MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401481640 · doi:10.56952/arma-2024-0616

Seismic Risk Management Practices at Vale's Sudbury Operations

2024· article· en· W4401481640 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Yao, David Landry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRisk managementGeologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Vale Base Metals has been operating many underground mines in the Sudbury Basin for over a century and all mines have experienced a significant increase in the number of major seismic events over the last decade. Various mitigation strategies have been developed at Vale's North Atlantic Operations in Ontario to manage and control the risks associated with seismicity and rockbursts. The mines have seen a significant increase in the number of large seismic events, but the overall trend of rockbursts is decreasing. This paper will focus on Seismic Risk Management Strategies developed over the last decade, including both strategic and tactical control measures. Examples will be given in the paper to demonstrate the effectiveness of control measures over the last decade. Recent developments in Seismic Hazard Assessment for burst prone ground conditions are also presented in this paper. Although the strategies presented in this paper can be applied to other deep hard rock underground mine operations that face similar challenges with burst-prone ground conditions, they should be applied with caution and tailored for site specific conditions. 1. INTRODUCTION Vale Base Metals has operated several underground mines in Sudbury for over a century, and currently five mines are active (Coleman, Creighton, Copper Cliff, Garson, and Totten Mines). Numerous mining methods have been employed including cut and fill, post pillar cut and fill, and sub-level caving, however, currently the primary mining method employed is open stoping. The primary rock mechanics challenge at these operations is seismicity and rock bursting. Figure 1 shows a recent rockburst at one of the mines which was associated with a large seismic event. Seismicity has been observed to be primarily linked with: • Late stage of extraction: sill and diminishing pillars • Brittle and high strength rocks (UCShost > 200 MPa) • Mining depths between 1.5 and 2.5 km below surface • Lack of confinement due to higher extraction ratio • Presence of seismically active geological structures A Seismic Risk Management Plan is an important element at any seismically active mine and is also a legal requirement in some mining jurisdictions. The following main items are key requirements: • Responsibilities • Microseismic Monitoring & Data Analysis • Seismic Hazard Assessments • Hazard Mitigation Plans/Strategies • Training This paper will focus on two key requirements described above: Hazard Mitigation Strategies and Seismic Hazard Assessments.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.226
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDrilling and Well Engineering→French-language works237,207→