MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401481588 · doi:10.56952/arma-2024-0067

Rock Mass Failure and Remedial Measures Implemented When Excavating Ultra-Deep Shaft Stations

2024· article· en· W4401481588 on OpenAlexaff
Joan Lindsay, A. HALL, Ming Cai, Brad Simser

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityGlencore (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemedial educationRock mass classificationGeologyMining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: This paper presents several geotechnical challenges experienced while excavating two shaft stations at the depths of 2490 m and 2550 m in highly stressed grounds, along with engineering solutions that effectively reduce exposure and risk associated with the excavations. Proactive measures were completed ahead of beginning the 2490 shaft station excavation; however, adverse conditions further influenced by a nearby fault led to significant rock mass failure and bowling of the station floor. These unanticipated conditions resulted in project delays and increased risk for the operators working at the face. Based on detailed field observations made while excavating the 2490 shaft station, insights from instrumentation and microseismic monitoring data, the methodology for excavating the 2550 shaft station was modified to mitigate the risk of ground failure. Engineering-based modifications introduced for the 2550 station included reducing the size of the initial shaft station blast, and pre-sinking and supporting the shaft below the station floor before the excavation of the shaft station. These modifications and increased distance from the fault resulted in better control of the ground conditions, leading to a 50% reduction in seismic activity and rockburst risk, and no bowling of the station floor. The outcomes not only resulted in cost savings but also provided valuable insights into the geotechnical intricacies and excavation strategies essential for safe mining operations at extreme depths. 1. INTRODUCTION In the underground mining industry, many operations use shafts to access orebodies. A shaft is a vertical or inclined excavation sunk from the surface or underground. When a shaft is sunk from underground, it is called an internal winze. Operations that utilize shaft infrastructure require the construction of shaft stations. A shaft and its connecting shaft stations are critical infrastructures that provide access for personnel, equipment, material, and the transportation of ore to the surface. (McCarthy & Livingstone, 1993) determined that a shaft is a more viable option over a haulage ramp when the depth is greater than 650 m and the production approaches 1.2 million tonnes per year. To access deep ore deposits, a ramp is inherently slower and requires the removal of more waste rock than shaft sinking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207