the drive and structurally controlled failure. exceeds the capacity of the ground support, or the drive
It should be recognised that there is room for converges so much that mobile equipment cannot pass,
improvement on each element presented in this remediation will be necessary. The cost of rehabilitating
discussion. This is the case for any design as the designer the drive will be a function of the extent of the damage
is faced with having to make simplifying assumptions. or size of the rockfall. However, the loss of revenue
As with any design process, testing the sensitivity of while the drive is being rehabilitated is often far greater
the outcome of these assumptions is also part of the than the cost of rehabilitation. The potential impact on
design process. For example, if the width of an assumed revenue will depend on the location of the damage and
distribution for one of the parameters has little influence the purpose of the excavation.
on the final outcome of the design, there is no reason Injury to personnel and damage to mining equipment
to spend more resources on improving the knowledge may also occur if the time and location of rockfalls are
or data about that particular parameter. Of course, the coincident with the presence of personnel or mining
opposite is also true. Resources need to be assigned to equipment. Injuries, fatalities and damage to equipment
better understand and analyse those components where may have severe financial implications but are generally
uncertainty has a large influence on the final design. less significant than production losses, because they only
The risk-based approach provides a way of assigning occur when there is spatial and temporal coincidence.
a cost to information. In some circumstances, the cost While the financial implications of injuries may
of conservatism might be less than the cost of improved be less significant, companies are morally and legally
information and improved simulation and analysis. responsible for the safety of personnel. Safety risk
acceptance criteria are discussed in Chapter 15, where
16.1.1 Risk-based ground support design a method of estimating acceptance levels for individual
in a mining context and societal risks is presented.
We describe the risk-based ground support design As discussed in Chapter 15, reduction of risk to
process using simple examples of drives supported with personnel does not necessarily relate to a reduction
rockbolts and mesh (Figure 16.1). When ground support in the probability of failure. Risk mitigation strategies
systems are appropriate for the prevailing stress state form part of the design, and accepting a higher
and ground conditions and correctly installed, the drive probability of failure may result in a more economical
will function effectively and there will be no disruption design if the risk to personnel is mitigated – for
to mining operations. However, due to variability example, by the use of remote-controlled or automated
and uncertainty, conditions may occur for which the vehicles or by preventing exposure using appropriate
399
Chapter 16 : A risk-based approach to ground support design
1.E+00
Probability
1.E-01 of failure
50%
1.E-02 20%
10%
Pr (≥k)
1.E-03 5%
2%
1.E-04 1%
0.5%
1.E-05 0.2%
0.1%
1.E-06
0 0 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Length of damage (m)
FIGURE 16.26 Reverse cumulative probability damage length distributions for lp = 45 m and values of p from 0.1 to 50%
(Joughin 2017)
for the decline, only the total length that services the 16.3 Probabilistic analysis of
sublevel was considered. structurally defined failures
The reverse cumulative distribution of normalised Several software tools are available to assess the stability
expected frequency of damage length are presented in of structurally controlled failure modes. For the purpose
Figure 16.27. The likelihood intervals are shown on the of this example, an analysis of structurally defined
right-hand axis for reference purposes. Note that the failures was performed using the software JBlock (JBlock
2017) originally applied in a risk-based design method
expected frequency normalised with time, FT, values
for narrow tabular slopes in South Africa (Joughin
are highest for the crosscuts because they have the
et al. 2012a; Joughin et al. 2012b). JBlock was designed
greatest N. However, the maximum length of damage
to create and analyse geometric blocks or wedges, based
ld is limited by lp. While the decline has the greatest on collected data in the form of joint orientations, trace
ld values, it is expected that p will be relatively low lengths, joint conditions and friction angles. The blocks
because it is further away from the stopes. In fact, it are formed by the intersection of joints or faults in the
is essential to ensure that p is low, because the decline excavation roof, which can fail by sliding or falling into
affects all of the potential production from the sublevel. the excavation.
This frequency damage model is used to evaluate the Although JBlock is being further adapted for
economic risk in Section 16.4. application in drives, its ability to handle 3D drive
TABLE 16.7 Specific input parameters for the frequency and extent of damage analysis
Parameter Decline Footwall drive Crosscuts
Total length (L) 500 m 225 m 900 m
Potential affected length (lp) 42 m 30 m 15 m
Number of potentially affected lengths (N) 12 8 60
Number of segments (n) 14 10 5
417
--
........
--
a e
•
Appendix 1 : Rock mass ratings
Courtesy Mount Isa Mines, A Glencore Company

Rock mass ratings
APPENDIX ONE
A1
Ratings for the RMR-system parameters
TABLE A1.1 Rock Mass Rating (RMR76), Bieniawski 1976

Parameter Ranges of values
Point-load For this low range –

strength index > 8 MPa 4–8 MPa 2–4 MPa 1–2 MPa uniaxial compressive
Strength of test is preferred
intact rock
1 material Uniaxial
> 200 100–200 50–100 25–50 10–25 3–10 1–3
compressive
MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa
strength
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
Drill core quality RQD 90–100% 75–90% 50–75% 25–50% < 25%
2
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
Spacing of joints >3m 1–3 m 0.3–1 m 50–300 mm < 50 mm

3
Rating 30 25 20 10 5
Very rough Slightly rough Slightly rough Slickensided

surfaces surfaces surfaces surfaces Soft gouge > 5 mm
Not Separation Separation OR thick
continuous < 1 mm < 1 mm Gouge OR
No separation Hard joint Soft joint wall < 5 mm Joints open > 5 mm
Condition of joints Hard joint wall wall rock rock thick Continuous joints
4 rock OR
Joints open
1–5 mm
Continuous
joints
Rating 25 20 12 6 0
Inflow per 10 m < 25 25–125

None > 125 litres/min
tunnel length litres/min litres/min
Joint
water
pressure
Groundwater Ratio 0 0.0–0.2 0.2–0.5 > 0.5
5 Major
principal
Stress
Moist only Water under

General Severe water
Completely dry (interstitial moderate
conditions problems
water) pressure
Rating 10 7 4 0
Bieniawski, ZT (1976) ‘Rock mass classifications in rock engineering’, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Exploration for Rock
Engineering, ZT Bieniawski (ed.), A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 97–106.
437
Appendix 2 : Q-system
Q-system
APPENDIX TWO
A2
where:
RQD Jr Jw
Q74 = × × A2.1 RQD = rock quality designation.
Jn Ja SRF74
Jn = joint set number.
Jr = joint roughness number.
RQD Jr Jw Ja = joint alteration number.
Q93 = × × A2.2
Jn Ja SRF93 Jw = joint water reduction factor.
SRF74 = stress reduction factor (Barton et al.
1974)
SRF93 = stress reduction factor (Grimstad &
Barton 1993)
Ratings for the Q-system parameters
TABLE A2.1 Rock quality designation
RQD
A Very poor 0–25
B Poor 25–50
C Fair 50–75
D Good 75–90
E Excellent 90–100
Note: Where RQD is reported or measured as ≤ 10 (including 0), a nominal value of 10 is used to evaluate Q. RQD intervals of
5, that is, 100, 95, 90, etc. are sufficiently accurate.
TABLE A2.2 Joint set number
Jn
A Massive, no or few joints 0.5–1.0
B One joint set 2.0
C One joint set plus random joints 3.0
D Two joint sets 4.0
E Two joint sets plus random joints 6.0
F Three joint sets 9.0
G Three joint sets plus random joints 12.0
H Four or more joint sets, random, heavily jointed, ‘sugar cube’, etc. 15.0
J Crushed rock, earthlike 20.0
Note: For intersections, use (3.0 x Jn); for portals, use (2.0 x Jn).
445
Appendix 3 : Techniques for probabilistic
and risk calculations
J Wesseloo and J Mbenza

Techniques for probabilistic and
APPENDIX THREE
A3
risk calculations
A3.1 Introduction A3.2.1 Random variate sampling
This appendix focuses on practical methods for Random variate sampling refers to the sampling of
probabilistic calculations. Each method is illustrated random numbers from a given distribution, which
by a brief theoretical discussion followed by simple results in the sampled values approximating the given
examples. The discussion is aimed at providing enough distribution. This is illustrated in Figure A3.2 where
understanding so that the methods can be used with 1,000 values are sampled from a normal distribution
confidence. Due to space constraints, our discussion is with mean = 0 and standard deviation = 0.1, where
limited to an introduction to the subject. For an in-depth the frequency distribution of the sampled numbers
discussion on these methods, interested readers are approximates the original distribution.
referred to Baecher and Christian (2003). Many computational software programs used
in engineering have built-in functions for random
variate sampling. However, this sampling process can
A3.2 Monte Carlo method
easily be performed on any distribution for which the
Any available deterministic analysis can be used to inverse cumulative distribution function is available.
perform probabilistic analysis with the use of the The process relies on a pure random sampling (i.e.
Monte Carlo method, the only requirement being uniform distribution) of probabilities between 0 and 1.
to repeat the deterministic computation many times A set of random variate sampled values can then be
with different inputs. obtained by calculating the parameter values for every
With modern computing power, Monte Carlo analysis sampled probability value. This process is illustrated
is often the obvious first approach for probabilistic in Figure A3.3.
analysis as additional assumptions are not required.
However, for computationally intensive problems – for A3.2.2 Illustrated example
example, a finite element analysis – Monte Carlo analysis
For this example, consider the following problem where
is generally still impractical.
the objective is to calculate the mean and standard
The Monte Carlo method, in essence, consists of deviation for the cross-section area of a rectangular
multiple deterministic analyses with varying input tunnel. The width of the tunnel is 5 m with a standard
values. The set of values used in the different analyses deviation of 0.1 m; the height of the tunnel is 5 m with
for each parameter represents the desired probability a standard deviation of 0.2 m. For this example, let
distribution. If enough trial analyses are performed, the us assume the height and width are both adequately
set of results will approximate the true distribution of described by a normal distribution.
the output. This simple application of the Monte Carlo process
A Monte Carlo analysis consists of three basic can easily be performed with a spreadsheet, as shown in
components (Figure A3.1): Figure A3.4 where Figure A3.4(a) shows the formulas
in the cells and Figure A3.4(b) shows the results of the
1. Random variate sampling of the input parameters.
calculation performed in each cell. Note that the actual
2. Performing multiple deterministic analyses for numbers in each of the cells will be different for each new
each Monte Carlo trial. calculation but, if one performs enough Monte Carlo
3. Investigating the distribution of the results of the trials, the final statistical results will be reliable and will
calculations. not differ significantly for different Monte Carlo runs.
453
system response can be calculated and a surface function • Perform probabilistic assessment using, for
can be fitted through the results, which provides an example, the Monte Carlo method.
approximation of the true, but unknown system response.
A multidimensional surface function is applicable to A3.4.1 Surface functions
problems with more than two stochastic parameters.
The number of coefficients in the surface function
Probabilistic assessment using the response surface
that need to be obtained determines the number of
method (RSM) follows these steps:
analyses required. For higher order surface functions,
• Perform selected analyses to obtain points more trial analyses are required than for lower order
distributed through the response space to best functions.
capture the response with varying inputs.
The simplest surface function is a first order polynomial
• Fit a multidimensional surface function though
function which can be written as follows:
the result points. This surface approximates
the true system response and provides an RSd=1 = β0 + β1 • x1 + β2 • x2 + β3 • x3 + • • • + βn • xn
approximate closed form solution of the
A3.17
unknown system response.
Fitted response surface approximation

Response
of the system response
Trial responses
Input pa
rameter
2
et er 1
a ram
ut p
Inp
Trial points: point for which

the response was evaluated
FIGURE A3.9 Conceptual illustration of the response surface methodology for two stochastic parameters
466
References

References
Abdellah, W, Mitri, HS, Thibodeau, D & Moreau-Verlaan, L 2014, ASTM A1064/A1064M-18a: Standard Specification for Carbon-Steel
‘Risk indexing tool for mine planning’, Journal of the Southern Wire and Welded Wire Reinforcement, Plain and Deformed, for
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 114, Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
pp. 435–444. ASTM C1140/C1140M-11: Standard Practice for Preparing
Agricola, G 1556, De Re Metallica, first Latin edition translation by and Testing Specimens from Shotcrete Test Panels, ASTM
HC Hoover & LH Hoover in 1950, Dover Publications, International, West Conshohocken.
New York. ASTM C1550: Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness of Fiber
Airey, DW 2014, ‘Laboratory corrosion tests of frictional rock Reinforced Concrete (Using Centrally Loaded Round Panel),
bolts’, Proceedings of the Third Australasian Ground Control in ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
Mining Conference, The Australasian Institute of Mining and
ASTM C1550-12a: Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness
Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 257–262.
of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Using Centrally Loaded Round
Aki, K & Richards, PG 1980, Quantitative Seismology Theory and Panel), ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
Methods, WH Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 932 p.
ASTM D2113-14: Standard Practice for Rock Core Drilling and
Alejano, LR, Alonso, E, Rodrıguez-Dono, A & Fernandez-Manín, G Sampling of Rock for Site Exploration, ASTM International,
2010, ‘Application of the convergence-confinement method to West Conshohocken.
tunnels in rock masses exhibiting Hoek–Brown strain-softening
ASTM D4435–13: Standard Test Method for Rock Bolt Anchor Pull
behavior’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Test, ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
Sciences, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 150–160.
ASTM D4435-13e1: Standard Test Method for Rock Bolt Anchor Pull
Amadei, B & Stephansson, O 1997, Rock Stress and its Measurement,
Test, ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
Chapman & Hall, London.
ASTM E8–99: Standard Test Methods to Tension Testing of Metallic
American Concrete Institute 2008, 506.1R-08: Guide to Fiber-
Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
reinforced Shotcrete, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills. ASTM F432-13: Standard Specification for Roof and Rock Bolts and
American Concrete Institute 2016, 506R-16: Guide to Shotcrete, Accessories, ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills. ASTM F606-16: Standard Test Methods for Determining the
Andrieux, P, Turichshev, A, O’Connor, P & Brummer, RK 2005, Mechanical Properties of Externally and Internally Threaded
Dynamic Testing with Explosive Charges of Rockburst-resistant Fasteners, Washers, Direct Tension Indicators, and Rivets, ASTM
Ground Support Systems at the Fraser Nickel Mine, report International, West Conshohocken.
to Falconbridge Limited Mine Technical Services, Itasca ASTM G1–03: Standard Practice for Preparing, Cleaning, and
Consulting Canada Inc., Sudbury. Evaluating Corrosion Test Specimens, ASTM International, West
Archibald, JF, Baidoe, JP & Katsabanis, PT 2004, ‘Rockburst damage Conshohocken.
mitigation benefits deriving from use of spray-on rock linings’, ASTM G4–01: Standard Guide for Conducting Corrosion Tests in
in Y Potvin, TR Stacey & J Hadjigeorgiou (eds), Surface Field Applications, ASTM International, West Conshohocken.
Support in Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Australian Geomechanics Society 2000, Landslide Risk Management
pp. 169–178. Concepts and Guidelines, Australian Geomechanics, Sub-
Arjang, B 1991, ‘Pre-mining stresses at some hard rock mines in the Committee on Landslide Risk Management, pp. 49–92,
Canadian Shield’, Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin, https://australiangeomechanics.org/downloads/
vol. 84, no. 945, pp. 80–86.
Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD) 1998,
Arjang, B 1996, ‘In situ ground stresses in the Abitibi mining Australian National Committee on Large Dams: Guidelines
district’, CIM Bulletin, vol. 89, no. 996, pp. 80–86. on Risk Assessment, ANCOLD Working Group, Australian
Arjang, B 2004, Database on Canadian In Situ Ground Stresses, National Committee on Large Dams, Hobart.
Division Report MMSL 01-029, March 2001 (revised 2004), Aydan, Ö, Akagi, T & Kawamoto, T 1993, ‘The squeezing potential
CANMET Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories, Sudbury. of rock around tunnels: theory and prediction, Rock Mechanics
Armatys, M 2012, Modification des Classifications Géomécaniques and Rock Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 137–163.
pour les Massifs Rocheux Schisteux [Modification of Aydan, Ö, Akagi, T & Kawamoto, T 1996, ‘The squeezing potential
Geomechanical Classifications for Shale Rock Masses], Master’s of rock around tunnels: theory and prediction with examples
thesis, École Polytechnique de Montréal, Montreal. taken from Japan’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
AS3600-2009: Concrete Structures, Standards Australia, Sydney. vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 125–143.
ASTM A370-18: Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Aydin, A 2009, ‘Suggested method for determination of the Schmidt
Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, ASTM International, West hammer’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Conshohocken. Sciences, vol. 46, pp. 627–634.
489
Aziz, NI & Jalalifar, H 2007, ‘Experimental and numerical study of Barton, N & Bandis, SC 1990, ‘Review of predictive capabilities of
double shearing of bolt under confinement’, in SS Peng, C Mark, JRC-JCS model in engineering practice’, in O Stephansson &
G Finfinger, S Tadolini, AW Khair, K Heasley & Y Luo (eds), N Barton (eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Ground Rock Joints, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 603–610.
Control in Mining, National Institute for Occupational Safety Barton, N & Bandis, S 1991, ‘Review of predictive capabilities of
and Health, Washington DC, pp. 242–249. JRC-JCS model in engineering practice’, Publikasjon-Norges
Aziz, N, Craig, P, Nemcik, J & Hai, F 2014, ‘Rock bolt corrosion Geotekniske Institutt, vol. 182, pp. 1–8.
– an experimental study’, Mining Technology, vol. 123, no. 2,
Barton, N & Bieniawski, ZT 2008, ‘RMR and Q – setting records’,
pp. 69–77.
Tunnels & Tunnelling International, February 2008, pp. 26–29.
Aziz, N, Craig, P, Mirzaghorbanali, A, Rasekh, H & Nemcik, J
Barton, NR & Choubey, V 1977, ‘The shear strength of rock joints
2015, ‘Behaviour of cable bolts in shear; experimental study
in theory and practice’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Rock
and mathematical modelling’, in N Aziz & B Kinninmonth
Engineering, vol. 10, no. 1–2, pp. 1–54.
(eds), Proceedings of the 15th Coal Operators’ Conference, The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, Barton, N & Grimstad, E 2014, ‘An illustrated guide to the Q-system’,
pp. 146–159. 44 p, https://www.scribd.com/doc/255175045/2014-Barton-N-
Baecher, GB & Christian, JT 2003, Reliability and Statistics in and-Grimstad-E-an-Illustrated-Guide-to-the-Q-system-44p-
Geotechnical Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. 79-Figures-and-Photos
Bahrani, N & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2018, ‘Influence of stope excavation Barton, N & Shen, B 2017, ‘Risk of shear failure and extensional
on drift convergence and support behavior: insights from failure around over-stressed excavations in brittle rock’,
3D continuum and discontinuum models’, Rock Mechanics Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 9,
and Rock Engineering, Springer, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 2395–2413, pp. 210–225.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1482-5 Barton, N, Bandis, S & Bakhtar, K 1985, ‘Strength, deformation and
Bandis, SC, Lumsden, AC & Barton, NR 1981, ‘Experimental conductivity coupling of rock joints’, International Journal of
studies of scale effects on the shear behaviour or rock joints’, Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 121–140.
Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–21. Barton, N, Lien, R & Lunde, J 1974, ‘Engineering classification of
Bandis, S, Lumsden, AC & Barton, N 1983, ‘Fundamentals of rock rock masses for design of tunnel support’, Rock Mechanics and
joint deformation’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 189–236.
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 20, pp. 249–268. Barton, N, By, TL, Chryssanthakis, P, Tunbridge, L, Kristiansen, J,
Barla, G 1995, ‘Squeezing rocks in tunnels’, ISRM News Journal, Løset, … & Vik, G 1994, ‘Predicted and measured performance
vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 44–49. of the 62 m span Norwegian Olympic Ice Hockey Cavern at
Barla, G, Bonini, M & Debernardi, D 2007, ‘Modelling of tunnels in Gjøvik’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
squeezing rock’, Proceedings of the 3rd Iranian Rock Mechanics Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 617–641.
Conference, Iranian Society for Rock Mechanics, Tehran, Beck, DA & Sandy, MP 2003, ‘Mine sequencing for high recovery
pp. 1267–1285. in Western Australian mines’, Proceedings of the Twelfth
Barla, G, Debernardi, D & Sterpi, D 2012, ‘Time-dependent International Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment
modeling of tunnels in squeezing conditions’, International Selection, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Journal of Geomechanics, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 697–710. Melbourne, CD-Rom.
Barrett, SVL & McCreath, DR 1995, ‘Shotcrete support design in Beck, D, Kassbohm, S & Putzar, G 2010, ‘Multi-scale simulation of
blocky ground: towards a deterministic approach’, Tunnelling ground support designs for extreme tunnel closure’, in Y Potvin
and Underground Space Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 79–89. (ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Block
Barton, N 1973, ‘Review of a new shear strength criterion for rock and Sublevel Caving, Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
joints’, Engineering Geology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 287–332. Perth, pp. 441–454.
Barton, N 1976, ‘The shear strength of rock and rock joints’, Begg, SH 2016, ‘Decisions, decisions – uncertainty, variability,
International Journal Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, modelling and psychology’, Proceedings of the Seventh
vol. 13, no. 9, pp. 255–279. International Conference & Exhibition on Mass Mining
Barton, N 1987, ‘Rock mass classification, tunnel reinforcement (MassMin 2016), The Australasian Institute of Mining and
selection using the Q-system’, Proceedings of the ASTM Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 31–41.
Symposium on Rock Classification Systems for Engineering Bernard, ES, Clements, MJK, Duffield, SB & Morgan, DR 2014,
Purposes, ASTM International, West Conshohocken. ‘Development of macro-synthetic fibre reinforced shotcrete in
Barton, N 2002, ‘Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site Australia’, in T Beck, O Woldmo & S Engen (eds), Proceedings
characterisation and tunnel design’, International Journal of of the Seventh International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 39, pp. 185–216. – Modern Use of Wet Mix Sprayed Concrete for Underground
Barton, NR 2007, ‘Future directions for rock mass classification Support, Tekna – The Norwegian Society of Graduate Technical
and characterization – Towards a cross-disciplinary approach’, and Scientific Professionals, Oslo, CD-Rom.
invited lecture, Proceedings of the 1st US–Canada Rock Bertuzzi, R, Douglas, K & Mostyn, G 2016, ‘Improving the GSI
Mechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Association, Hoek-Brown criterion relationships’, International Journal of
Alexandria. Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 89, pp. 185–199.
490
References
Betts, PG, Giles, D, Lister, GS & Frick, LR 2002, ‘Evolution of the Brady, BHG 1987, ‘Boundary element and linked methods for
Australian lithosphere’, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, underground excavation design’, in ET Brown (ed.), Analytical
vol. 49, pp. 661–695. and Computational Methods in Engineering Rock Mechanics,
Bewick, RP, Amann, F, Kaiser, PK & Martin, CD 2015, Allen & Unwin, London.
‘Interpretation of UCS test results for engineering design’, Brady, BHG & Brown, ET 2006, Rock Mechanics for Underground
Proceedings of the 13th ISRM International Congress of Rock Mining, 3rd edn (reprint), Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Mechanics, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Lisbon. Netherlands.
Bieniawski, ZT 1973, ‘Engineering classification of jointed rock Brändle, R, Rorem, E, Luis, R & Fischer, G 2017, ‘Full-scale dynamic
masses’, Transactions of the South African Institution of Civil tests of a ground support system using high-tensile strength
Engineers, vol. 15, no. 12, pp. 335–344. chain-link mesh in El Teniente mine, Chile’, in M Hudyma &
Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the First International Conference
Bieniawski, ZT 1976, ‘Rock mass classifications in rock engineering’,
on Underground Mining Technology, Australian Centre for
in ZT Bieniawski (ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 25–43.
Exploration for Rock Engineering, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 97–106. Brown, ET 1999, ‘The evolution of support and reinforcement
philosophy and practice for underground mining excavations’,
Bieniawski, ZT 1978, ‘Determining rock mass deformability:
in E Villaescusa, CR Windsor & AG Thompson (eds),
experience from case histories’, International Journal of Rock
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ground Support:
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
Rock Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining Symposium,
vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 237–247. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 3–17.
Bieniawski, ZT 1988, ‘Towards a creative design process in mining’, Brown, ET 2008, ‘Estimating the mechanical properties of rock
Mining Engineering, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 1040–1044. masses’, in Y Potvin, J Carter, A Dyskin & R Jeffrey (eds),
Bieniawski, ZT 1989, Engineering Rock Mass Classifications, John Proceedings of the First Southern Hemisphere International
Wiley & Sons, New York, 251 p. Rock Mechanics Symposium, vol. 1, Australian Centre for
Bieniawski, ZT 1992, Design Methodology in Rock Engineering, Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 3–22.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. Brown, ET 2012, ‘Risk assessment and management in underground
rock engineering – an overview’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Birch, JS 2006, ‘Using 3DM Analyst mine mapping suite for rock
Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 193–204.
face characterisation’, in F Tonon & J Kottenstette (eds), Laser
and Photogrammetric Methods for Rock Face Characterization Brown, ET & Hoek, E 1978, ‘Trends in relationships between
Workshop, American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria. measured in-situ stresses and depth’, International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences Abstracts, vol. 15, no. 4,
Bjurström, S 1974, ‘Shear strength of hard rock joints reinforced by
pp. 211–215.
grouted un-tensioned bolts’, Proceedings of the 3rd International
Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol. 2, part B, National Academy of Brown, ET, Bray, JW, Ladanyi, B & Hoek, E 1983, ‘Ground response
Science, Washington, pp. 1194–1199. curves for rock tunnels’, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 15–39.
Blenkinsop, TG & Doyle, MG 2010, ‘A method for measuring
the orientations of planar structures in cut core, Journal of Brzovic, A & Villaescusa, E 2007, ‘Rock mass characterization and
Structural Geology, vol. 32, pp. 741–745. assessment of block-forming geological discontinuities during
caving of primary copper ore at the El Teniente Mine, Chile’,
Bobet, A 2006, ‘A simple method for analysis of point anchored
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences,
rockbolts in circular tunnels in elastic ground’, Rock Mechanics
vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 565–583.
and Rock Engineering, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 315–338.
Bucher, R, Cala, M, Zimmermann, A, Balg, C & Roth, A 2013, ‘Large
Bobet, A & Einstein, HH 2011, ‘Tunnel reinforcement with scale field tests of high‐tensile steel wire mesh in combination
rockbolts’, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, with dynamic rockbolts subjected to rockburst loading’, in
vol. 26, pp. 100–123. Y Potvin & B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh
Boeg-Jensen, P & Swan, G 2014, ‘The operational and laboratory International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining
aspects of a thin spray-on liner’, in M Hudyma & Y Potvin (eds), and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Deep and Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 221–232.
High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Bureau, M & Doucet, C 2013, Performance of Atlas Copco Swellex
pp. 241–251. Mn Line bolts in simulated dynamic environment, PowerPoint
Bohnenblust, H 1998, ‘Risk-based decision making in the presentation, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
transportation sector’, in RE Jorissen & PJM Stallen (eds), Petroleum AGM, Toronto.
Quantified Societal Risk and Policy Making, Springer US, Butler, JL & Leonardi, CR 2016, ‘Improvement of squeezing ground
Boston, pp. 132–153. prediction and monitoring capabilities for Mount Isa Mines
Bouzeran, L, Furtney, J, Pierce, M, Hazzard, J & Lemos, JV 2017, Northern 3500 orebody’, Mining Technology, vol. 125, no. 3,
‘Simulation of ground support performance in highly fractured pp. 142–155.
and bulked rock masses with advanced 3DEC bolt model’, Butt, SD, Calder, PN & Apel, DB 1998, ‘The use of high frequency
in J Wesseloo (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International and mine-wide microseismic systems to monitor the movement
Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre of blasting induced stresses’, CIM bulletin, vol. 93, no. 1040,
for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 667–680. pp. 90–95.
491
Cai, M & Kaiser, PK 2014, ‘In-situ rock spalling strength near Chen, H, Ramandi, HL, Walker, J, Crosky, A & Saydam, S 2018,
excavation boundaries’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, ‘Failure of the threaded region of rockbolts in underground coal
vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 659–675. mines’, Mining Technology, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 146–154.
Cai, M, Kaiser, PK, Uno, H, Tasaka, Y & Minami, M 2004, Chiwaye, HT & Stacey, TR 2010, ‘A comparison of limit equilibrium
‘Estimation of rock mass strength and deformation modulus of and numerical modelling approaches to risk analysis for open
jointed hard rock masses using the GSI system’, International pit mining’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 41, no. 1, and Metallurgy, vol. 110, pp. 571–580.
pp. 3–19.
Choquet, P & Hadjigeorgiou, J 1993, ‘The design of support for
Carlton, R, Darlington, B & Mikula, PA 2013, ‘In situ dynamic drop
underground excavations’, in JA Hudson, ET Brown,
testing of the MD bolt at Mt Charlotte Gold Mine’, in
C Fairhurst & E Hoek (eds), Comprehensive Rock Engineering:
Y Potvin & B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh
Principles, Practice & Projects, vol. 4, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
international Symposium on Ground Support in Mining
pp. 313–348.
and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 207–219. Christian, JT 2004, ‘Geotechnical engineering reliability: how well
Carranza-Torres, C & Fairhurst, C 2000, ‘Application of the do we know what we are doing?’, Journal of Geotechnical and
convergence confinement method of tunnel design to rock- Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 130, no. 10, pp. 985–1003.
masses that satisfy the Hoek–Brown failure criterion’, Tunnelling Christian, JT & Baecher, GB 1999, ‘Point-estimate method
and Underground Space Technology, vol. 15, no. 2, as numerical quadrature’, Journal of Geotechnical and
pp. 187–213. Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 125, no. 9, pp. 779–786.
Carter, TG 2014, ‘Guidelines for use of the scaled span method for Christian, JT & Baecher, GB 2002, ‘The point-estimate method with
surface crown pillar stability assessment’, Proceedings of the 1st large numbers of variables’, International Journal for Numerical
International Conference on Applied Empirical Design Methods and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 26, no. 15,
in Mining, Sociedad Peruana de Geoingenieria, Miraflores. pp. 1515–1529.
Carter, TG, Diederichs, MS & Carvalho, JL 2008, ‘Application of
Clements, MJK 2009, ‘Shotcrete introduction – the theory of
modified Hoek–Brown transition relationships for assessing
shotcrete’, Advanced Ground Support in Underground Mining,
strength and post yield behaviour at both ends of the rock
course notes, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
competence scale’, in TR Stacey & DF Malan (eds), Proceedings
pp. 1–16.
of the 6th International Symposium on Ground Support in
Mining and Civil Engineering Construction, South African Coates, R, Brown, K, Bucher, R & Roth, A 2009, ‘Fully mechanised
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, pp. 37–60. installation of high tensile chain-link mesh for surface
Cepuritis, P & Villaescusa, E 2012, ‘A reliability-based approach to support in tunnels’, in PM Dight (ed.), Proceedings of the First
open stope span design in underground mining’, Proceedings of International Seminar on Safe and Rapid Development Mining,
the 6th International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 165–172.
(MassMin 2012), Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Concrete Institute of Australia 2010, Shotcreting in Australia:
Petroleum, Westmount. Recommended Practice, 2nd edn, Concrete Institute of
Charette, F & Bennett, A 2017, ‘The importance of the face plate Australia, Sydney.
as part of an engineered holistic ground support scheme in Contreras, LF 2015, ‘An economic risk evaluation approach for pit
dynamic conditions’, in J Wesseloo (ed.), Proceedings of the slope optimization’, Journal of the South African Institute of
Eighth International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining,
Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 115, no. 7, pp. 607–622.
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 709–722.
Corthésy, R & Leite, MH 2008, ‘A strain-softening numerical model
Charette, F & Hadjigeorgiou, J 1999, Guide Pratique du Soutènement
of core discing and damage’, International Journal of Rock
Minier [Practical Guide to Mining Support], Association
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 329–350.
Minière du Québec Inc., Quebec City, 141 p.
Charette, F & Lessard, JF 1987, ‘Rock reinforcement with Super Corthésy, R & Leite, MH 2017, ‘Transient curve analysis for stress
Swellex bolts for excavation in very poor ground conditions’, measurements involving progressive rock failure’, Proceedings
The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Annual of the ISRM Progressive Rock Failure Conference, International
General Meeting, Vancouver. Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon,
pp. 117–120.
Charette, F, Germain, P & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2004, ‘Corrosion
behaviour of Swellex bolts in underground mining Corthésy, R, Gill, DE & Leite, MH 1998, ‘Élaboration d’un modèle
environments’, The Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy de prédiction des contraintes in situ dans la région de la faille
Annual General Meeting, Edmonton. de Cadillac’ [Development of an in situ constraint prediction
Chen, Y & Li, CC 2014, ‘Performance of fully encapsulated rebar model in the Cadillac Fault area], CIM Bulletin, vol. 91,
bolts and D-bolts under combined pull-and-shear loading’, no. 1020, pp. 54–58.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 45, Corthésy, R, Leite, MH, He, G & Gill, DE 1994, ‘The RPR method
pp. 99–106. for the doorstopper technique: four or six stress components
Chen, Y & Li, CC 2015, ‘Influences of loading condition and rock from one or two boreholes’, International Journal of Rock
strength to the performance of rock bolts’, Geotechnical Testing Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanical Abstracts,
Journal, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 1–11. vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 507–516.
492
References
Corthésy, R, Leite, MH, Vézina, C & Ouellet, AC 2016, ‘Application DeRoss, J 2007, 10130 Goose RHS Drive Closure Investigation,
of the inverse problem to stress measurement interpretation unpublished internal memorandum, Black Swan Nickel
in anisotropic rock’, in E Johansson & V Raasakka (eds), Operation, Norilsk Nickel Australia.
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on In-Situ Rock Dershowitz, WS & Carvalho, J 1996, ‘Key-block tunnel stability
Stress, International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock analysis using realistic fracture patterns’, in M Aubertin,
Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 309–319. F Hassani & H Mitri (eds), Proceedings of the Second North
Counter, D 2017, ‘Ground support survivability under seismic American Rock Mechanics Symposium, A.A. Balkema,
loading, observations from Kidd Creek’, PowerPoint Rotterdam, pp. 1747–1751.
presentation, Managing Risk in Canadian Mines Seminar, Diederichs, MS 2003, ‘Rock fracture and collapse under low
Laurentian University, Sudbury. confinement conditions’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
Craig, P, Serkan, S, Hagan, P, Hebblewhite, B, Vandermaat, D, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 339–381.
Crosky, A & Elias, E 2016, ‘Investigations into the corrosive Diederichs, MS 2007, ‘The 2003 Canadian Geotechnical
environments contributing to premature failure of Australian Colloquium: mechanistic interpretation and practical
coal mine rock bolts’, International Journal of Mining Science application of damage and spalling prediction criteria for deep
and Technology, vol. 26, pp. 59–64. tunnelling’, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 44, no. 9,
pp. 1082–1116.
Crosky, A, Fabjanczyk, M, Gray, P & Hebblewhite, B 2002,
Premature Rock Bolt Failure Report, ACARP Project No. C8008. Diederichs, MS, Kaiser, PK & Yazici, S 1992, CABLEBOND /
CSTRESS, version 3.1, computer software and user’s manual,
Crowder, JJ & Bawden, WF 2005, ‘Properties and behaviour of
Geomechanics Research Centre, Laurentian University,
field-scale fractured rock masses using numerical simulation Sudbury, 46 p.
and field instrumentation’, Alaska Rocks 2005: The 40th US
Dolinar, DR 2009, ‘Performance characteristics for welded wire
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, American Rock Mechanics
screen used for surface control in underground coal mines’,
Association, Alexandria.
Proceedings of the 2009 SME Annual Meeting and Exhibit,
Cullen, WD The Hon. Lord 1990, The Public Inquiry into the Piper preprint 09-104, The Society for Mining, Metallurgy &
Alpha Disaster, vol. 2, Department of Energy, London, Exploration Inc., Englewood, pp. 1–8.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/offshore/piper-alpha-public-inquiry-
Dorion, JF 2013, La Corrosion du Soutènement Minier [The
volume1.pdf
Corrosion of Mining Support], PhD thesis, Université Laval,
Daehnke, A 1997, Stress Wave and Fracture Propagation in Rock, Quebec City.
PhD thesis, Technical University of Vienna, Vienna. Dorion, JF 2016, ‘Soutènement et la corrosion’ [Support and
Davis, JR 2000, Corrosion: Understanding the Basics, ASM corrosion], Colloque en Control de Terrain [Symposium in
International, Ohio, p. 563. Ground Control], Association Minière du Québec, Val d’Or.
De la Vergne, JN 2003, Hard Rock Miner’s Handbook, 3rd edn, Dorion, JF & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2014, ‘Corrosion considerations
McIntosh Engineering Limited, Ontario, CD-Rom. in design and operations of rock support systems’, Mining
Technology, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 59–68.
de Morgan, A 1941, An Essay on Probabilities and on their
Application to Life Contingencies and Insurance Offices, Dorion, JF & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2020, ‘Microbiologically influenced
Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, London, 352 p. corrosion (MIC) of ground support’, Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, vol. 38, no. 1, 375–387.
Deere, DU 1968, ‘Geologic considerations’, in KG Stagg &
OC Zienkiewicz (eds), Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Dorion, JF, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Ghali, E 2009, ‘Quantifying the rate
Wiley, New York, pp. 1–20. of corrosion in selected underground mines’, in M Diederichs &
G Grasselli (eds), Proceedings of the 3rd CANUS Rock Mechanics
Deere, DU & Deere, DW 1988, ‘The Rock Quality Designation Symposium (ROCKENG09), Canadian Institute of Mining,
(RQD) index in practice’, in L Kirkaldie (ed.), Rock Metallurgy and Petroleum, Westmount, 9 p.
Classification Systems for Engineering Purposes, ASTM STP 984,
Dorion, JF, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Ghali, E 2010, ‘Influence of corrosion
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
rate on the capacity of rock support’, Proceedings of the 44th
pp. 91–101.
US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th U.S.-Canada Rock
Deere, DU & Miller, RP 1966, Engineering Classification and Index Mechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Association,
Properties of Rock, Technical Report No. AFNL-TR-65-116. Alexandria.
Deere, DU, Hendron, AJ Jr, Patton, FD & Cording, EJ 1967, ‘Design Doucet, C & Voyzelle, B 2012, Technical Information Data Sheets,
of surface and near-surface construction in rock’, in C Fairhurst Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa.
(ed.), Failure and Breakage of Rock: Proceedings of the Eighth Drover, C & Villaescusa, EV 2016, ‘Field performance of fully
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, American Institute of Mining, encapsulated reinforcement during violent failure events’,
Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, New York, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Mass
pp. 237–302. Mining, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Department of Industry and Resources 1997, Geotechnical Melbourne, pp. 659–667.
Considerations in Underground Mines – Guideline, Department Dunn, MJ 2015, ‘How reliable are your design inputs?’, in Y Potvin
of Industry and Resources, Perth, viewed 24 August 2017, (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/Documents/ Design Methods in Underground Mining, Australian Centre for
Safety/MSH_G_GeotechnicalConsiderationsUGMines.pdf Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 367–381.
493
Dunn, MJ, Basson, FR & Parrott, TT 2011, ‘Geotechnical data – a Falmagne, V, Anderson, T, Conlon, B & Judge, K 2005, Impact
strategic or tactical issue?’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of Testing of Prototype MCB33b and MCB38 Bolts, unpublished
the Fourth International Seminar on Strategic versus Tactical Canmet MMSL Report 05-007 (CR), Natural Resources
Approaches in Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Canada, Ottawa.
Perth, pp. 21–30. Farmer, IW & Shelton, PD 1980, ‘Review of underground rock
Durrheim, RJ 2012, ‘Functional specifications for in-stope support reinforcement systems’, Transactions of the Institution of Mining
based on seismic and rockburst observations in South African and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Industry, vol. 89,
mines’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International pp. A68–A83.
Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Fekete, S & Diederichs, M 2013, ‘Integration of three-dimensional
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 41–55. laser scanning with discontinuum modelling for stability
Durrheim, RJ, Kullmann, DH, Stewart, RD & Chichowicz, A 1996, analysis of tunnels in blocky rockmasses’, International Journal
‘Seismic excitation of the rock mass surrounding an excavation of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 57, pp. 11–23.
in highly stressed ground’, in M Aubertin, F Hassani & H Mitri Feng, Q & Röshoff, K 2015, ‘A survey of 3D laser scanning
(eds), Proceedings of the 2nd North American Rock Mechanics techniques for application to rock mechanics and rock
Symposium, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 389–394. engineering’, in R Ulusay (ed.), The ISRM Suggested Methods
Durrheim, RJ, Milev, A, Spottiswoode, SM & Vakalisa, B 1998, for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 2007–
Improvement of Worker Safety Through the Investigation 2014, International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock
of the Site Response to Rockbursts, Final Report GAP201 Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 265–293.
(unpublished), Mine Health and Safety Council, Johannesburg. Ferland, P & Fuller, A 2011, ‘Shotcrete – how to fill the gap’, in
Durrheim, RJ, Spottiswoode, S, Roberts, M & van Brink, AZ 2005, Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar
‘Comparative seismology of the Witwatersrand Basin and on Strategic Versus Tactical Approaches in Mining, Australian
Bushveld Complex and emerging technologies to manage the Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 97–128.
risk of rockbursting’, Journal of the Southern African Institute for Fernandez, F 2011, ‘Ground support practices for squeezing ground
Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 105, pp. 409–416. conditions at Argyle underground operations’, course notes,
Eberhardt, E & Stead, D 2011, ‘Geotechnical instrumentation’, in Advanced Ground Support in Mining, Australian Centre for
P Darling (ed.), SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 3rd edn, Geomechanics, Perth.
The Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc., Fillion, MH & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2013, ‘Reliability of strength
Englewood, pp. 551–572. estimates based on limited laboratory data’, in PM Dight (ed.),
Einstein, HH 1996, ‘Tunnelling in difficult ground – swelling Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Slope
behaviour and identification of swelling rocks’, Rock Mechanics Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, Australian
and Rock Engineering, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 113–124. Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 163–176.
Einstein, HH 2003, ‘Uncertainty in rock mechanics and rock Fillion, MH & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2017, ‘Quantifying the impact of
engineering – then and now’, 10th International Congress of the additional laboratory tests on the quality of a geomechanical
ISRM: Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, vol. 1, South model’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 50, no. 5,
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, pp. 1097–1121.
pp. 281–293, CD-Rom. Fillion, MH & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2018, ‘Quantifying the influence of
Einstein, HH & Baecher, GB 1983, ‘Probabilistic and statistical geotechnical borehole inclination on collecting joint orientation
methods in engineering geology; specific methods and data’, Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy,
examples. Part 1: exploration’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Section A: Mining Technology, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 26–40.
Engineering, vol. 16, pp. 39–72. Fillion, MH & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2019a, ‘Quantifying inﬂuence of
Einstein, H & Glynn, E 1979, ‘Probability of kinematic instability drilling additional boreholes on quality of geological model’,
in rock slopes: a numerical approach’, Proceedings of the 20th Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 56, pp. 347–363.
US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, American Society of Civil Fillion, MH & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2019b, ‘Recommendations for a
Engineers, New York, pp. 317–325. quantitative description of joint orientation data’, Geotechnical
Espley, SJ, Heilig, J & Moreau, LH 2004, ‘Assessment of the dynamic and Geological Engineering, vol. 37, pp. 1503–1514.
capacity of liners for application in highly-stressed mining Fisher, RA 1953, ‘Dispersion on a sphere’, Proceedings of the Royal
environments at Inco Limited’, Surface Support in Mining, Society of London, series A, vol. 217, pp. 295–305.
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 187–192. Gaich, A, Pötsch, M & Schubert, W 2006, ‘Basics, principles and
Esterhuizen, GS & Streuders, SB 1998, ‘Rockfall hazard evaluation application of 3D imaging systems with conventional and high-
using probabilistic keyblock analysis’, Journal of the South resolution cameras’, in DP Yale (ed.), Proceedings of the 41st
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 98, no. 2, US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, American Rock Mechanics
pp. 59–63. Association, Alexandria.
Faber, MH & Stewart, MG 2003, ‘Risk assessment for civil Gao, F, Stead, D & Kang, H 2015, ‘Numerical simulation of
engineering facilities: critical overview and discussion’, squeezing failure in a coal mine roadway due to mining-
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 80, no. 2, induced stresses’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 48,
pp. 173–184. no. 4, pp. 1635–1645.
494
References
Garza-Cruz, TV & Pierce, ME 2016, ‘Impact of rock mass strength Grenon, M, Landry, A, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Lajoie, PL 2015,
variability on caving’, Proceedings of the Seventh International ‘Contribution to drift design using discrete fracture network
Conference & Exhibition on Mass Mining, The Australasian modelling at the Éléonore Mine in Canada’, in Y Potvin (ed.),
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 259–368. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Design Methods in
Underground Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
Gaudreau, D 2004, Performance Assessment on Tendon Support
Perth, pp. 339–350.
Systems Submitted to Dynamic Loading, Master’s thesis,
Université de Montréal, Montreal. Grenon, M, Landry, A, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Lajoie, PL 2017, ‘Discrete
fracture network based drift stability at the Éléonore mine’,
Gaudreau, DJ, Sonier, J, Black, D, Joncas, L & Caza, R 2004, Mining Technology, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 22–33.
‘Shotcrete usage at Brunswick Mine’, in Y Potvin, TR Stacey &
Grimstad, E & Barton, N 1993, ‘Updating the Q-system for NMT’,
J Hadjigeorgiou (eds), Surface Support in Mining, Australian
in R Kompen, OA Opsahl & KR Berg (eds), Proceedings of the
Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 327–333.
International Conference on Sprayed Concrete – Modern Use of
Geokon 2017, Borehole Stressmeters (VW) | Model 4300, Geokon, Wet Mix Sprayed Concrete for Underground Support, Norwegian
Lebanon, viewed 22 December 2017, http://www.geokon. Concrete Association, Oslo, pp. 46–66.
com/4300
Grimstad, E, Barton, N, Lien, R, Lunde, J & Løset, F 1986,
Gibowicz, SJ 1990, ‘The mechanism of seismic events induced by ‘Classification of rock masses with respect to tunnel stability —
mining. A review’, in C Fairhurst (ed.), Proceedings of Rockbursts new experiences with the Q-system’, Fjellsprengningsteknikk,
and Seismicity in Mines, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 3–27. Bergmekanikk, Geoteknikk [Rock Blasting Technique, Rock
Mechanics, Geotechnics], pp. 30.1–30.18 [in Norwegian].
Gill, DE, Corthésy, R & Leite, MH 2005a, ‘Determining the minimal
number of specimens for laboratory testing of rock properties’, Hacking, I 2006, The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical
Engineering Geology, vol. 78, no. 1–2, pp. 29–51. Study of Early Ideas about Probability, Induction and Statistical
Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Gill, DE, Corthésy, R & Leite, MH 2005b, ‘A statistical approach for
determining practical rock strength and deformability values Hadjigeorgiou, J 2012, ‘Where do the data come from?’, in Y Potvin
from laboratory tests’, Engineering Geology, vol. 78, no. 1–2, (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Seminar on Deep
pp. 53–67. and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
Perth, pp. 259–277.
Golser, H & Schubert, W 2003, ‘Application of numerical simulation
Hadjigeorgiou, J 2016, ‘Rock support: degradation and failure’, in
at the tunnel site’, in G Beer (ed.), Numerical Simulation in
E Nordlund, TH Jones & A Eitzenberger (eds), Proceedings
Tunnelling, Springer, Vienna, pp. 427–473.
of the Eighth International Symposium on Ground Support in
Goodfellow, SD, Simser, B, Drielsma, C & Gerrie, V 2017, ‘In situ Mining and Underground Construction, Luleå University of
stress estimation using acoustic televiewer data’, in Technology, Luleå, 21 p.
M Hudyma & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the First
Hadjigeorgiou, J 2019, ‘Understanding, managing and
International Conference on Underground Mining Technology, communicating geomechanical mining risk’, in J Wesseloo
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 487–496. (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mining
Goodman, RE 1976, Methods of Geological Engineering in Geomechanical Risk, Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
Discontinuous Rocks, West Publishing Co., Eagan, 484 p. Perth, pp. 3–20.
Goodman, RE 1989, Introduction to Rock Mechanics, 2nd edn, Wiley, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Charette, F 2001, ‘Rock bolting for underground
New York, 576 p. excavations’, in WA Hustrulid & RL Bullock (eds), Underground
Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and International
Goris, JM 1990, Laboratory Evaluation of Cable Bolt Dupports:
Case Studies, Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration,
Evaluation of Supports using Conventional Cables, USBM RI Littleton, pp. 547–554.
9308, US Department of the Interior, Washington DC, 23 p.
Hadjigeorgiou, J & Charette, F 2009, Guide Pratique du Soutènement
Graaf, JH, Barsanti, BJ, Doumis, K & Rogers, SF 2014, ‘Towards the Minier [Practical Guide to Mining Support], Association
implementation of discrete fracture network modelling as a Minière du Québec Inc., Quebec City, 166 p.
geotechnical design tool – case study of Callie Underground
Hadjigeorgiou, J & Grenon, M 2004, ‘Towards a rational design
Mine’, Proceedings of the Third Australasian Ground Control in
methodology for thin spray-on liners’, in Y Potvin, TR Stacey
& J Hadjigeorgiou (eds), Surface Support in Mining, Australian
Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 399–408.
Grenon, M & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2003, ‘Drift reinforcement design Hadjigeorgiou, J & Grenon, M 2017, ‘Drift reinforcement design
based on discontinuity network modelling’, International based on Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) modelling’, in
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 40, no. 6, X Feng (ed.), Rock Mechanics and Engineering, Volume 4:
pp. 833–845. Excavation, Support and Monitoring, Taylor & Francis Group,
Grenon, M, Boudreau, C, Bruneau, G & Caumartin, R 2015, London.
‘Statistical characterisation of intact rock properties at a Hadjigeorgiou, J & Harrison, JP 2012, ‘Uncertainty and sources
Canadian underground mining project’, in Y Potvin (ed.), of error in rock engineering’, in Q Qian & X Zhou (eds),
Proceedings of the International Seminar on Design Methods in Proceedings of the 12th ISRM International Congress on Rock
Underground Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Mechanics, Harmonising Rock Engineering and the Environment,
Perth, pp. 351–366. CRC Press, Leiden, pp. 2063–2067.
495
Hadjigeorgiou, J & Karampinos, E 2017, ‘Use of predictive numerical Hadjigeorgiou, J, Karampinos, E, Turcotte, P & Mercier-Langevin,
models in exploring new reinforcement options for mining F 2013, ‘Assessment of the influence of drift orientation on
drives’, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 67, observed levels of squeezing in hard rock mines’, in B Brady
pp. 27–38. & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International
Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground
Hadjigeorgiou, J & Potvin, Y 2007, ‘Overview of dynamic testing
Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
of ground support’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the
pp. 109–118.
Fourth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 349–371. Hagan, TO, Milev, AM, Spottiswoode, SM, Vakalisa, B & Reddy, N
1999, Improvement of Worker Safety Through the Investigation of
Hadjigeorgiou, J & Potvin, Y 2011a, ‘Hard rock ground control the Site Response to Rockbursts (Continuation of GAP 201), Final
with steel mesh and shotcrete’, in P Darling (ed.), SME Mining report GAP530 (unpublished), Mine Health and Safety Council,
Engineering Handbook, Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Johannesburg.
Exploration, Englewood, pp. 573–595.
Hagan, TO, Milev, AM, Spottiswoode, SM, Hildyard, MW, Grodner,
Hadjigeorgiou, J & Potvin, Y 2011b, ‘A critical assessment of M, Rorke, AJ, … Grave, DM 2001, ‘Simulated rockburst
dynamic rock reinforcement and support testing facilities, Rock experiment – an overview’, Journal of the South African Institute
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 565–578. of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 217–222.
Hadjigeorgiou, J & Tomasone, P 2018, ‘Characterising the behaviour Haile, A 2004, ‘A reporting framework for geotechnical classification
of rockbolts based on in situ pull tests’, in Y Potvin & J Jakubec of mining projects’, AusIMM Bulletin, vol. 5, pp. 30–37.
(eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Haimson, BC & Lee, CF 1995, ‘Estimating deep in situ stress
Block and Sublevel Caving, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, conditions from borehole breakouts and coredisking –
Perth, pp. 727–734. experimental results in granite’, Proceedings of the International
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Dorion, JF & Ghali, E 2008, ‘Support system Workshop on Rock Stress Measurement at Great Depth, The 8th
performance under different corrosion conditions’, Journal International ISRM Congress on Rock Mechanics, International
Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon,
of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
pp. 19–24.
vol. 108, pp. 359–365.
Hajiabdolmajid, V, Kaiser, PK & Martin, CD 2003, ‘Mobilised
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Dorion, JF & Ghali, E 2012, ‘Laboratory and in situ
strength components in brittle failure of rock’, Géotechnique,
investigations on the corrosivity of support systems’, in
vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 327–336.
A Bobet, R Ewy, M Gadde, J Labuz, L Pyrak-Nolte, A Tutuncu
& E Westman (eds), Proceedings of the 46th US Rock Mechanics/ Hakala, M 2016, ‘LVDT cell method – and development of in situ
Geomechanics Symposium, vol. 1, American Rock Mechanics stress measurement techniques in Finland’, in E Johansson &
V Raasakka (eds), Proceedings of the 7th International
Association, Alexandria, pp. 310–317.
Symposium on In-Situ Rock Stress, International Society for
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Lessard, JF & Flament, F 1995, ‘Characterizing Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon.
in-situ block distribution using a stereological model’, Canadian
Harr, ME 1987, Reliability-Based Design in Civil Engineering,
Tunnelling, pp. 201–211.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Savguira, Y & Thorpe, SJ 2019a, ‘Impact of steel Harr, ME 1989, ‘Probabilistic estimates for multivariate analyses’,
properties on the corrosion of expandable rock bolts’, Rock Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 313–318.
Engineering, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
Harr, ME 1996, Reliability-based Design in Civil Engineering,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-01939-w
republished, Dover Publications, New York.
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Savguira, Y & Thorpe, SJ 2019b, ‘Comparative
Harris, PC & Wesseloo, J 2015, mXrap, version 5, computer software,
susceptibility to corrosion of coated expandable bolts’, Rock
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, The University of Western
Engineering, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 52,
Australia, Perth, https://www.mxrap.com
issue 8, pp. 2665–2680, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00603-019-
1737-9-w Harrison, JP & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2012, ‘Challenges in selecting
appropriate input parameters for numerical models’, Proceedings
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Tomasone, P & Nicholson, L 2017, ‘A review of the 46th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium,
of rock bolt pull tests in Ontario hard rock mines’, CIM American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria.
Convention 2017, PowerPoint presentation only.
Hasegawa, HS, Wetmiller, RJ & Gendzwill, DJ 1989, ‘Induced
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Ghali, E, Charette, F & Krishnadev, MR 2002, seismicity in mines in Canada – an overview’, Pure and Applied
‘Fracture analysis of friction rock bolts’, Proceedings of the Geophysics, vol. 129, no. 3–4, pp. 423–453.
5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and the 17th Hassell, RC 2008, Corrosion of Rock Reinforcement in Underground
Tunnelling Association of Canada, Conference, University of Excavations, PhD thesis, Curtin University of Technology,
Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 881–887. Perth.
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Habiyaremye, F, Lessard, JS & Andrieux, P 1999, Hassell, RC & Villaescusa, E 2005, ‘Overcoring techniques to assess
‘An investigation into the behaviour of shotcrete pillars’, Chapter in situ corrosion of galvanised friction bolts’, in SS Peng (ed.),
16, in E Villaescusa, C Windsor & A Thompson (eds), Rock Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Ground
Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, A.A. Balkema, Control in Mining, University of West Virginia, Morgantown,
Rotterdam, 10 p. pp. 349–356.
496
References
Hassell, RC, Villaescusa, E & Thompson, AG 2006, ‘Testing and Hoek, E 1999, ‘Support for very weak rock associated with faults
evaluation of corrosion on cable bolt anchors’, in DP Yale (ed.), and shear zones’, Distinguished lecture, in E Villaescusa,
Proceedings of the 41st US Rock Mechanics Symposium (Golden CR Windsor & AG Thompson (eds), Proceedings of the
Rocks 2006): 50 Years of Rock Mechanics, American Rock International Symposium on Rock Support and Reinforcement
Mechanics Association, Alexandria, 11 p. Practice in Mining, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Hassell, R, Villaescusa, E, Ravikumar, A & Cordova, M 2010, Hoek, E 2001a, ‘Rock mass properties for underground mines’,
‘Development of a corrosivity classification for weld mesh in WA Hustrulid & RJ Bullock (eds), Underground Mining
support at Cannington Mine’, in P Hagan & S Saydam (eds), Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and International Case
Proceedings of the Second Australasian Ground Control in Studies, The Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc.,
Englewood, pp. 467–474.
Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 1–5. Hoek, E 2001b, ‘Big tunnels in bad rock’, ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol. 127, no. 9,
Heal, D 2010, Observations and Analysis of Incidences of Rockburst
pp. 726–740.
Damage in Underground Mines, PhD thesis, The University of
Western Australia, Perth. Hoek, E & Bray, JW 1981, Rock Slope Engineering, revised 3rd edn,
The Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp. 97–98.
Heal, D & Potvin, Y 2007, ‘In-situ dynamic testing of ground
Hoek, E & Brown, ET 1980a, Underground Excavations in Rock, The
support using simulated rockbursts’, in Y Potvin (ed.),
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, 527 p.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Deep and
High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Hoek, E & Brown, ET 1980b, ‘Empirical strength criterion for
pp. 373–394. rock masses’, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 106(GT9), pp. 1013–
Hedley, DGF 1992, Rockburst Handbook for Ontario Hardrock Mines,
1035.
CANMET, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, Special
Report SP92-1E. Hoek, E & Brown, ET 1988, ‘The Hoek–Brown failure criterion—a
1988 update’, in J Curran (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Canadian
Heidbach, O, Rajabi, M, Reiter, K, Ziegler, M & WSM Team 2016, Rock Mechanics Symposium, University of Toronto Press,
World Stress Map Database Release 2016, GFZ Data Services, Toronto, pp. 31–38.
Potsdam, viewed 20 September 2017, http://doi.org/10.5880/
Hoek, E & Brown, ET 1997, ‘Practical estimates of rock mass
WSM.2016.001
strength’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Henning, JG 2010, ‘Ground support practices for low quality Sciences, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1165–1186.
rock – with illustrative examples’, Proceedings of the 44th Hoek, E & Diederichs, MS 2006, ‘Empirical estimation of rock mass
US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 5th US-Canada Rock modulus’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Mechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Association, Sciences, vol. 43, pp. 203–215.
Alexandria.
Hoek, E & Marinos, P 2000a, ‘Predicting tunnel squeezing problems
Herget, G 1973, ‘Variation of rock stress with depth at a Canadian in weak heterogeneous rock masses, part 1: estimating rock
iron mine’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining mass strength’, Tunnels and Tunnelling International, November
Sciences Abstracts, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 37–51. 2000, pp. 45–51.
Herget, G 1986, ‘Changes of ground stresses with depth in the Hoek, E & Marinos, P 2000b, ‘Predicting tunnel squeezing problems
Canadian Shield’, Proceedings International Symposium on Rock in weak heterogeneous rock masses, part 2: estimating tunnel
Stress and Rock Stress Measurements, International Society for squeezing problems’, Tunnels and Tunnelling International,
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 61–68. December 2000, pp. 34–36.
Higson, DJ 1989, Risks to Individuals in NSW and in Australia as a Hoek, E & Marinos, PG 2010, ‘Tunnelling in overstressed rock’, in
Whole, Nuclear Safety Bureau. I Vrkljan (ed.), Rock Engineering in Difficult Ground Conditions
– Soft Rocks and Karst, CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 49–60.
Hildyard, MW & Milev, AM 2001, ‘Simulated rockburst experiment:
Hoek, E & Martin, CD 2014, ‘Fracture initiation and propagation
numerical back-analysis of seismic wave interaction with the
in intact rock – a review’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and
tunnel’, Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and
Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 6, pp. 287–300.
Metallurgy, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 223–234.
Hoek, E, Carranza-Torres, C & Corkum, B 2002, ‘Hoek–Brown
Hines, WW, Montgomery, DC, Goldsman, DM & Borror, CM 2003,
criterion – 2002 edition’, Proceedings of the 5th North American
Probability and Statistics in Engineering, 4th edn, John Wiley &
Rock Mechanics Symposium and the 17th Tunneling Association
Sons, Hoboken, 655 p. of Canada Conference, University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
Hoek, E 1991, ‘When is a design in rock engineering acceptable?’, pp. 267–273.
10th International Congress of the ISRM, International Society Hoek, E, Carter, TG & Diederichs, MS 2013, ‘Quantification of the
for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, A.A. Balkema, geological strength index chart’, Proceedings of the 47th US
Rotterdam, pp. 1485–1497. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, American Rock
Hoek, E 1994, ‘Strength of rock and rock masses’, International Mechanics Association, Alexandria.
Society for Rock Mechanics News Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, Hoek, E, Kaiser, PK & Bawden, WF 1995, Support in Underground
pp. 4–16. Excavations in Hard Rock, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
497
Hoek, E, Wood, D & Shah, S 1992, ‘A modified Hoek-Brown International Society for Rock Mechanics 1978a, ‘Suggested methods
criterion for jointed rock masses’, in JA Hudson (ed.), for the quantitative description of discontinuities in rock
Proceedings of the Rock Characterization: ISRM Symposium, masses’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
British Geotechnical Society, London, pp. 209–214. Sciences and Geomechanics Abstract, vol. 15, pp. 319–368.
Holcomb, DJ 1993, ‘Observations of the Kaiser effect under International Society for Rock Mechanics 1978b, ‘Suggested
multiaxial stress states: implications for its use in determining methods for determining hardness and abrasiveness of rocks’,
in situ stress’, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 20, no. 19, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
pp. 2119–2122. Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 15, pp. 89–97.
Holling, CS (ed.) 1978, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and International Society for Rock Mechanics 1979, ‘Suggested methods
Management, Wiley, Chichester. for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and
deformability of rock materials’, International Journal of Rock
Hong, HP 1996, ‘Point-estimate moment-based reliability analysis’,
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 16, issue 2, pp. 137–140.
Civil Engineering Systems, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 281–294.
International Society for Rock Mechanics 1981a, Rock
Hong, HP 1998, ‘An efficient point estimate method for probabilistic Characterization Testing and Monitoring, in E Brown (ed.),
analysis’, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 59, no. 3, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 211 p.
pp. 261–267.
International Society for Rock Mechanics 1981b, ‘Suggested
Hong Kong Planning Department 1994, Potentially Hazardous methods for rock bolt testing, Part 1: Suggested method for
Installations, Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, determining the strength of a rockbolt anchor (pull test), in
Hong Kong Government, Hong Kong. E Brown (ed.), Rock characterization, testing and monitoring,
Hsieh, A & Dight, PM 2016, ‘The desirable and undesirable International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock
effects on stress reconstruction using the deformation Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 163–166.
rate analysis (DRA)’, in E Johansson & V Raasakka (eds), International Society for Rock Mechanics 1983, ‘Suggested methods
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on In-Situ Rock for determining the strength of rock materials in triaxial
Stress, International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock compression: revised version’, International Journal of Rock
Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 213–224. Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
Hsieh, A, Dyskin, AV & Dight, PM 2015, ‘The rock stress memory vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 285–290.
unrecoverable by the Kaiser effect method’, International International Society for Rock Mechanics 1985, ‘Commission on
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 75, testing methods – suggested method for determining point
pp. 190–195. load strength (revised version)’, International Journal of Rock
Hudson, JA 1989, Rock Mechanics Principles in Engineering Practice, Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
CIRIN Butterworths, London, 72 p. vol. 22, pp. 51–60.
International Society for Rock Mechanics 1999, ‘ISRM suggested
Hudson, JA 1993, ‘Rock properties, testing methods and site
method for the complete stress-strain curve for intact rock in
characterization’, in JA Hudson (ed.), Comprehensive Rock
uniaxial compression’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
Engineering: Principles, Practice and Projects, vol. 3, Pergamon
and Mining Sciences, vol. 36, pp. 279–289.
Press, London, pp. 1–39.
International Society for Rock Mechanics 2007, The Complete
Hudson, JA, Cornet, FH & Christiansson, R 2003, ‘ISRM suggested
ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and
methods for rock stress estimation – part 1: strategy for rock
Monitoring, 1974–2006, in R Ulusay & JA Hudson (eds), ISRM
stress estimation’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Turkish National Group, Ankara.
Mining Sciences, vol. 40, pp. 991–998.
International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
Hudyma, MR 2009, Analysis and Interpretation of Clusters of
2014, The ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization
Seismic Events in Mines, PhD thesis, The University of Western
Testing and Monitoring: 2007-2014, in R Ulusay (ed), Springer
Australia, Perth. International Publishing, Cham.
Human, J 2004, Testing of the Saturn Prop and Buffalo Headboard Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2007, 3DEC: Three-Dimensional
at the Savuka Stope Support Test Facility, SRK report 344720/1, Distinct Element Code, version 4.10.135, computer software,
SRK Consulting (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd, Cape Town, p. 11. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis,
Hutchinson, DJ & Diederichs, MS 1996, Cable Bolting in http://www.itascacg.com/software/3dec
Underground Mines, BiTech Publishers Ltd., Richmond, 406 p. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2012, FLAC3D: Fast Lagrangian
Hyett, AJ, Bawden, WF & Reichert, RD 1992, ‘The effect of rock Analysis of Continua in Three-Dimensions, version 5.0,
mass confinement on the bond strength of fully grouted cable computer software, Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis,
bolts’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining http://www.itascacg.com/software/flac3d
Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 503–524. Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2013, 3DEC: Three-Dimensional
Hyett, AJ, Bawden, WF, MacSporran, GR & Moosavi, M 1995, Distinct Element Code, version 5.00.164, computer software,
‘A constitutive law for bond failure of fully-grouted cable bolts Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis,
using a modified Hoek cell’, International Journal of Rock http://www.itascacg.com/software/3dec
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, Jaeger, JC & Cook, NGW 1963, ‘Pinching-off and disking of rocks’,
vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 11–36. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 1759–1765.
498
References
Jaeger, JC & Cook, NGW 1979, Fundamentals of Rock Mechanics, Kaiser, PK 2006, ‘Rock mechanics considerations for construction
3rd edn, Chapman and Hall, London. of deep tunnels in brittle rock’, in CF Leung & YX Zhou (eds),
Jakubec, J 2013, ‘Role of defects in rock mass classification’, in Proceedings of the ISRM International Symposium 2006 and
Y Potvin & B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh the 4th Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, World Scientific
International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining Publishing Co., Singapore, pp. 47–58.
and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Kaiser, P & Cai, M 2012, ‘Design of rock support system
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 337–344. under rockburst condition’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Jakubec, J & Esterhuizen, GS 2007, ‘Use of the Mining Rock Mass Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 215–227.
Rating (MRMR) Classification: industry experience’, in C Mark, Kaiser, PK & Cai, M 2013, ‘Critical review of design principles
R Pakalnis & RJ Tuchman (eds), Proceedings of the International for rock support in burst-prone ground – time to rethink!’,
Workshop on Rock Mass Classification in Underground Mining, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground
Pittsburgh, pp. 73–78. Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
Jasenak, P, Kaiser, PK & Brummer, RK 1993, ‘Rockburst damage pp. 3–38.
potential assessment – an update’, in P Young (ed.), Proceedings Kaiser, PK & Maloney, S 1997, ‘Scaling laws for the design of
of the 3rd International Symposium on Rockburst and Seismicity rock support, Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 150, no. 3–4,
in Mines, A.A. Balkema Rotterdam, pp. 81–86. pp. 415–434.
JBlock 2017, JBlock, computer software, Open House Management Kaiser, PK, Amann, F & Bewick, R 2015, ‘Overcoming challenges
Solutions, Potchefstroom, https://www.ohms.co.za/services/ of rock mass characterization for underground construction in
jblock.html deep mines’, Proceedings of the 13th ISRM International Congress
Jing, L & Hudson, JA 2002, ‘Numerical methods in rock mechanics’, of Rock Mechanics, International Society for Rock Mechanics
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, and Rock Engineering, Lisbon, 14 p.
vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 409–427. Kaiser, PK, Maloney, SM & Yazici, S 1992, ‘A new perspective on
Joint Ore Reserves Committee 2012, JORC Code: Australasian Code cable bolt design’, CIM Bulletin, vol. 85, no. 962, pp. 103–109.
for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Kaiser, PK, McCreath, DR & Tannant, DD 1996, Canadian Rockburst
Reserves, Joint Ore Reserves Committee, South Carlton. Support Handbook, Canadian Mining Industry Research
Jolin, M, Burns, D, Bissonnette, B, Gagnon, F & Bolduc, L-S 2009, Organization, Sudbury.
‘Understanding the pumpability of concrete’, in F Amberg & Kaiser, PK, Tannant, DD, McCreath, DR & Jesenak, P 1992,
KF Garshol (eds), Proceedings of Shotcrete for Underground ‘Rockburst damage assessment procedure’, in PK Kaiser &
Support XI, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, 13 p. DR McCreath (eds), Rock Support in Mining and Underground
Jonkman, SN, van Gelder, PHAJM & Vrijling, JK 2003, ‘An overview Construction, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 639–647.
of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic Karampinos, E & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2018, ‘Quantifying the influence
damage’, Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 1–30. of structure, rock mass strength and mining development of
Joughin, WC 2017, ‘Dealing with uncertainty and risk in the design drives in squeezing ground’, Transactions of the Institutions of
of deep and high stress mining excavations’, in J Wesseloo (ed.), Mining and Metallurgy, Mining Technology, vol. 127, issue 4,
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Deep and pp. 177–194.
High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Karampinos, E, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Turcotte, P 2016, ‘Discrete
pp. 489–507. element modelling of the influence of reinforcement in
Joughin, WC, Jager, A, Nezomba, E & Rwodzi, L 2012a, ‘A risk squeezing conditions in a hard rock mine’, Rock Mechanics and
evaluation model for support design in Bushveld Complex Rock Engineering, vol. 49, pp. 4869–4892.
underground mines: part I – description of the model’, Journal Karampinos, E, Hadjigeorgiou, J, Turcotte, P & Mercier-Langevin, F
of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2015a, ‘Large-scale deformation in underground’, The Journal
vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 83–94. of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Joughin, WC, Jager, A, Nezomba, E & Rwodzi, L 2012b, ‘A risk vol. 115, p. 645.
evaluation model for support design in Bushveld Complex Karampinos, E, Hadjigeorgiou, J, Hazzard, J & Turcotte, P 2015b,
underground mines: part II – model validation and case ‘Discrete element modelling of the buckling phenomenon in
studies’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and deep hard rock mines’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
Metallurgy, vol. 112, no. 2, pp. 95–104. & Mining Sciences, vol. 80, pp. 346–356.
Joughin, WC, Muaka, JJM, Mpunzi, P, Sewnun, D & Wesseloo, J Kazakidis, VN 2002, ‘Confinement effects and energy balance
2016, ‘A risk-based approach to ground support design’, in analyses for buckling failure under eccentric loading
E Nordlund, TH Jones & A Eitzenberger (eds), Proceedings conditions’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 35, no. 2,
of the Eighth International Symposium on Ground Support in pp. 115–126.
Mining and Underground Construction, Luleå University of Kemeny, J, Turner, K & Norton, B 2006, ‘LIDAR for rock mass
Technology, Luleå, 19 p. characterization: hardware, software, accuracy and best-
Kaiser, J 1950, An Investigation into the Occurrence of Noises in practices’, in F Tonon & J Kottenstette (eds), Laser and
Tensile Tests or a Study of Acoustic Phenomena in Tensile Tests, Photogrammetric Methods for Rock Face Characterization
PhD thesis, Technische Hochschule, Munich. Workshop, American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria.
499
Kempin, M, Sprague, A, Narandranathan, S, Mikula, PA & Lee, MF Laubscher, DH 2000, A Practical Manual on Block Caving, Julius
2007, ‘Destressing the ROB5 remnant using tight slot blasting Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre and Itasca Consulting
at Mt Charlotte Mine’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Group, Inc., Brisbane.
Fourth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Laubscher, DH & Jakubec, J 2001, ‘The MRMR Rock Mass
Classification for jointed rock masses’, in WA Hustrulid &
Kijko, A & Funk, CW 1996, ‘Space-time interaction amongst clusters RL Bullock (eds), Underground Mining Methods: Engineering
of mining induced seismicity’, Pure and Applied Geophysics, Fundamentals and International Case Studies, The Society for
vol. 147, no. 2, pp. 277–288. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc., Englewood,
Kirsten, HAD 1983, ‘Significance of the probability of failure in slope pp. 475–481.
engineering’, The Civil Engineer in South Africa, vol. 25, no. 1, Laubscher, DH & Taylor, HW 1976, ‘The importance of
pp. 17–27. geomechanics classification of jointed rock masses in
Kirsten, HAD 1992, ‘Comparative efficiency and ultimate strength of mining operations’, in ZT Bieniawski (ed.), Proceedings of the
mesh- and fibre-reinforced shotcrete as determined from full- Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering, A.A. Balkema,
scale bending tests’, Journal South African Institute of Mining Rotterdam, pp. 119–128.
and Metallurgy, vol. 92, no. 11/12, pp. 303–323. Lavrov, A 2002, ‘The Kaiser effect in rocks: principles and stress
Kirsten, HAD 1998, ‘System ductility of long fibre reinforced estimation techniques’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
shotcrete’, Journal South African Institute of Mining and and Mining Sciences, vol. 40, pp. 151–171.
Metallurgy, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 93–104. Lee, MF, Mollison, L, Campbell, A & Litterbach, J 2010, ‘Rock
Kirsten, HAD & Labrum, PR 1990, ‘The equivalence of fibre and stresses in the Australian continental tectonic plate’, Proceedings
mesh reinforcement in the shotcrete used in tunnel-support of the 11th IAEG Congress, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
systems’, Journal South African Institute of Mining and Lee, MF, Mollison, LJ, Mikula, P & Pascoe, M 2006, ‘In situ rock
Metallurgy, vol. 90, no. 7, pp. 153–171.
stress measurements in Western Australia’s Yilgarn Craton’,
Krauland, N, Marklund, P-I & Board, M 2001, ‘Rock support in in M Lu, CC Li, H Kjornholt & H Dahle (eds), Proceedings of
cut-and-fill mining at the Kristineberg Mine’, Underground the ISRM Conference on In-situ Rock Stress – Measurement,
Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and International Interpretation and Application, Taylor & Francis, London,
Case Studies, in WA Hustrulid & RL Bullock (eds), Society for pp. 35–42.
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Englewood, pp. 325–332.
Leeman, ER 1971, ‘The CSIR “doorstopper” and triaxial rock stress
Kulhawy, FH 1975, ‘Stress deformation properties of rock and rock measuring instruments’, Rock Mechanics, vol. 3, pp. 25–50.
discontinuities’, Engineering Geology, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 327–350.
Leeman, ER & Hayes, DI 1966, ‘A technique for determining
Labuz, JF & Zang, A 2015, ‘Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion’, The the complete state of stress in rock using a single borehole’,
ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing Proceedings of the First International Congress on Rock
and Monitoring: 2007–2014, International Society for Rock Mechanics, vol. 2, International Society for Rock Mechanics and
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 227–231. Rock Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 17–24.
Lang, TA & Bischoff, JA 1982, ‘Stabilization of rock excavations Lemy, F & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2003, ‘Discontinuity trace map
using rock reinforcement’, in RR Goodman & FE Heuze (eds), construction using photographs of rock exposure’, International
Proceedings of the 23rd Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Society Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 40,
of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, pp. 903–917.
Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, New York,
pp. 935–942. Leygraf, C & Graedel, TE 2000, Atmospheric Corrosion,
Electrochemical Society Series, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
Lang, TA & Bischoff, JA 1984, ‘Stability of reinforced rock structures’,
New York, 354 p.
in ET Brown & JA Hudson (eds), ISRM Symposium: Design
and Performance of Underground Excavation, Thomas Telford, Li, CC 2006, ‘Rock support design based on the concept of pressure
London, pp. 11–18. arch’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Langford, JC & Diederichs, MS 2015, ‘Reliable support design for
excavations in brittle rock using a global response surface Li, CC 2010, ‘A new energy-absorbing bolt for rock support in high
method’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 48, no. 2, stress rock masses’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
pp. 669–689. Mining Sciences, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 396–404.
Laubscher, DH 1977, ‘Geomechanics classification of jointed rock Li, CC (ed.) 2017, Rock Bolting Principles and Applications,
masses – mining applications’, Transactions of the Institute of Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, p. 41.
Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Industry, vol. 86, Li, CC & Charette, F 2010, ‘Dynamic performance of the D-bolt’,
pp. A1–A7. in M Van Sint Jan & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth
Laubscher, DH 1984, ‘Design aspects and effectiveness of support International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining,
in different mining conditions’, Transactions of the Institute of Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 321–328.
Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Industry, vol. 86. Li, CC, Stjern, G & Myrvang, A 2014, ‘A review on the performance
Laubscher, DH 1990, ‘A geomechanics classification system for the of conventional and energy-absorbing rockbolts’, Journal of
rating of rock mass in mine design’, Journal of the South African Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 6, issue 4,
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 90, no. 10, pp. 257–273. pp. 315–327.
500
References
Li, KS 1992, ‘Point-estimate method for calculating statistical Maloney, SM, Kaiser, PK & Vorauer, A 2006, ‘A re-assessment of in
moments’, Journal of Engineering Mechanics-Asce, vol. 118, situ stress in the Canadian Shield’, Proceedings of the 41st U.S.
no. 7, pp. 1506–1511. Symposium on Rock Mechanics: 50 Years of Rock Mechanics –
Li, L, Hagan, PC, Saydam, S & Hebblewhite, B 2016, ‘Shear Landmarks and Future Challenges, American Rock Mechanics
resistance contribution of support systems in double shear test’, Association, Alexandria.
Journal Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 56, Marinos, P & Hoek, E 2000, ‘GSI – a geologically friendly tool for
pp. 168–175. rock mass strength estimation’, Proceedings of the International
Li, SJ, Feng, X-T, Wang, CY & Hudson, JA 2015, ‘ISRM suggested Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
method for rock fractures observations using a borehole (GeoEng2000), Technomic Publishers, Lancaster,
digital optical televiewer’, The ISRM Suggested Methods for pp. 1422–1446.
Rock Characterisation, Testing and Monitoring: 2007–2014, Marinos, V, Marinos, P & Hoek, E 2005, ‘The geological strength
International Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock index: applications and limitations’, Bulletin of Engineering
Engineering, Lisbon. Geology and the Environment, vol. 64, pp. 55–65.
Li, X, Aziz, N, Mirzaghorbanali, A & Nemcik, J 2017, ‘Comparison Marlow, P & Mikula, PA 2013, ‘Shotcrete ribs and cemented rock
of the shear test results of a cable bolt on three laboratory test fill ground control methods for stoping in weak squeezing
apparatuses’, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, rock at Wattle Dam Gold Mine’, in Y Potvin & B Brady (eds),
vol. 61, pp. 82–89. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ground
Lind, NC 1983, ‘Modeling of uncertainty in discrete dynamical- Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Australian
systems’, Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 7, no. 3, Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 133–148.
pp. 146–152. Martin, CD 1993, ‘Characterising in situ stress domains at the AECL
Ljunggren, C, Chang, Y, Janson, T & Christiansson, R 2003, ‘An Underground Research Laboratory’, Canadian Geotechnical
overview of rock stress measurement methods’, International Journal, vol. 27, pp. 631–646.
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 40, no. 7–8,
Martin, CD & Chandler, NA 1993, ‘Stress heterogeneity and
pp. 975–989.
geological structures’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
Lorig, LJ & Varona, P 2013, ‘Guidelines for numerical modelling and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 30, no. 7,
of rock support for mines’, in Y Potvin & B Brady (eds), pp. 993–999.
Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ground
Martin, CD & Chandler, NA 1994, ‘The progressive fracture of Lac
Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Australian
du Bonnet granite’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 31, no. 6,
Louchnikov, V 2011, ‘Simple calibration of the extension strain pp. 643–659.
criterion for its use in numerical modelling’, in Y Potvin (ed.),
Martin, CD & Christiansson, R 2009, ‘Estimating the potential
Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Strategic
spalling around a deep nuclear waste repository in crystalline
versus Tactical Approaches in Mining, Australian Centre for
rock’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Lowsen, AR & Bieniawski, ZT 2013, ‘Critical assessment of RMR
Martin, CD, Kaiser, PK & Christiansson, R 2003, ‘Stress, instability,
based tunnel design practices: a practical engineer’s approach’,
Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation & Tunnelling Conference, and design of underground excavations’, International Journal
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Englewood, of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 40, issue 7–8,
pp. 180–198. pp. 1027–1047.
Ma, KJ, Stankus, J & Faulkner, D 2018, ‘Development and evaluation Martin, CD, Kaiser, PK & McCreath, DR 1999, ‘Hoek–Brown
of corrosion resistant coating for expandable rock bolt against parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure around
highly corrosive ground conditions’, International Journal of tunnels’, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 36, no. 1,
Mining Science and Technology, vol. 28, pp. 145–151. pp. 136–151.
Malan, D 2002, ‘Manuel Rocha medal recipient simulating the Martin, CD, Read, RS & Chandler, NA 1990, ‘Does scale influence
time-dependent behaviour of excavations in hard rock’, Rock in situ stress measurements? Some findings at the Underground
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 225–254. Research Laboratory’, in A Pinto da Cunha (ed.), Proceedings of
the First International Workshop on Scale Effects in Rock Masses,
Malan, DF & Basson, FRP 1998, ‘Ultra-deep mining: the increased
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
potential for squeezing conditions’, Journal of the South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 353–364. McGarr, A 1983, ‘Estimated ground motion for small nearby
earthquakes’, in TR Howard (ed.), Seismic Design of
Malmgren, L & Svensson, T 1999, ‘Investigation of important
Embankments and Caverns, American Society of Civil
parameters for unreinforced shotcrete as rock support in the
Engineers, New York, pp. 113–127.
Kiirunavaara Mine, Sweden’, in B Amadei, RL Kranz, GA Scott
& PH Smeallie (eds), Rock Mechanics for Industry: Proceedings McGarr, A 1984, ‘Scaling of ground motion parameters, state of
of the 37th US Rock Mechanics Symposium, A.A. Balkema, stress, and focal depth’, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 89,
Rotterdam, pp. 629–635. pp. 6969–6979.
Malmgren, L, Nordlund, E & Rolund, S 2005, ‘Adhesion strength McGarr, A 1991, ‘Observations constraining near-source ground
and shrinkage of shotcrete’, Tunnelling and Underground Space motion estimated from locally recorded seismograms’, Journal
Technology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 33–48. of Geophysical Research, vol. 96, no. B10, pp. 16495–16508.
501
McGarr, A, Green, RW & Spottiswoode, SM 1981, ‘Strong ground Milev, AM, Spottiswoode, SM & Stewart, RD 1999, ‘Dynamic
motion of mine tremors: some implications for near-source response of the rock surrounding deep level mining
ground motion parameters’, Bulletin of the Seismological Society excavations’, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on
of America, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 295–319. Rock Mechanics, International Society for Rock Mechanics and
McKinnon, SD 2016, ‘Stress field in deep mines’, in E Johansson & Rock Engineering, Lisbon pp. 1109–1114.
V Raasakka (eds), Proceedings of the 7th International Milev, AM, Spottiswoode, SM, Noble, BR, Linzer, LM, van Zyl, M,
Symposium on In-Situ Rock Stress, International Society for Daehnke, A & Acheampong, E 2002, The Meaningful use
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 13–25. of Peak Particle Velocities at Excavation Surfaces for the
McKinnon, SD & Garrido de la Barra, I 2003, ‘Stress field analysis Optimisation of the Rockburst Criteria for Tunnels and Stopes,
at the El Teniente Mine: evidence for N–S compression in the SIMRAC GAP Project 709 – Final Report.
modern Andes’, Journal of Structural Geology, vol. 25, no. 12,
Milne, D & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2000, ‘Practical considerations in
pp. 2125–2139.
the use of rock mass classification in mining’, Proceedings of
Meikle, T 2012, ‘Injection chemicals for strata consolidation’, the International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological
Ground Support in Underground and Open Pit Mining Seminar, Engineering (GeoEng2000), Technomic Publishers, Lancaster.
unpublished course notes, Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
Milne, D, Germain, P, Grant, D & Noble, P 1991, ‘Systematic rock
Perth.
mass characterization for underground mine design’, in
Meikle, T, Tadolini, S, Sainsbury, B-A & Bolton, J 2017, ‘Laboratory W Wittke (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh ISRM International
and field testing of bolting systems subjected to highly corrosive
Congress on Rock Mechanics, vol. 1, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
environments’, International Journal of Mining Science and
pp. 293–298.
Technology, vol. 27, pp. 101–106.
Milne, D, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Pakalnis, R 1998, ‘Rock mass
Melchers, RE 1993, ‘Society, tolerable risk and the ALARP principle’,
characterization for underground hard rock mines’, Tunnelling
in RE Melchers & MG Stewart (eds), Probabilistic Risk and
and Underground Space Technology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 383–391.
Hazard Assessment, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 243–252.
Melchers, RE 2001, ‘On the ALARP approach to risk management’, Mining Research Directorate 1996, Canadian Rockburst Research
Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 71, no. 2, Program 1990-1995, A Comprehensive Summary of Five Years
pp. 201–208. of Collaborative Research on Rockbursting in Hardrock Mines,
CAMIRO Mining Division, Sudbury.
Mercier-Langevin, F & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2011, ‘Towards a better
understanding of squeezing potential in hard rock mines’, MIRARCO 2017, Mesh Testing Facilities, technical datasheet,
Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy: MIRARCO, Sudbury, p. 8.
Section A – Mining Technology, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 36–44. Mödlhammer, H 2010, Numerical Methods for Tunneling Using
Mercier-Langevin, F & Turcotte, P 2007, ‘Evolution of ground ABAQUS and Investigation of Long-time-effects of the Shotcrete
support practices at Agnico Eagle’s LaRonde Division: Shell and its Impact on the Combined Support System,
innovative solutions to high stress ground’, in E Eberhardt, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
D Stead & T Morrison (eds), Rock Mechanics: Meeting Society’s
Montgomery, DC & Runger, GC 2003, Applied Statistics and
Challenges and Demands, pp. 1497–1504.
Probability for Engineers, 3rd edn, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Mercier-Langevin, F & Wilson, D 2013, ‘Lapa mine – ground control
Morgan, D, Heere, R, McAskill, N & Chan, C 1999, ‘Comparative
practices in extreme squeezing ground’, in Y Potvin & B Brady
evaluation of system ductility of mesh and fibre reinforced
(eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on
shotcretes’, in TB Celestino & HW Parker (eds), Proceedings of
Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 119–132. Shotcrete for Underground Support VIII, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, pp. 216–239.
Merrien-Soukatchoff, V, Korini, T & Thoraval, A 2012, ‘Use of an
integrated discrete fracture network code for stochastic stability Morissette, P & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2017, ‘The development of a
analyses of fractured rock masses’, Rock Mechanics and Rock ground support strategy for deep mines subjected to dynamic
Engineering, vol. 45, pp. 159–181. loading conditions’, in J Wesseloo (ed.), Proceedings of the
Eight International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining,
Microsoft 2016, Microsoft Excel, computer software, Microsoft,
Redmond, https://products.office.com/en-au/excel
Mikula, PA 2012, ‘Progress with empirical performance charting for Morissette, P, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Thibodeau, D 2012, ‘Validating a
confident selection of ground support in seismic conditions’, support performance database based on passive monitoring
in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International data’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International
Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 71–90. Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 41–55.
Mikula, P & Gebremedhin, B 2017, ‘Empirical selection of ground Morissette, P, Hadjigeorgiou, J, Punkkinen, A, Chinnasane, D &
support for dynamic conditions using charting of support Sampson-Forsythe, A 2017, ‘The influence of mining sequence
performance at Hamlet mine’, in J Wesseloo (ed.), Proceedings and ground support practice on the frequency and severity
of the Eighth International Conference on Deep and High Stress of rockbursts in seismically active mines of the Sudbury
Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Basin’, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
pp. 625–636. Metallurgy, vol. 117, no. 1, p. 47.
502
References
Morton, EC, Thompson, AG & Villaescusa, E 2008, ‘Static testing of Ortlepp, WD & Stacey, TR 1998, Testing of Tunnel Support: Dynamic
shotcrete and membranes for mining applications’, in TR Stacey Load Testing of Rockbolt Elements to Provide Data for Safer
& DF Malan (eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Support Design, SIMRAC GAP Project 423, Safety in Mines
Symposium Ground Support in Mining and Civil Engineering Research Advisory Committee, Johannesburg.
Construction, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Palmström, A 1982, ‘The volumetric joint count – a useful and
Johannesburg, pp. 195–212.
simple measure of the degree of rock jointing’, Proceedings of the
Morton, EC, Thompson, AG, Villaescusa, E & Roth, A 2007, ‘Testing Fourth International Congress of the International Association of
and analysis of steel wire mesh for mining applications of rock Engineering Geology, Oxford & IBH, New Delhi, pp. 221–228.
surface support’, in L Ribeiro e Sousa, C Olalla & N Grossman
Palmström, A 1995, RMi - A Rock Mass Characterization System for
(eds), Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the International
Rock Engineering Purposes, PhD thesis, University of Oslo, Oslo.
Society for Rock Mechanics, vol. 2, International Society for
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon, pp. 1061–1064. Palmström, A 2005, ‘Measurements of and correlation between
block size and rock quality designation (RQD)’, Tunnelling and
Mosteller, F & Youtz, C 1990, ‘Quantifying probabilistic expressions’,
Underground Space Technology, vol. 20, pp. 362–377.
Statistical Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2–12.
Palmström, A & Broch, E 2006, ‘Use and misuse of rock mass
Mpunzi, P, Masethe, R, Rizwan, M & Stacey, TR 2015, ‘Enhancement
classification systems with particular reference to the Q-system’,
of the tensile strengths of rock and shotcrete by thin spray-on
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 21, no. 6,
liners’, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 49,
pp. 369–375. pp. 575–593.
Naoi, M 2011, ‘Twenty thousand aftershocks of a very small (M 2) Palmstrom, A & Stille, H 2007, ‘Ground behaviour and rock
earthquake and their relation to the mainshock rupture and engineering tools for underground excavations’, Tunnelling and
geological structures’, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of Underground Space Technology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 363–376.
America, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 2399–2407. Palmström, A & Stille, H 2015, Rock Engineering, 2nd edn,
National Research Council 2000, Risk Analysis and Uncertainty Institution of Civil Engineers Publishing, London, 352 p.
in Flood Damage Reduction Studies, The National Academies Panchalingam, G & Harr, ME 1994, ‘Modeling of many correlated
Press, Washington DC. and skewed random-variables’, Applied Mathematical Modelling,
Newmark, NM & Hall, WJ 1982, Earthquake Spectra and Design, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 635–640.
EERI Monograph Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Panet, M 1995, Le Calcul des Tunnels Par la Méthod Convergence-
Institute, Berkeley. confinement [Tunnel Calculation by the Convergence-
Nicholson, L & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2018, ‘Interpreting the results of in Containment Method], Presses de l’ENPC, Paris.
situ pull tests on Friction Rock Stabilizers (FRS)’, Transactions Papworth, F 2002, ‘Design guidelines for the use of fiber-reinforced
of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy: Section A, Mining shotcrete in ground support’, Shotcrete Magazine, pp. W16–21.
Technology, vol. 127, no. 1, pp. 12–25.
Patton, FD 1966, ‘Multiple modes of shear failures in rock’,
Oke, J, Vlachopoulos, N & Marinos, V 2014, ‘Umbrella arch Proceedings of the First Congress of the International Society for
nomenclature and selection methodology for temporary Rock Mechanics, vol. 1, Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia
support systems for the design and construction of tunnels’, Civil, Lisbon, pp. 509–513.
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol. 32, no. 1,
Peck, WA 2000, ‘Determining the stress reduction factor in highly
pp. 97–130.
stressed jointed rock’, Australian Geomechanics, vol. 35, no. 2,
Oler, R & Chen, J 2014, ‘Introduction of a new superior coating on pp. 57–60.
ground control products’, Proceedings of the 33rd International
Conference on Ground Control in Mining, The Society for Peck, WA & Lee, MF 2007, ‘Application of the Q-system to
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc., Englewood, Australian underground metal mines’, in C Mark, R Pakalnis &
pp. 189–192. RJ Tuchman (eds), Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Rock Mass Classification in Underground Mining, National
Ortlepp, WD 1969, ‘An empirical determination of the effectiveness
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati,
of rockbolt support under impulse loading’, in TL Brekke &
pp. 129–140.
FA Jorstad (eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Large Permanent Underground Openings, Universitetsforlaget, Peele, R 1941, Mining Engineers’ Handbook, vol. 1 & 2, John Wiley &
Oslo, pp. 197–205. Sons Inc., New York.
Ortlepp, WD 1992, ‘The design of support for the containment of Pells, PJ, Bieniawski, ZT, Hencher, SR & Pells, SE 2017, ‘Rock
rockburst damage in tunnels’, in PK Kaiser & DR McCreath Quality Designation (RQD): time to rest in peace’, Canadian
(eds), Rock Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Geotechnical Journal, vol. 54, pp. 825–834.
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 593–609. Pierce, M, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Furtney, J 2018, ‘Standalone
Ortlepp, WD 1997, ‘Rock fracture and rockbursts’, Monograph rock reinforcement models as an aid to advanced ground
Series M9, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, support analysis’, Proceedings of the 52nd US Rock Mechanics/
Johannesburg. Geomechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics
Ortlepp, WD & Stacey, TR 1997, Testing of Tunnel Support: Dynamic Association, Alexandria.
Load Testing of Rock Support Containment Systems (e.g. Wire Pine, RJ & Harrison, JP 2003, ‘Rock mass properties for engineering
Mesh), SIMRAC GAP Project 221, Safety in Mines Research design’, Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and
Advisory Committee, Johannesburg. Hydrogeology, vol. 36, pp. 5–16.
503
Player, JR, Thompson, AG & Villaescusa, E 2008a, ‘Dynamic Potvin, Y, Dight, PM & Wesseloo, J 2012, ‘Some pitfalls and misuses
testing of reinforcement system’, in TR Stacey and D Malan of rock mass classification systems for mine design’, Journal
(eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Ground Support in Mining and Civil Engineering Construction, vol. 112, no. 8, pp. 697–702.
The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Potvin, Y, Hadjigeorgiou, J & Stacey, T 2007, ‘Introduction’, in
Johannesburg, pp. 581–595. Y Potvin, J Hadjigeorgiou & T Stacey (eds), Challenges in Deep
Player, JR, Morton, EC, Thompson, AG & Villaescusa, E 2008b, and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
‘Static and dynamic testing of steel wire mesh for mining Perth, pp. 1–13.
applications of rock surface support’, in TR Stacey and D Potvin, Y, Stacey, TR & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2004a, Surface Support in
Malan (eds), Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, 417 p.
Ground Support in Mining and Civil Engineering Construction,
The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Potvin, Y, Stacey, TR & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2004b, ‘Thin Spray-on
Johannesburg, pp. 693–706. Liners (TSLs) – a quick reference guide’, in Y Potvin, TR Stacey
& J Hadjigeorgiou (eds), Surface Support in Mining, Australian
Player, JR, Villaescusa, E & Thompson, AG 2008c, ‘An examination
of dynamic test facilities’, Proceedings of the Australian Mining
Technology Conference, The Australasian Institute of Mining Potvin, Y, Wesseloo, J & Heal, D 2010, ‘An interpretation of ground
and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 349–379. support capacity submitted to dynamic loading’, in M Van
Sint Jan & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International
Player, JR, Villaescusa, E & Thompson, AG 2009, ‘Dynamic testing
Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for
of friction rock stabilisers’, in M Diederichs & G Grasselli (eds),
Proceedings of the 3rd CANUS Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum, Priest, SD 1985, Hemispherical Projection Methods in Rock
Montreal. Mechanics, George Allen & Unwin, London, 124 p.
Player, JR, Villaescusa, E & Thompson, AG 2013, ‘Dynamic Priest, SD 1993a, Discontinuity Analysis for Rock Engineering,
testing of fully grouted threaded bar – resin and cement Chapman & Hall, London.
grouted’, in Y Potvin and B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the
Priest, SD 1993b, ‘The collection and analysis of discontinuity
Seventh International Symposium on Ground Support in
orientation data for engineering design, with examples’,
Mining and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for
Comprehensive Rock Engineering: Principles, Practice & Projects:
Rock Testing and Site Characterization, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
Poropat, GV 2006, ‘Remote 3D mapping of rock mass structure’, pp. 167–192.
in F Tonon & J Kottenstette (eds), Laser and Photogrammetric
Priest, SD & Brown, ET 1983, ‘Probabilistic stability analysis of
Methods for Rock Face Characterization Workshop, American
variable rock slopes’, Transactions of the Institution of Mining
Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria.
and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Industry, vol. 92, pp. A1–A12.
Potvin, Y 1988, Empirical Open Stope Design in Canada, PhD thesis,
Priest, SD & Hudson, JA 1976, ‘Estimation of discontinuity space
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
and trace length using scan line surveys’, International Journal of
Potvin, Y & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2008, ‘Ground support strategies to Rock Mechanics and Geomechanics, vol. 18, pp. 183–197.
control large deformations in mining excavations’, Journal of the
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 108, Priest, SD & Hudson, JA 1981, ‘Estimation of discontinuity spacing
no. 7, pp. 397–404. and trace length using scanline surveys’, International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences Abstracts, vol. 18, no. 3,
Potvin, Y & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2015, ‘Empirical ground support pp. 183–197.
design of mine drives’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the
International Seminar on Design Methods in Underground Pritchard, CJ & McClellan, RS 2011, ‘Injectable resin – a highly
Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, adaptable ground support anchoring system’, Proceedings of
pp. 419–430. the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum
Conference and Exhibition 2011, Canadian Institute of Mining,
Potvin, Y & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2016, ‘Selection of ground support for
Metallurgy and Petroleum, Westmount.
mining drives based on the Q-System’, in E Nordlund, T Jones
& A Eitzenberger (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth International PTC 2019, PTC Mathcad, computer software, PTC,
Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground https://www.ptc.com/en/products/mathcad
Construction, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå. Raffaldi, M, Benton, D, Martin, L, Johnson, J & Stepan, M 2016,
Potvin, Y & Slade, N 2007, ‘Controlling extreme ground ‘Toughness of large-scale shotcrete panels loaded in flexure’,
deformation; Learning from four Australian case studies’, in Transactions of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Y Potvin, J Hadjigeorgiou & D Stacey (eds), Challenges in Deep Exploration, vol. 340, pp. 82–91.
and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Raffaldi, MJ, Martin, LA, Benton, DJ, Sunderman, CB, Stepan, MA
Perth, pp. 355–361. & Powers, MJ 2017, ‘Quasi-static and mechanical shock testing
Potvin, Y & Wesseloo, J 2013, ‘Towards an understanding of of reinforced shotcrete surface support’, in J Wesseloo (ed.),
dynamic demand on ground support’, Journal of the Southern Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Deep and
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 113, no. 12, High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
pp. 913–922. pp. 733–746.
504
References
Ranasooriya, J, Richardson, GW & Yap, LC 1995, ‘Corrosion Ruffolo, RM & Shakoor, A 2009, ‘Variability of unconfined
behaviour of friction rock stabilisers used in underground compressive strength in relation to number of test samples’,
mines’, Proceedings of the Underground Operators Conference, Engineering Geology, vol. 108, pp. 16–23.
The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Samosir, J & Snyman, LA 2014, ‘Redevelopment at Northparkes
Melbourne, pp. 9–16. following significant drive closure’, Proceedings of AUSROCK
Read, J 2009, ‘Data uncertainty’, in J Read & P Stacey (eds), 2014: Third Australasian Ground Control in Mining Conference,
Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, CRC Press, Boca Raton, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
pp. 215–220. Melbourne, pp. 87–92.
Read, J 2013, ‘Data gathering, interpretation, reliability and Sandbak, LA & Rai, AR 2013, ‘Ground support strategies at the
geotechnical models’, in PM Dight (ed.), Proceedings of the 2013 Turquoise Ridge Joint Venture, Nevada’, Rock Mechanics and
International Symposium on Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining Rock Engineering, vol. 46, pp. 437–454.
and Civil Engineering, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Sandy, MP, Gibson, W & Gaudreau, D 2007, ‘Canadian and
Perth, pp. 81–89. Australian ground support practices in high deformation
Read, J & Stacey, P 2009, Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, CRC environments’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth
Press, Boca Raton, p. 217. International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining,
Reagan, RT, Mosteller, F & Youtz, C 1989, ‘Quantitative meanings of Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 297–311.
verbal probability-expressions’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Sari, M 2012, ‘Stochastic estimation of the Hoek-Brown strength
vol. 74, no. 3, pp. 433–442. parameters using spreadsheet models’, Proceedings of the 2012
ISRM International Symposium (Eurock 2012), International
Reddy, N & Spottiswoode, SM 2001, ‘The influence of geology on
a simulated rockburst’, Journal of the South African Institute of Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon,
Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 267–272. 12 p.
Satola, I & Aromaa, J 2003, ‘Corrosion of rock bolts and the eﬀect
Reinecker, J, Tingay, M & Müller, B 2016, Guidelines for Borehole
of corrosion protection on the axial behavior of cable bolts’,
Breakout Analysis from Four-arm Caliper Logs, World Stress
Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of the ISRM:
Map Scientific Technical Report WSM STR 16-01, Helmholtz
Centre Potsdam, Potsdam. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, CD-Rom, South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg.
Reny, S & Jolin, M 2011, ‘Improve your shotcrete: use coarse
Satola, I & Aromaa, J 2004, ‘The corrosion of rock bolts and cable
aggregates!’, Shotcrete, Winter 2011, pp. 21–28.
bolts’, in E Villaescusa & Y Potvin (eds), Ground Support in
Roberge, PR 1999, Handbook of Corrosion Engineering, Mining and Underground Construction: Proceedings of the Fifth
McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 94–115. International Symposium on Ground Support, Taylor & Francis
RocScience 2012, Unwedge, computer software, Rocscience Inc., Group, London, pp. 521–528.
Toronto, https://www.rocscience.com/rocscience/ Schach, R, Garshol, K & Heltzen, AM 1979, Rock Bolting: A Practical
products/unwedge Handbook, Pergamon Press, Oxford, p. 84.
RocScience 2016, RS2 9.0, computer software, 2D finite element Schubert, W & Radoncic, N 2015, ‘Tunnelling in “squeezing”
program, Rocscience Inc., Toronto. ground conditions – problems and solutions’, ISRM Congress
Rogers, SF, Moffitt, KM & Kennard, DT 2006, ‘Probabilistic tunnel 2015 Proceedings.
and slope block stability using realistic fracture network Schubert, W 2008, ‘Design of ductile tunnel linings’, Proceedings of
models’, in DP Yale (ed.), Proceedings of the 41st US Rock the 42nd US Rock Mechanics Symposium and 2nd U.S.-Canada
Mechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Association, Rock Mechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics
Alexandria. Association, Alexandria.
Rosenblueth, E 1975, ‘Point estimates for probability moments’, Schwartz, CW & Einstein, HH 1980, ‘Improved design of tunnel
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 72, no. 10, supports: volume 1 : simplified analysis for ground-structure
pp. 3812–3814, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.72.10.3812 interaction in tunneling’, John A. Volpe National Transportation
Rosenblueth, E 1981, ‘Two-point estimates in probabilities’, Applied Systems Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Mathematical Modelling, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 329–335. Cambridge.
Rosso, R 1976, ‘A comparison of joint stiffness measurements in Scolari, F, Brandon, M & Krekula, H 2017, ‘Dynamic inflatable
direct shear, triaxial compression, and in situ’, International friction rockbolt for deep mining’, in J Wesseloo (ed),
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Proceedings of the Eight International Seminar on Deep and
Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 167–172. High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
pp. 763–772.
Roth, A, Cala, M, Brändle, R & Rorem, E 2014, ‘Analysis and
numerical modelling of dynamic ground support, based on Serafim, LJ & Pereira, JP 1983, ‘Consideration of the geomechanics
instrumented full-scale tests’, in M Hudyma & Y Potvin (eds), classification of Bieniawski’, Proceedings of the International
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Deep and Symposium of Engineering Geology and Underground
High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Construction, International Association of Engineering
pp. 151–164. Geology, pp. 1133–1144.
505
Seto, M, Nag, DK & Vutukuri, VS 1999, ‘In situ rock stress Stacey, TR 1981, ‘A simple extension strain criterion for fracture of
measurements from rock cores using the acoustic emission brittle rock’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
method and deformation rate analysis’, Geotechnical and Sciences, vol. 18, pp. 469–474.
Geological Engineering, vol. 17, no. 3, Kluwer Academic Stacey, TR 1982, ‘Contribution to the mechanism of core discing’,
Publishers, Dortrecht, pp. 241–266. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Shan, Z, Porter, I & Nemcik, J 2014, ‘Performance of full scale September 1982, pp. 269–275.
welded steel mesh for surface control in underground coal Stacey, TR 2001, ‘Review of membrane support mechanisms, loading
mines’, in BI Morsi (ed.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual mechanisms, desired membrane performance, and appropriate
International Pittsburgh Coal Conference: Coal - Energy, test methods’, Journal of the South African Institute of Mining
Environment and Sustainable Development (PCC 2014), Curran and Metallurgy, vol. 101, no. 7, pp. 342–352.
Associates, Inc., New York, pp. 1–10. Stacey, TR 2004, ‘The link between the design process in rock
Shearer, P 1999, Introduction to Seismology, Cambridge University engineering and the code of practice to combat rock fall and
rockburst accidents’, Journal of the South African Institute of
Press, Cambridge, p. 260.
Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 29–33.
Simser, BP 2007, ‘The weakest link – ground support observations
Stacey, TR 2009, ‘Design – a strategic issue’, Journal of the Southern
at some Canadian Shield hard rock mines’, in Y Potvin (ed.),
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 109,
Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Deep and
pp. 157–162.
High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
Stacey, TR 2012, ‘Philosophical view on the testing of rock support
pp. 335–348.
for rockburst conditions’, Proceedings of the Second Southern
Simser, BP 2018, ‘Design of rockburst support systems for deep hard Hemisphere International Rock Mechanics Symposium,
rock mines’, Chapter 10, in XT Feng (ed.), Rock Mechanics and The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Engineering, vol. 4, pp. 279–309. Johannesburg, pp. 227–247.
Simser, B & Prichard, C 2012, Innovative Ground control at Xstrata’s Stacey, TR 2017a, ‘Addressing the consequences of dynamic rock
Nickel Rim South Mine, Sudbury, Ontario, Work Place Safety failure in underground excavations’, Rock Mechanics and Rock
North Presentation, Sudbury, April 2012. Engineering, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 4091–4101.
Singh, M, Singh, B & Choudhari, J 2007, ‘Critical strain and Stacey, TR 2017b, ‘Rock engineering as a creator of value’,
Proceedings of the 2017 International Rock Mechanics
squeezing of rock mass in tunnels’, Tunnelling and Underground
Symposium AfriRock – Rock Mechanics for Africa, The Southern
Space Technology, vol. 22, pp. 343–350.
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, 16 p.
Singh, B, Jethwa, JL, Dube, AK & Singh, B 1992, ‘Correlation
Stacey, TR & Ortlepp, WD 2007, ‘Yielding rock support – the
between observed support pressure and rock mass quality’, capacities of different types of support, and matching of
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 7, no. 1, support type to seismic demand’, in Y Potvin, J Hadjigeorgiou
pp. 59–74. & TR Stacey (eds), Challenges in Deep and High Stress Mining,
Sjöberg, J, Christiansson, R & Hudson, JA 2003, ‘ISRM suggested Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 399–411.
methods for rock stress estimation – part 2: overcoring Stacey, TR, Armstrong, R & Terbrugge, PJ 2015, ‘Experience with
methods’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining the development and use of a simple DFN approach over a
Sciences, vol. 40, pp. 999–1010. period of 30 years’, Mining Technology, vol. 124, no. 3,
pp. 178–187.
Slatter, M & Walker, R 2009, ‘New application of organic coating
to existing ground support products’, SME Annual Meeting & Stacey, TR, Terbrugge, PJ & Wesseloo, J 2007, ‘Risk as a rock
Exhibit, The Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc., engineering design criterion’, in Y Potvin, J Hadjigeorgiou &
Englewood, pp. 679–684. TR Stacey (eds), Challenges in Deep and High Stress Mining,
Slob, S, Van Knapen, B, Hack, R, Turner, K & Kemeny, J 2005,
Starfield, AM & Cundall, PA 1988, ‘Towards a methodology for rock
‘Method for automated discontinuity analysis of rock
mechanics modelling’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics
slopes with three dimensional laser scanning’, Proceedings
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, vol. 25, no. 3,
of the Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting,
pp. 99–106.
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
Starr, C 1969, ‘Social benefit versus technological risk’, Science,
Spearing, AJS, Mondal, K, Bylapudi, G & Hirschi, J 2010, ‘The vol. 165, pp. 1232–1238.
corrosion of rock bolts and a method to quantify the corrosion
Starr, C & Whipple, C 1980, ‘Risks of risk-decisions’, Science,
potential in mines’, CIM Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 213–220.
vol. 208, no. 4448, pp. 1114–1119.
St John, C & Zahrah, T 1987, ‘Aseismic design of underground Stead, D, Eberhardt, E & Coggan, JS 2006, ‘Developments in the
structures’, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, characterisation of complex rock slope deformation and failure
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 165–197. using numerical modelling techniques’, Engineering Geology,
St John, CM & Van Dillen, DE 1983, ‘Rockbolts: a new numerical vol. 83, pp. 217–235.
representation and its application in tunnel design’, Proceedings Steffen, OKH 1997, ‘Planning of open pit mines on a risk basis’, The
of the 24th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria. vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 47–56.
506
References
Steffen, OKH, Contreras, LF, Terbrugge, PJ & Venter, J 2008, ‘A risk Swan, G, Kazakidis, V, Brummer, RK & Graham, C 2005, ‘Deep
evaluation approach for pit slope design’, Proceedings of the 42nd mining research: implementing technology to manage risk’,
US Rock Mechanics Symposium, American Rock Mechanics Proceedings of the Maintenance, Engineering and Reliability/
Association, Alexandria. Mine Operators Conference, Canadian Institute of Mining,
Steiner, W 1996, ‘Tunnelling in squeezing rocks: case histories’, Rock Metallurgy and Petroleum, Sudbury, CD-Rom.
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 211–246. Swan, G, Doyle, G, Mikalachki, SA, Martin, B & Brummer, RK
2003, ‘Technical and business case arguments supporting
Stephansson, O 1993, ‘Rock stress in the Fennoscandian Shield’,
the development of a TSL mining system’, in J Hadjigeorgiou
in JA Hudson (ed.), Comprehensive Rock Engineering, vol. 3,
(ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Surface
Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 445–459.
Support Liners: Thin Spray-on Liners, Shotcrete and Mesh,
Stephansson, O & Zang, A 2012, ‘ISRM suggested methods for stress Section 1, Université Laval, Québec City, pp. 1–14.
estimation – part 5: establishing a model for the in situ stress
Swan, G, Guse, T, Simser, B, Bradley, JA, McDonald, NA &
at a given site’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 45,
Matikainen, O 2013, ‘Thin spray-on liner: a project update on
no. 6, pp. 955–969.
current work in Sudbury, Canada’, Proceedings of the World
Stillborg, B 1994, Professional Users Handbook for Rock Bolting, Mining Congress and Expo 2013, Canadian Institute of Mining,
vol. 18, 2nd edn, Series on Rock and Soil Mechanics, Trans Tech Metallurgy and Petroleum, Westmount.
Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, 164 p. Sweby, GJ, Dight, PM & Potvin, Y 2014, ‘The use of numerical
Stille, H & Palmström, A 2003, ‘Classification as a tool in rock models for ground support systems optimisation: applications,
engineering’, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, methods and challenges’, International Discrete Fracture
vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 331–345. Network Engineering Conference, The Canadian Rock
Mechanics Association.
Stille, H & Palmström, A 2008, ‘Ground behaviour and rock mass
composition in underground excavations’, Tunnelling and Sweby, G, Dight, PM, Potvin, Y & Gamble, N 2016, ‘An
Underground Space Technology, vol. 23, pp. 46–64. instrumentation project to investigate the response of a ground
support system to stoping induced deformation’, in E Nordlund,
Stimpson, B 1998, ‘Split set friction stabilizers: an experimental
TH Jones & A Eitzenberger (eds), Proceedings of the Eighth
study of strength distribution and the effect of corrosion’, International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 35, pp. 678–683. Underground Construction, Luleå University of Technology,
Stjern, G 1995, Practical Performance of Rockbolts, PhD thesis, Luleå, pp. 1–14.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Swoboda, G & Laabmayr, F 1978, ‘Beitrag zur Weiterentwicklung
Struthers, M, Turner, M, McNabb, K, Jenkins, P & Chitombo, G der Berechnung flachliegender Tunnelbauten im Lockergestein’
2000, ‘Rock mechanics design and practice for squeezing [Contribution to the further development of the calculation
ground and high stress conditions at Perseverance Mine’, of flat tunnel constructions in the loose rock], in H Lessmann
Proceedings of MassMin 2000, The Australasian Institute of (ed.), Moderner Tunnelbau bei der Münchner U-Bahn, Springer-
Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 755–764. Verlag Wien, Vienna, pp. 55–71.
Sullivan, TD 2006, ‘Pit slope design and risk – a view of the current Szwedzicki, T 2007, ‘Technical note: a hypothesis on modes of
state of the art’, International Symposium on Stability of Rock failure of rock samples tested in uniaxial compression’, Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 97–104.
Slopes in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, The South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, Talbot, JF & Burke, J 2013, ‘Mining in consolidated and
pp. 51–80. presupported karstified ground conditions’, in Y Potvin &
B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International
Sundholm, S 1987, ‘The quality control of rock bolts’, in G Herget
Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground
& S Vongpaisal (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International
Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
Congress on Rock Mechanics, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 149–162.
pp. 1255–1264.
Tannant, DD 1995, ‘Load capacity and stiffness of welded-
Sundholm, S 1995, ‘Long-term performance of cement grouted
wire mesh’, Proceedings of the 48th Canadian Geotechnical
rebar bolts’, Proceedings of the 8th ISRM Congress, International Conference, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
Society for Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, Lisbon, Petroleum, Westmount, pp. 729–736.
pp. 675–678.
Tannant, DD 2004, ‘Load capacity and stiffness of welded wire,
Swan, G & Henderson, A 2004 ‘Water-based spray-on liner chain link, and expanded metal mesh’, in Y Potvin, TR Stacey
implementation at Falconbridge Limited’, Surface Support in & J Hadjigeorgiou (eds), Surface Support in Mining, Australian
Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Centre for Geomechanics, Perth pp. 399–402.
pp. 215–219.
Tannant, DD, McDowell, GM & McCreath, DR 1994, ‘Shotcrete
Swan, G & Sepulveda, R 2000, ‘Slope stability at Collahausi’, in performance during simulated rockbursts’, in JC Cereceda &
WA Hustrulid, KM McCarter & DJA van Zyl (eds), Slope M Van Sint Jan (eds), International Workshop on Applied
Stability in Surface Mining, The Society for Mining, Metallurgy Rockburst Research, May, Sociedad Chilena de Geotecnia,
& Exploration Inc., Englewood, pp. 163–170. Santiago.
507
Tannant, DD, McDowell, GM, Brummer, RK & Kaiser, PK 1993, Tomory, P, Grabinsky, M, Curran, J & Carvalho, J 1998, ‘Factors
‘Ejection velocities measured during a rockburst simulation influencing the effectiveness of Split Set friction stabilizer bolts’,
experiment’, in RP Young (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd CIM Bulletin, vol. 91, pp. 205–214.
International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Top Rock Technologies Pty Ltd 2017, Hollow Inclusion Cell, viewed
A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 129–133. 21 September 2017, http://www.toprocktech.com/
Tapia, A, Contreras, LF, Jefferies, M & Steffen, OKH 2007, ‘Risk uploads/4/2/5/0/42508165/hi_cell_brochure_v6.1.pdf
evaluation of slope failure at the Chuquicamata Mine’, in The MathWorks Inc. 2019, MATLAB, computer software, The
Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the 2007 International Symposium MathWorks Inc., Natick, https://au.mathworks.com/
on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering, products/matlab.html
Turcotte, P 2010, ‘Field behaviour of the hybrid bolt at LaRonde
Tarasov, BG 2010, ‘Superbrittleness of rocks at high confining Mine’, in M Van Sint Jan & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the
pressure’, in M Van Sint Jan & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of Fifth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining,
the Fifth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 309–319.
Turcotte, P 2014, ‘Practical applications of a rockburst database
Tarasov, BG 2011, ‘Universal scale of brittleness for rocks failed at to ground support design at LaRonde Mine’, in M Hudyma
compression’, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International
of the International Association for Computer Methods and Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for
Advances in Geomechanics, pp. 669–673. Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 79–92.
Tarasov, BG & Potvin, Y 2012, ‘Absolute, relative and intrinsic rock Turichshev, A & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2016, ‘Triaxial compression
brittleness at compression’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the experiments on intact veined andesite’, International Journal of
Sixth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, vol. 86, pp. 179–193.
Turichshev, A & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2017, ‘Development of synthetic
Tarasov, BG & Randolph, MF 2011, ‘Superbrittleness of rocks and rock mass bonded block models to simulate the behaviour of
earthquake activity’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics intact veined rock’, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering,
and Mining Sciences, vol. 48, pp. 888–898. vol. 35, pp. 313–335.
Technical Advisory Committee on Water Retaining Structures of UK Health and Safety Executive 1992, The Tolerability of Risk
The Netherlands 1984, Some Considerations on Acceptable Risk from Nuclear Power Stations, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office,
in The Netherlands, Dienst Weg-en Waterbouwkunde, Delft. London.
Terbrugge, PJ, Wesseloo, J, Venter, J & Steffen, OKH 2006, ‘A risk UK Health and Safety Executive 2001, Reducing Risks, Protecting
consequence approach to open pit slope design’, Journal of the People—HSE’s Decision Making Process, HSE Books, Norwich.
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 106, no. 7,
Unal, E 1984, ‘Empirical approach to calculate rock loads in coal
pp. 503–511.
mine roadways’, in SS Peng (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth
Terzaghi, K 1946a, ‘Introduction to tunnel geology’, in RV Proctor International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, West
& TL White (eds), Rock Tunnelling with Steel Supports, Virginia University, Morgantown, pp. 232–246.
Commercial Shearing and Stamping Company, Youngstown,
United States Army Corps of Engineers 1980, Engineering and
pp. 5–153.
Design: Rock Reinforcement, Engineering Manual EM 1110-1-
Terzaghi, K 1946b, ‘Rock defects and loads in tunnel supports’, 20907, The Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington DC.
in RV Proctor & TL White (eds), Rock Tunneling with Steel
United States Army Corps of Engineers 2014, Engineering and
Supports, The Commercial Shearing and Stamping Company,
Design Safety of Dams – Policy and Procedures, United States
Youngstown, pp. 17–99.
Army Corps of Engineers, Washington DC.
Terzaghi, RD 1965, ‘Sources of error in joint surveys’, Géotechnique, United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 287–304. 1997, Guidelines for Achieving Public Protection in Dam Safety
The Netherlands Ministry of Housing Land Use Planning and Decision Making, US Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Environment (VROM) 1988, Dutch National Environment Plan, Reclamation.
The Hague. United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 2016, Risk‐
Thompson, AG 1992, ‘Tensioning reinforcing cables’, in P Kaiser & informed Decision Making (RIDM) Risk Guidelines for Dam
DR McCreath (eds), Rock Support in Mining and Underground Safety, United States Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Construction, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Washington DC.
Rock Support, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 285–291. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1975, Reactor Safety
Thompson, AG 2004, ‘Rock support action of mesh quantified by Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in US Commercial
testing and analysis’, in Y Potvin, D Stacey & J Hadjigeorgiou Nuclear Power Plants, USAEC Report WASH-1400 (NUREG
(eds), Surface Support in Mining, Australian Centre for 75/014), National Technical Information Service, Springfield.
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 391–398. Vakili, A, Sandy, M & Albrecht, J 2012, ‘Interpretation of non-
Thompson, AG, Windsor, CR & Cadby, GW 1999, ‘Performance linear numerical models in geomechanics–a case study in the
assessment of mesh for ground control applications’, in application of numerical modelling for raise bored shaft design
E Villaescusa, CR Windsor & AG Thompson (eds), Proceedings in a highly stressed and foliated rock mass’, Proceedings of the
of the International Symposium on Ground Support, Rock 6th International Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining
Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, A.A. Balkema, (MassMin 2012), Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and
Rotterdam, pp. 119–130. Petroleum, Westmount, CD-Rom, Figure 2.
508
References
Vakili, A, Sandy, MP, Mathews, M & Rodda, B 2013, ‘Ground Villaescusa, E, Li, J, Windsor, CR & Seto, M 2006, ‘A comparison
support design under high stressed conditions’, in Y Potvin & of overcoring and AE stress profiles with depth in Western
B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Australian mines’, in M Lu, CC Li, H Kjornholt & H Dahle
Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground (eds), ISRM Conference on In-situ Rock Stress – Measurement,
Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Interpretation and Application, Taylor & Francis, London,
pp. 551–564. pp. 223–228.
Van Sint Jan, M, Bonani, A & Escobar, BV 2004, ‘Large-scale tests Villaescusa, E, Thompson, AG, Player, JR & Morton, E 2010,
on synthetic fibre reinforced shotcrete’, in Y Potvin, D Stacey Dynamic Testing of Ground Support Systems, Phase 2 – Final
& J Hadjigeorgiou (eds), Surface Support in Mining, Australian Report, MERIWA Project M349A, Minerals Research Institute
Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 271–275. of Western Australia, Perth.
Vandermaat, D, Saydam, S, Hagan, PC & Crosky, A 2016, Villaescusa, E, Machuca, L, Windsor, C, Simser, B & Carlisle, S
‘Laboratory-based coupon testing for the understanding of SCC 2009, ‘Stress measurements at great depth at Craig-Onaping
in rockbolts’, Mining Technology, vol. 125, no. 3, pp. 174–183. Mines, Sudbury Canada’, in M Diederichs & G Grasselli (eds),
Proceedings of the 3rd CANUS Rock Mechanics Symposium,
Varden, RP & Woods, MJ 2015, ‘Design approach for squeezing
American Rock Mechanics Association, Alexandria.
ground’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the 1st International
Seminar on Design Methods in Underground Mining, Australian Vlachopoulos, N & Diederichs, MS 2009, ‘Improved longitudinal
Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 489–504. displacement profiles for convergence confinement analysis of
deep tunnels’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 42,
Vick, S 2002, Degrees of Belief: Subjective Probability and Engineering no. 2, pp. 131–146.
Judgement, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Vlachopoulos, N & Diederichs, MS 2014, ‘Appropriate uses and
Villaescusa, E 2014, Geotechnical Design for Sublevel Open Stoping, practical limitations of 2D numerical analysis of tunnels
CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, p. 361. and tunnel support response’, Geotechnical and Geological
Villaescusa, E, Hassell, RC & Thompson, AG 2008, ‘Development Engineering, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 469–488.
of a corrosivity classification for cement grouted cable strand Vrijling, JK, van Hengel, W & Houben, RJ 1995, ‘A framework for
in underground hard rock mining excavations’, Journal of the risk evaluation’, Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 43, no. 3,
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 245–261.
pp. 301–308.
Vrijling, JK, van Hengel, W & Houben, RJ 1998, ‘Acceptable risk as a
Villaescusa, E, Player, JR & Thompson, AG 2014, ‘A reinforcement basis for design’, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 59,
design methodology for highly stressed rock mass’, in no. 1, pp. 141–150.
N Shimizu, K Kanedo & J Kodama (eds), Proceedings of the 8th Wawersik, WR & Fairhurst, C 1970, ‘A study of brittle rock fracture
Asian Rock Mechanics Symposium, Japanese Society for Rock in laboratory compression experiments’, International Journal of
Mechanics, Tokyo, pp. 87–94. Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, vol. 7, pp. 561–575.
Villaescusa, E, Sandy, MP & Bywater, S 1992, ‘Ground support Wesseloo, J 2016, ‘The use of elastic superposition as part of a multi-
investigations and practices at Mount Isa’, in PK Kaiser & tiered probabilistic ground support design approach’, in
DR McCreath (eds), Rock Support in Mining and Underground E Nordlund, TH Jones & A Eitzenberger (eds), Proceedings
Construction, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 185–193. of the Eighth International Symposium on Ground Support in
Villaescusa, E, Seto, M & Baird, G 2002, ‘Stress measurements from Mining and Underground Construction, Luleå University of
oriented core’, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Technology, Luleå, 9 p.
Mining Sciences, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 603–615. Wesseloo, J 2018, ‘The spatial assessment of the current seismic
Villaescusa, E, Thompson, AG & Player, JR 2013a, ‘A decade hazard state for hard rock underground mines’, Rock Mechanics
of ground support research at the WA School of Mines’, and Rock Engineering, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1839–1862.
in Y Potvin and B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh Wesseloo, J & Read, J 2009, ‘Acceptance criteria’, in P Stacey & J Read
International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining (eds), Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design, CSIRO Publishing,
and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Clayton, pp. 221–236.
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 233–245. Wesseloo, J & Stacey, TR 2006, ‘Updated in situ stress database
Villaescusa, E, Thompson, AG & Player, JR 2013b, ‘Static and for Southern Africa’, in M Lu, CC Li, H Kjornholt & H Dahle
dynamic testing of welded and woven mesh for rock support’, (eds), ISRM Conference on In-situ Rock Stress – Measurement,
in Y Potvin and B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh Interpretation and Application, Taylor & Francis, London,
International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining pp. 467–471.
and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Wesseloo, J & Stacey, TR 2016, ‘A reconsideration of the extension
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 187–196. strain criterion for fracture and failure of rock’, Rock Mechanics
Villaescusa, E, De Zoysa, A, Player, JR & Thompson, AG 2016, and Rock Engineering, vol. 49, pp. 4667–4679.
‘Dynamic testing of combined rock bolt and mesh schemes’, Whiting, RK 2017, ‘In situ static performance assessment of mine
Proceedings of the Seventh Conference and Exhibition on Mass mesh’, in J Wesseloo (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International
Mining, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre
Melbourne, pp. 789–798. for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 747–762.
509
Wickham, GE, Tiedemann, HR & Skinner, EH 1972, ‘Support Wolley, CE & Andrews, P 2015, ‘Short term solution to squeezing
determinations based on geologic predictions’, Proceedings of ground at Agnew Gold Mine’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of
the First Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, Society the International Seminar on Design Methods in Underground
of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, New York, pp. 43–64. pp. 199–214.
Wiles, TD 2005, Map3D user’s manual, Mine Modelling Pty Ltd. Wood, DF 1992, ‘Specification and application of fibre reinforced
Wiles, TD 2006, ‘Reliability of numerical modelling predictions’, shotcrete’, in PK Kaiser & DR McCreath (eds), Rock Support
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, in Mining and Underground Construction, A.A. Balkema,
vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 454–472. Rotterdam, pp. 149–156.
Wiles, TD 2007, ‘Evidence based model calibration for reliable Woodward, K & Wesseloo, J 2015, ‘Observed spatial and temporal
predictions’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth behaviour of seismic rock mass response to blasting’, Journal of
International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 115.
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 3–20. Worotnicki, G & Walton, RJ 1976, ‘Triaxial hollow inclusion gauges
Wiles, TD 2015, Map3D, version 64, computer software, Map3D for determination of rock stresses in situ’, Supplement to ISRM
International Ltd., http://www.map3d.com/ Symposium, IEA Publication #76/4, Institution of Engineers
Australia, Sydney.
Wiles, TD, Villaescusa, E & Windsor, C 2004, ‘Rock reinforcement
design for overstressed rock using three dimensional numerical Wu, R & Yun, C 2010, ‘Development of Cable-Lok anchor for pre-
modelling’, in E Villaescusa & Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the stressed cable bolting and its applications in mines’, Proceedings
Fifth International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining of the Maintenance Engineering and Mine Operators Conference
and Underground Construction, Perth, pp. 483–489. 2010, Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum,
Westmount.
Wilson, AD 1991, ‘Advances in cost-effective support technology
for rock reinforcing in some deforming ground condition’, Wu, YK, Oldsen, J & Lamothe, M 2010, ‘The Yield Lok Bolt for
Proceedings of African Mining ‘91, Institute of Mining and bursting and squeezing ground support’, in M Van Sint Jan &
Metallurgy, London, pp. 279–290. Y Potvin (eds), Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar
on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for
Windsor, CR 1992, ‘Cable bolting for underground and surface
excavations’, in P Kaiser & DR McCreath (eds), Rock Support
in Mining and Underground Construction: Proceedings of the Yong, S & Maloney, S 2015, An Update to the Canadian Shield Stress
International Symposium on Rock Support, A.A. Balkema, Database, NWMO-TR-2015-18, Nuclear Waste Management
Rotterdam, pp. 349–376. Organization, Toronto.
Windsor, CR & Thompson, AG 1993, ‘Rock reinforcement – Zhang, L & Einstein, HH 1998, ‘Estimating the mean trace length
technology, testing, design and evaluation, in JA Hudson (ed.), of rock discontinuities’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
Comprehensive Rock Engineering; Principles, Practices and vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 217–235.
Projects, 4th edn, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 451–484. Zoback, ML 1992, ‘Stress-field constraints on intraplate seismicity in
Windsor, CR & Thompson, AG 1999, ‘The design of shotcrete eastern North America’, Journal of Geophysical Research – Solid
linings for excavations created by drill and blast methods’, Earth, vol. 97, no. B8, pp. 11761–11782.
in E Villaescusa, CR Windsor & AG Thompson (eds), Rock
Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 231–242.
Windsor, CR, Villaescusa, E, Funatsu, T & Lachenicht, R 2007,
‘Measurement of the regional and local stress field along a
10 km strike of the Zuleika Shear Zone in the Kundana gold
mining province of Western Australia’, in E Eberhardt,
D Stead & T Morrison (eds), Proceedings of the 1st Canada-US
Rock Mechanics Symposium, vol. 1, Taylor & Francis, London,
pp. 713–719.
510
Index

Index
A CT-Bolt 38
D-Bolt 44
accelerators 60, 62 debonded cable bolt 49
accepted risk 379, 389, 394 expandable bolt 46
individual safety risk 379, 389, 394 hybrid bolt 46
societal safety risk 379, 389, 394 modified cone bolt 44, 336–338
acoustic emissions 85 Omega-Bolt 46
acoustic televiewers 132 Paddle Bolt 37
active spans 203, 379, 389, 394 point anchor bolt 32–34, 39, 204, 247
actual profile 256 Posimix bolt 37, 38
adhesive failure 215 resin grouted cable bolt 49
self-drilling bolt 47
admixtures 62
Solid Dynamic Bolt 45
aggregates 60–62, 67
Wiggle Bolt 37
analytical ground support design 197, 199
Yield Lok bolt 45
anchoring mechanisms 27
bolt density 228, 229, 232, 241, 331
angular limit 184, 185
bolt length 204–206, 210, 222, 223, 241, 242, 361, 369
anisotropic rock 15, 17–19, 108, 110, 131, 249
bond strength 41, 43, 48, 49, 64, 144, 145, 152
anisotropy 15, 92, 101, 108, 118, 125, 128, 136, 138, 313
borehole breakout 118, 132, 133, 135, 136
aperture 35, 56, 57, 107, 156, 158, 169, 232, 419, 440
Brazilian test 182, 401
aqueous corrosion 348, 359
brittle 8, 20–22, 29, 30, 35, 41, 43, 60, 63, 88, 113, 144, 153,
arithmetic sample mean 186, 192, 195 201, 248, 250, 253, 259, 263, 306, 311–314, 353
ASTM standard tests 142 brittle failure 8, 20, 153, 201, 263, 306
atmospheric corrosion 347, 348, 359 buckling 11, 15, 17, 21, 107, 203, 265, 273–276, 278, 283–286,
ATVs (acoustic televiewers) 132 289, 293, 297, 298, 313
axial force 263 buckling failure mechanism in foliated squeezing ground 283
axial pull displacement 146 buckling mechanism 274, 285, 286, 298
axial pull load 146 bulbed strand 48
axial strain 88, 261, 263 bulking 3, 8, 22, 29, 32, 162, 250, 263, 274–276, 297, 313–315,
318, 319, 323, 332, 400, 405, 407, 411
B bulking factor 318, 319, 405, 407, 411
barrel and wedge 52, 363 bulking of the tunnel 263
Barton-Bandis failure criterion 91, 95
beam concept 204 C
bearing capacity of bolt 205, 210 cable bolts
bedding planes 77, 132, 205, 270 debonded 49
bias prestressed 49
censoring bias 185 resin grouted 49
orientation bias 185 cable lacing 59
size bias 185 Cable-Lok Shell 48, 49
truncation bias 185 capacity, ground support 141, 143, 175, 315, 320, 323, 325
birdcaged strand 48 cement 32–38, 41, 44, 47–49, 60–62, 73, 146, 148, 149, 296,
block size 23, 104, 203, 211 297, 362, 366
bolt cement grouted continuous anchor 37
cone bolt 44, 166, 336–338 censoring bias 185
513
chainlink mesh 56–58, 158–161, 168, 169, 172 criterion, Hoek-Brown 103, 112, 113
chemically bonded anchor 35 criterion, Mohr-Coulomb 89, 92, 94, 95, 419
chemically bonded yielding anchor 44 CSIRO HI Cell 126–129
closed form solutions 201 CT-Bolt 38
coarse aggregate 62
coefficient of variation 186, 189, 192, 195 D
cohesion 5, 92, 206, 250, 253, 260, 297 damage risk model 413
compressive stress 17–19, 20, 22, 23, 134 data confidence 177, 179–182, 189, 401
conceptual design 114, 118, 199, 380 data reliability 186
conceptual models 15, 259 D-bolt 147
condition of joints 99, 437 dead weight 5, 8, 28, 30, 49, 141, 143, 162, 205, 212, 232, 238,
conductivity 353 239, 241, 314
cone bolt 44, 166, 336–338 debonded cable bolts 49

confidence coefficient 183, 192–195 debonded yielding reinforcement 43
confidence intervals 187, 188, 191 decomposition techniques
confinement 4, 8, 19, 22, 23, 29, 48, 55, 60, 113, 149, 199, event trees 480
201–203, 213, 276, 278, 293, 294, 297, 313, 322, 323, 409
fault trees 480
connection between surface support and reinforcement 294 deconfinement 4
continuity of joints 99 deep anchoring 294

degree of belief 382
continuous anchor 32, 35, 37–39, 43, 48, 204
density 80, 81, 91, 96, 114, 118, 184, 187, 193, 194, 205, 206,
continuum models 237, 400
228, 229, 232, 241, 242, 253, 270, 291, 292, 331, 358, 401,
convergence 6–8, 10, 30, 144, 199, 201–203, 213, 238, 261,
403, 415, 429, 449
262, 265, 269, 273, 274, 277–279, 281, 283, 284, 289–291,
depth of failure 279, 318, 319, 324, 400, 405, 410–413
293, 294, 297, 298, 327, 345, 409
design acceptance criteria 377
convergence confinement 199, 201–203, 213
design profile 254–256
core discing 125, 131, 132, 136
design specifications 246
core logging 80–82, 96, 97, 103, 104, 106, 180, 182
detailed design and construction 179
corporate risk 383, 384
DFN (discrete fracture network) 81, 97, 184, 186, 211, 212,
corrodants 347, 348
419
corrosion environments 361, 370
dip 17, 81, 83, 96, 97, 99, 100, 183, 184, 403
corrosion, forms of
dip direction 17, 96, 183, 184, 403
aqueous corrosion 348
atmospheric corrosion 347, 348, 359 direct shear 214, 215
crevice corrosion 353 direct shear failure 214, 215
electrochemical corrosion 347 discontinuity spacing 5, 183
galvanic or bimetal corrosion 353 discontinuum models 258
microbiologically influenced corrosion 353 displacement demand 117, 302, 319
uniform or semi-uniform corrosion 353 dissolved oxygen 348, 352, 363
corrosion, fundamentals of 347 DOE (design of experiment) 403, 404, 411, 467, 473, 475–480
corrosion, galvanic or bimetal 353 dog-earing 132
corrosion levels 356, 357 borehole breakout 118, 132, 133, 135, 136
corrosion of support 345 domed plate 51
corrosion rate 347, 352, 353, 355, 358, 359, 361–363, 373 donut plate
crack 35, 36, 43, 63, 64, 85, 291, 353, 362, 368 embossed plate 51
cracking 20, 63, 64, 85, 159, 353, 366 double shear test 148
crevice corrosion 353 DRA (displacement rate analysis) 126, 129, 131
criteria, design acceptance 377 drive closures 279
criterion, extension strain 113 drop test 143, 162, 163, 173, 316
514
Index
dry mix 60–62

F
ductile 29, 30, 32, 41, 46, 57, 63, 144, 269, 289, 293, 311, 371
face crush 22, 313
dynamic capacity 162, 173, 314
factor of safety 144, 207, 208, 242, 302, 316, 318, 319, 377,
dynamic displacement 319
383
dynamic ground support design 317
failure, brittle 8, 20, 153, 201, 263, 306
dynamic load 141, 302, 315
failure criterion
dynamic loading 58, 59, 63, 64, 142, 162, 168, 170, 171, 174, Barton-Bandis 91, 95
175, 226, 232, 301, 302, 315–318, 330, 332, 334, 340
Hoek-Brown 401, 461, 468, 474
dynamic resistant surface support 59, 323 failure, crushing 20
dynamic system testing 171 failure, depth of 279, 318, 319, 324, 400, 405, 410–413
E failure, flexural 15, 17

failure mechanisms 13, 15, 23, 24, 27, 31, 68, 71, 77, 117, 200,
economic risk 377, 379, 385, 386, 389, 400, 401, 407, 417, 207, 213, 214, 232, 237, 258, 260, 269, 274, 278, 324, 330,
421, 424, 433 479
economic risk model 421 fatal incident risk profile 430
economic risk profile 425–427 faults 77, 79, 120, 134, 135, 179, 259, 312, 323, 324, 417,
effective normal stress 95 480–482
ejection 20, 22, 32, 162, 302, 313–315, 318, 320, 321, 339 fault slip 21, 134
elastic modelling 240, 322, 400, 403 fault tree 480
elastic modulus 254 feasibility study 118, 179, 183, 216, 225, 228
elastic rock mass properties 242 fibre-reinforced shotcrete 55, 60, 63, 159, 161, 168, 214, 223,
elastic superposition 403, 409 228, 229, 275, 292, 295, 298, 314, 332, 333, 341
elasto-plastic analysis 237, 243, 249, 403, 409 fine aggregates 60, 61, 67
elasto-plastic modelling 241, 400 first motion 22, 313

Fisher’s constant 185
electrochemical corrosion 347
fissures 90
embedment length 36, 49, 145, 149, 164, 203, 204
flexural bending 214
empirical charting 318, 330–334
flexural failure 215
empirical design 77, 109, 179
floor heave 71
energy absorption 8, 30–32, 63, 64, 148, 158, 162, 164–171,
fly ash 63
175, 302, 316, 330–333, 340
focal mechanisms 118
energy demand 45, 174, 302, 316, 317, 319, 320
foliated squeezing ground 281, 283
epoxy coatings 368
foliation 23, 107, 108, 203, 269, 273, 274, 276–286, 297, 327
equipment damage 63, 385
forepole umbrella 275, 276
ESR (excavation support ratio) 227
fracture 22, 69, 81–85, 87, 90, 97, 98, 110, 113, 182, 184, 186,
Euler’s formula 203 211, 212, 262, 264, 270, 274, 286, 311–313, 359, 371, 419,
evaluating total risk 395 441
event tree 479, 480, 482, 484–486 fracture analysis 370
EVP (excavation vulnerability potential) 321, 323, 326, 327 fracture frequency 82, 182, 441
excavation span 141, 208, 210, 220, 221, 227, 321, 323, 324, fracture initiation criterion, extension strain 113
335 fractures 20, 21, 77, 79, 82, 84, 101, 104, 113, 118, 125, 132,
expandable bolt 51 180, 188, 211, 263, 264, 297, 312
exposure frequency of occurrence 382
mitigation 428, 429 friction angle 92, 95, 242, 250, 260, 419, 420
parameters 429 friction bond 32, 39, 41, 166
extension strain criteria 113 friction plate 51
extreme conditions 156, 232, 274 friction rock stabilisers 39, 145, 166, 293, 359
515
G in situ test
drop 173
galvanised coating 367 pull 145, 151, 154, 157, 286, 288, 370
GCMPs (ground control management plans) 204, 222 instability zones 240, 241, 248
geological models 179 internal support pressure 276
geomechanical data sampling 182 involuntary risk 383, 392
geomechanical model confidence 180 IRS (intact rock strength) 98, 101, 110, 182, 280, 402, 439
geomechanical models 179, 180, 199
geotechnical domains 181, 182, 189–191 J
global stress 118 joint
G-plate 51 alteration 100, 103, 445
gravity failures 18 alteration number 100, 103, 445
GRC (ground reaction curve) 199, 202 amplitude 105
Grimstad and Barton chart 225, 227 compressive strength 95
condition 101, 108
ground conditions 5
continuity 103
ground support
density 96
ground support capacity 141, 143, 175, 315, 320, 323, 325 fillings 447
ground support coverage 231 orientation 77, 78, 83–84, 96, 99, 101, 102, 183–186, 280,
ground support subjected to dynamic loading 162, 302, 417, 419
317, 340 profile 103
ground support subjected to static load 143 roughness coefficient 95
ground support survivability chart 341 roughness number 100, 103, 221, 445
groundwater 81, 99, 101, 348, 359, 362, 363 set number 100, 103, 445
grout shear modulus 252 water reduction factor 100, 445
joint separation 99, 284
grout shear stiffness 245, 252, 255
JRC (joint roughness coefficient) 95, 104, 242
grout water-cement ratio 152
GSI (Geological Strength Index) 99, 101–103, 110–113, 272, K
284, 401–405, 409–411, 414, 461–463, 468–472, 474, 476,
knowledge uncertainty 382
477
H L
laboratory static tests 143
hard rock squeezing index 278, 279, 281, 297
large deformations 8
heterogeneous rock 186 lateral shear
high stress 3, 5–8, 11, 15, 23, 27, 30, 68, 205, 226, 232, 241, displacement 146
243, 273, 283, 311, 318, 335, 337, 339 load 146
high tensile chainlink mesh 58 loading 147
Hoek-Brown criterion 103, 112, 113 level of confidence 88, 118, 179–185, 189, 191, 192, 196, 378
homogeneous rock 101, 186, 249 levels of risk 386
LiDAR 97, 183
horizontal stresses 117, 119, 277, 402
limit equilibrium design 200, 203
hybrid bolts 46
lining stress controllers 289
hydraulic fracturing 117, 118, 125 load-displacement curves 28, 144, 145, 153
hydrogeological model 180 longitudinal deformation profile 202
loss of adhesion 214, 216
I loss of capacity 365, 366, 372, 373
individual safety risk 390, 424, 428
infilling 98, 99, 107 M
input energy 162, 168, 171 magnetic particle imaging 355
in situ stress 15, 16, 117, 118, 123, 126, 127, 129, 132, 136, maximum practical support limits 321
137, 271, 401, 402 mesh-reinforced shotcrete 72
516
Index
mesh straps 58, 59, 314 PEM (point estimate method) 409–415, 456–458, 460–465,
MIC (microbiologically influenced corrosion) 353 467, 470, 475–479
micro silica 63 persistence 77, 104, 106, 107, 183, 440

mine design, stages of 103, 123, 179, 180, 227 personnel failure coincidence 428
minimum number of specimens 188, 190–195 pH 348, 349, 351–353, 359, 361–363, 368
mining-induced deformations 24 photoelastic model 309
mining-induced stress 8 photogrammetry 97, 183
mining projects, stages of 180, 183 pillar burst 21, 22, 313
mobilised energy 331, 332 plate
butterfly 51
model calibration 113, 264 domed 51
model inputs 242, 253, 255 donut 51
modified cone bolt 44, 336–338 embossed 51
friction 51
modified doorstopper 126, 128
G-plate 51
modified RMR (rock mass rating) 101, 222 push-on 51
modulus point anchor 32–34, 38, 39, 44, 46, 49, 201, 204, 247
elastic 33, 128, 131, 253 point anchor groutable bolt 39
grout shear 242, 253, 255 point load strength test 91
of elasticity 28, 111, 113, 253 Poisson’s ratio 88, 113, 128, 242, 250, 255, 260
shear 252
porosity 187
Young’s 88, 89, 148, 242, 245, 250, 255, 260, 286
Posimix bolt 37, 38
Mohr circles 85
post-peak behaviour 19, 30, 32, 41, 43, 46, 57, 311
Mohr-Coulomb criterion 89, 92, 94, 95, 419
ppa (peak particle acceleration) 302
momentum transfer 162
ppv (peak particle velocity) 302–306, 323
Monte Carlo method 453, 456, 466, 472, 477 near-field ppv 302–304, 313, 332
MRMR (modified rock mass rating) 83, 85, 101, 220–223 precision index 187, 188, 190–195
N prefeasibility study 131

pre-mining stress 17, 122, 128, 129, 134, 138, 249
natural variability 137, 180, 202, 253, 382, 414
pressure arch 200
non-yielding reinforcement 166, 170
prestress 49
non-yielding surface support 171
prestressed cable bolts 49
normal stiffness of defects 251
primary wave 307
normal stress, effective 95
principal stress 5, 17, 20, 90, 92, 113, 118, 122–124, 137, 242,
number of sets 78 255, 270, 321, 322, 335, 438
number of specimens, minimum 188, 190–195 probabilistic analyses 380, 403, 404, 409, 477
Nuttli magnitude 303 probabilistic approach 375, 397
probabilistic stress damage analysis 400
O probability of event 377
observational design 199
probability of failure 377–379, 381, 383, 399, 401, 425, 472,
Omega-Bolt 46 477
orientation bias 80 protective coatings 345, 364, 365, 367, 368, 373
Osro straps 59, 292, 294, 314 pull tests 28, 41, 145, 146, 148, 151, 153, 154, 157, 158, 252,
P 286, 288, 361, 362, 370

continuous tube 149
Paddle Bolt 37 split tube 149
parabolic arch concept 204 punching shear failure 214, 215
parting 79 push-on plate 51
passive monitoring 318, 334, 337 PVC-based coatings 368
peak strength 5, 19, 21, 24, 30, 85, 93, 168, 207, 311 P-wave 307
517
Q classifications 103, 106, 107, 110, 111
degradation 345
QA/QC program 103, 143, 151 quality 8, 15, 16, 67, 83, 111, 219, 220, 224, 228– 230, 271
Q-system 100, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 223, 225, 227, 271, rock reinforcement 27, 28, 30, 144, 151, 162, 171, 200, 204,
272, 443, 445, 449
212, 214, 220, 223, 265, 273, 327, 328
R rock strength 29, 77, 98, 101, 131, 132, 182, 280, 401, 402, 439
rock testing program 186
radiation pattern 306–310, 320
roof beam building 200
random variate sampling 453, 455
rope lacing 59, 169
RBS (rock block strength) rating 101
Rosenblueth-Harr 457
RDP (rockburst damage potential) 303, 318, 321, 323,
roughness 3, 67, 68, 93–96, 98, 100, 103–105, 221, 242,
325–328, 335
445, 446
RDP (round determinate panel) 64, 143, 158–160
RQD (rock quality designation) 8, 82, 83, 97, 99–101,
RDS (rockburst damage scale) 323, 325
103–106, 108, 182, 220, 437–439, 441, 445
reaction pressure 330
RSM (response surface method) 409, 464, 466–471, 474, 476,
reflection and refraction of the stress wave 307
477
rehabilitation scheduling 246
reinforced shotcrete arches 68, 297 S
reinforcing squeezing ground 292 safety factor 144, 204, 205, 210, 211, 241
representative elementary volume (REV) 134 safety risk 387, 389, 395, 399, 424
residual friction angle 95
safety risk model 424, 429
residual rockbolt capacity 248
sample standard deviation 186, 192
resin anchor 36
scale-distance relationship 302
resin cartridges 36
scaling law 320, 321, 327, 330, 335
resin-grouted cable bolts 49
scanline 78, 96, 97, 183
resin injection systems 36
Schmidt hammer 91, 95
Richter magnitude 22, 303, 313, 320
scoping study 179
RIF (response influence factor) 409, 411–414, 467, 470,
seam 79
472–477, 486
seepage 79, 114
risk
assessment accuracy 384 seismic event 21, 22, 214, 301, 303, 305, 307, 309, 313–315,
category 390 319–321, 328, 330, 332, 334, 335, 345
matrix 387, 388, 416, 424 seismic risk 301
risk-based design 377, 379, 380, 384, 386, 395, 399, 400, 417, self-drilling bolts 47
419 self-drilling friction rock stabiliser 47
risk, involuntary 383, 392 separation of joints 99, 284
risks averaged over the whole population 391 service life 288, 294, 345, 353, 363
risk, voluntary 383, 392 shear
RMR (rock mass rating) 15, 83, 97, 99–101, 108, 110–112, modulus 252
182, 220–222, 296, 437, 441 modulus of grout 252
rock arch concept 204 stiffness of grout 245, 252, 255
rockbolt loads 243, 248, 254, 257 test 148
rock brittleness, effect of 311 wave velocity 304
rockburst 9, 15, 19, 21, 22, 29, 30, 32, 46, 49, 59, 100, shear rupture 21, 313
172–175, 199, 226, 232, 291, 299, 301–303, 306, 307, 309, shear strength of discontinuities 29, 93, 94, 419
311–315, 317, 318, 320–323, 325–328, 333–335, 338–341, shotcrete
448, 449 panel testing 160
rock mass pillars 69, 72
characterisation 77, 80, 85, 87, 97, 98, 106–111, 114, thickness 65
179, 196 simulated rockburst 174, 175
518
Index
single strand 48 stress path 24

site effect 309–311, 313, 332 stress reduction factor 100, 226, 445
size bias 185 stress relaxation 17, 18, 22
slabbing 15, 17–20, 226, 449 vertical 17, 117–120, 122, 129, 221, 239, 400, 402
sliding 3, 8, 18, 33, 41, 45, 95, 166, 207, 210, 247, 270, 293, stress concentration 17
331, 332, 417 stress corrosion cracking 353
small-scale roughness 103 stress-induced buckling 203
societal safety risk 392, 424 strike 57, 83, 96, 97, 100, 274
soft loading 19 strong ground motion 302–305, 310, 313, 325
solid dynamic bolt 45 structural models 82, 84, 179, 199
source mechanism 22, 313 structure orientation from core 83
source radius 303, 304, 320 superplasticisers 62
spacing 5, 8, 15, 23, 56, 57, 81, 83, 97, 99–101, 110, 141, 158, support characteristic curve 202
183, 203–206, 208, 210–212, 215, 220, 222–224, 240–242, support damage scale 330
245, 249, 280, 282, 286, 296, 297, 323, 419, 420, 441, 446 support of discrete blocks 200
spatial coincidence 427–429 support pressure 141, 202–204, 220, 221, 238, 276
spiling 222, 294, 296, 297 surface exposure mapping 104
squeezing surface fixtures 49
index 271, 278, 279, 281, 282, 297 surface support 3, 4, 27, 49, 52, 55, 57, 59, 60, 68, 69, 73,
level 271 74, 98, 141, 142, 154, 156, 162–164, 168–173, 175, 200,
mechanisms 270, 284, 287 211–214, 216, 227– 229, 231, 244, 246, 265, 288, 291, 292,
squeezing ground 6, 10, 11, 15, 29, 30, 46, 49, 144, 221, 223, 294, 298, 314–317, 323, 327, 330, 331, 339–341, 345, 420
232, 246, 260, 267, 269, 270–274, 277–279, 281–284, 286, survivability chart 341
288, 290–294, 297, 298, 315 suspension 200, 248
stability graph method 109, 227 S-wave 307
stages of mining project development 179 synthetic fibres 64, 66, 159
static loading 70, 166, 170, 171, 179, 301, 318
static stress drop 303–305, 320 T
statistical analysis 119, 186, 465 target levels of data confidence 179, 180, 182
steel fibres 64, 65 televiewer 84
steel sensitivity 348 temporal coincidence 427
steel sets 221, 275 tensile strength 41, 63, 64, 73, 90, 157–159, 168, 172, 173,
steel straps 58 182, 187, 247, 253, 260, 353, 359, 360, 364, 419, 448
stereographic projections 183 thin spray-on liners 68
stiff loading 19–21, 23, 33, 172 thread bar 34, 36, 37
strainburst 21, 22, 226, 311, 313, 319, 449 three-dimensional wedge analysis 208, 214
straps tilt tests 95
mesh 58, 59, 314 total core recovery 82
Osro 59, 292, 294, 314 total dissolved solids 348
steel 58
total energy absorption 165–171, 316
W-strap 58
total strain 281
strength test
toughness 63, 64, 158–160
Brazilian test 182, 401
trace lengths 96, 185, 186, 417
triaxial compression test 88
transportation risks 391
stress
horizontal stress 118, 120, 125 triaxial compressive strength 88
stress measurement 117–119, 122, 123, 125, 126, 131, 134, truncation bias 185
136, 137 tunnel strain 271, 273
stress memory techniques 129, 131 two-dimensional wedge analysis 207, 210, 214
519
U Y
ubiquitous joint 249 yielding
UCS (uniaxial compressive strength) 5, 8, 85, 87–93, 99, 129, anchors 44
148, 182, 183, 186–188, 190, 191, 240, 242, 245, 250, bolts 43, 44, 166, 232, 339
252, 255, 277–279, 318, 322, 335, 337, 338, 401, 403–405, reinforcement 43–46, 166, 170, 171, 293, 335, 337
409–411, 437, 438, 461–463, 471, 472, 474, 476 yielding surface support 171
umbrella arch method 294 Yield Lok bolt 45
uncertainty, types of 137, 179 yield zone 241, 254, 255, 273
underground drop test 173 Young’s modulus 88, 89, 148, 242, 245, 250, 255, 260, 286
uniform or semi-uniform corrosion 353
unravelling 16 Z
zone of instability 5, 248
V
variability 80, 92, 121, 128, 136–138, 144, 153, 167, 175,
179–186, 188, 202, 216, 227, 249, 253, 333, 367, 377, 382,
383, 399, 400–402, 414
verification of code 264
vertical stresses 117, 119, 120, 129, 206
vibrating wire borehole stressmeter 137
violent failure 15, 21, 311, 319
visual monitoring of corroded support 370
volumetric joint count 105, 106
voluntary risk 383, 392
W
wall beam building 200
wall strength 78
water-cement ratio 149, 152
water conductivity 353
weathering 78, 80, 95, 101, 114, 182, 188
welded wire mesh 56
weldmesh 56–59, 63, 156, 158–161, 168, 169, 253, 291, 364,
365, 419
wet mix 60–62, 64, 65
wheel of design 381
Wiggle Bolt 37
workforce exposure 301
working capacity 27, 144, 148, 153–157
World Stress Map 118, 119
W-strap 58
520

GSSO-Book Sample 01 04 2020 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

GSSO-Book Sample 01 04 2020 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GSSO-Book Sample 01 04 2020 2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ground Support

for underground mines

Australian Centre for Geomechanics

ABN 37 882 817 280

Major Project Sponsors

Minerals Research Institute

Minor Project Sponsors

Chapter 2 : Rock mass behaviour and failure mechanisms

Chapter 3 : Rock reinforcement behaviour, anchoring mechanisms

Chapter 4 : Surface support behaviour

Chapter 7 : Ground support performance data

Section 3 : Ground support design methods

Chapter 10 : Empirical ground support design methods

Chapter 11 : Numerical modelling for ground support design –

Section 4 : Extreme ground conditions

Chapter 13 : Ground support design for rockburst prone conditions

Chapter 14 : Long-term performance of ground support – corrosion

Section 5 : Probabilistic approach to ground support design

Chapter 16 : A risk-based approach to ground support design

Appendix 1 : Rock mass ratings

Appendix 3 : Techniques for probabilistic and risk calculations

Courtesy Brad Simser

Chapter 2 : Rock mass behaviour and

Courtesy Mount Isa Mines, A Glencore Company

Based on the scenarios involving different rock masses

Low stress High stress

Stiff loading Soft loading

Thin layers <1 Buckling Crushing Crushing/buckling

FIGURE 2.13 Rock mass behaviour and failure mechanism matrix

Chapter 3 : Rock reinforcement behaviour,

Courtesy Glencore Canada

the reinforcement and, more specifically, its deformation

reinforcement bond or, if the bond is strong enough,

Axial stress in bolt

Shear stress on bolt

(Figure 3.9b). A fast-setting resin cartridge is inserted at Sleeve

Chapter 4 : Surface support behaviour

In civil tunnelling and shaft applications where

1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9

Chapter 5 : Rock mass data

and of fractures and other defects along the borehole.

core is not a trivial subject, it is often not done with the

required level of detail and precision unless explicitly

concern is that most methods for determining the

Chapter 6 : Rock stress data

Courtesy Brad Simser

Chapter 7 : Ground support

Courtesy Natural Resources Canada

Chen and Li (2014) used the same apparatus as Stjern

Chapter 8 : Geomechanical data

Courtesy MMG Dugald River Mine

tasks to be completed within a general mine design 5 Operations

The practical implication is that it may be beneficial to

minimum number of specimens required for the same

Chapter 9 : Analytical ground support

Courtesy John Hadjigeorgiou

recent years, the trend has been to use 3D wedge analysis

Broad Narrow None