Critical review of design principles for rock support in burst-prone ground – time to rethink!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1980s, severe rockbursting in underground mines, in Canada, Chile, South Africa, and other countries, caused many fatalities and was recognised as an unacceptable work place hazard. Since then huge advances have been made in seismic monitoring, energy release control by improved mining methods, ground control with innovative and effective rock support systems, and advanced risk hazard management procedures. As a result, many burst-prone mines have achieved outstanding safety records and the industry has benefited by developing means of accessing highly stressed orebodies at depth. In 1995, the Canadian Rockburst Research Program was completed and guidelines for rock support selection were published. Since then many researchers around the world have further advanced the state-of-the-art of support selection and many entrepreneurs have provided industry with a sophisticated tool box full of effective rock retention and support components and systems. Most of these advances and the design of these tools, however, are based on some fundamental assumptions, i.e. that seismic events create ground motions that damage excavations, and thus load and potentially damage the ground support. It is therefore often implied that the source of energy which causes damage stems from mining-induced seismic events. In this paper, we critically assess the support design guiding principle, which leads to the identification of three facts with serious practical implications: (1) standard, assumed ground motion patterns are unacceptably flawed; (2) ground motion-related energy transfer mechanisms rarely constitute the main source of support loading; and (3) dynamically stressed rock fails by brittle, extensional failure causing disproportional excavation convergences and support damaging deformations. The keynote papers presented at this symposium in Australia and at the Eighth International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines in Russia describe these flaws and recent advances to overcome related deficiencies. It is concluded that the primary damage mechanism often is a seismically triggered strainburst or a dynamically loaded strainburst, and damage is rarely dominated by momentum transfer or dynamic shaking. Consequently, rockburst damage is primarily related to the state of stress and the local mine stiffness at the potential damage location and not or only indirectly related to the seismic ground motion. Field evidence is used to illustrate and support this interpretation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".