English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

extraction sequences, rock mass de-stressing techniques, and ground support systems is of great importance in mitigating the level of rockburst-related risk. In burst-prone conditions, the design of support systems should account for the anticipated dynamic load demand and the capacity of the available support options. Furthermore, an economical design should, implicitly or explicitly, take into consideration the consequences of a rockburst and its impact on worker safety and mine productivity. Stacey (2012) has argued that we have a limited understanding of the mechanisms of rock mass behaviour in seismic conditions. This is compounded by a ‘lack of understanding of the mechanisms of action and interaction of support elements under dynamic loads’ (Stacey, 2012). Consequently, the design of support systems required to manage dynamic loads is usually based on experience. The assessment of the dynamic performance of ground support systems is typically subjected to qualitative (and sometimes subjective) interpretations from ground control personnel. Passive monitoring is a useful tool in assessing the performance of ground support systems. Forensic analysis, in the context of rock support in burst-prone ground conditions, is the assessment of the damage to an excavation or its support with the purpose of identifying the cause(s) of failure and/or validating design parameters (Kaiser and Cai, 2013). This information can be used to propose remediation strategies or to design new reinforcement elements (Li, 2010, 2012; Li and Doucet, 2012) or ground support systems. Passive monitoring based on reviews of historical rockburst data, on the other hand, can trace the evolution of mining and support practice at a mine site and further trace their relation to the frequency and severity of rockbursts. This type of analysis, based on observed improvements in managing the consequences of rockbursts, can justify changes in mining strategy and/or support practice. Unusual occurrence reports for groundfalls/rockbursts (MASHA, 2009) were collected at Vale’s Creighton, Copper Cliff (formerly Copper Cliff North), and Coleman mines. These mines are located, respectively, within the South Range, Copper Cliff Offset, and North Range of the Sudbury Basin in Ontario, Canada (Figure 1). Each site employs dedicated ground control personnel. This has ensured continuity in the quality of the collected data. Information from on-site assessments was cross-validated with information obtained through seismic monitoring systems, geological mapping layouts, external reports, and site inspections. The influence of mining sequence and ground support practice on the frequency and severity of rockbursts in seismically active mines of the Sudbury Basin by P. Morissette*, J. Hadjigeorgiou*, A.R. Punkkinen†, D.R. Chinnasane†, and A. Sampson-Forsythe†

journal of the southern african institute of mining and metallurgy/journal of the south african institute of mining and metallurgy

The influence of mining sequence and ground support practice on the frequency and severity of rockbursts in seismically active mines of the Sudbury Basin