Progress and Challenges in Some Areas of Deep Mining

Mining Technology
Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy: Section A
ISSN: 1474-9009 (Print) 1743-2863 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymnt20
Progress and challenges in some areas of deep

mining
E T Brown
To cite this article: E T Brown (2012) Progress and challenges in some areas of deep mining,
Mining Technology, 121:4, 177-191, DOI: 10.1179/1743286312Y.0000000012
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/1743286312Y.0000000012
Published online: 22 Nov 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1000
View related articles
Citing articles: 11 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymnt21
Progress and challenges in some areas of
deep mining
E. T. Brown*
Deep Mining 2012 is the sixth in a series of international seminars on deep and high stress mining
which began with a seminar held in Perth in November 2002, almost a decade ago. The early
announcements for this seminar listed 10 seminar themes. This paper seeks to make contributions
to the discussion of progress made in four of these themes – geomechanics risks, risk
assessment and management, rock behaviour under high stress, and numerical modelling –
largely, but not only, through a review of the papers published in the proceedings of the five
previous seminars. Particular emphasis is placed on the risks associated with the new generation
of block and panel caving operations or ‘super caves’. Some remaining challenges in the four
theme areas discussed are also identified.
Keywords: Deep mining, Geomechanics risks, Mining risk assessment and management, Rock behaviour under high stress, Numerical modelling
This paper is part of a special issue on Deep and High Stress Mining
Introduction N longwall coal mining

N block and panel caving
Deep Mining 2012 is the sixth in a series of international N sublevel caving
seminars on deep and high stress mining which began
with a seminar held in Perth in November 2002, almost a
N underhand and overhand cut-and-fill and drift-and-
fill stoping
decade ago. The writer has not attended, or contributed N bench-and-fill stoping
to, any of the five previous seminars in this series, and so
approaches the task of preparing this keynote paper
N sublevel and long hole open stoping (including
narrow vein methods such as long hole retreat or
from the perspective of a newcomer to these Deep and Avoca and modified Avoca methods)
High Stress Mining seminars. N room-and-pillar mining
The early announcements for this seminar listed 10
seminar themes: geomechanics risks, financial risks, case
N variants of these methods, including their use in pillar
recovery and sill pillar mining.
studies, numerical modelling, rock behaviour under high Over a long career, the writer has had some association
stress, rockburst and seismicity monitoring, ground with mines using all of these methods. However, during
support, risk assessment and management, ventilation the 10 years in which the seminar series has been in
and blasting. This paper seeks to make contributions to operation, his major mining interest and experience has
the discussion of progress made in four of these themes: been in block and panel caving (Brown, 2007a,b). He
geomechanics risks, risk assessment and management, also has a long-standing association with metalliferous
rock behaviour under high stress, and numerical mining by drift-and-fill and bench-and-fill methods
modelling – largely, but not only, through a review of (Been et al., 2002; Brown, 1999). The observations
the papers published in the proceedings of the five drawn from the writer’s own experience will deal mainly
previous seminars. Some remaining challenges in these with these mining methods. Any reference to other
areas are also identified. For the reasons to be outlined mining methods, particularly the mining of deep, tabular
in the section on ‘Deep and high stress mining methods’, orebodies in South Africa, will be through reference to
this paper will consider some methods of deep and high papers published in the proceedings of this seminar
stress mining more than others. series and elsewhere.
Deep and high stress mining methods Geomechanics risks

The papers presented to the previous seminars have Definitions
dealt with a wide range of generic underground mining The first question to be answered is how do we define
methods, including: a geomechanics risk? The literature on risk analysis,
N deep tabular orebody mining (including longwall meth- assessment and management contains a range of defini-
ods, remnant mining and the mining of shaft pillars) tions of risk and associated terms. Here, the definitions
given by AS/NZS ISO 31000: 2009 (Standards Australia,
2009) will be used. It should be noted that these definitions
Golder Associates Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia differ, sometimes marginally and sometimes significantly,
*Corresponding author, email tbrown@golder.com.au from those used in some earlier publications, including
ß 2012 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, The University of Western Australia

Published by Maney on behalf of the Institute and the AUSIMM
Received 28 March 2012; accepted 20 May 2012
DOI 10.1179/1743286312Y.0000000012 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 177
Brown Progress and challenges in some areas of deep mining
1 Risk evaluation process (Stacey et al., 2006)
those by the writer (Summers, 2000; Brown, 2007a; in AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009, a geomechanics risk will be
Brown and Booth, 2009). Standards Australia (2009) taken to be a geomechanics-related risk source, hazard
defines risk as ‘the effect of uncertainty on objectives’ and or uncertainty that gives rise to events of the types listed
a risk source as an ‘element which alone or in combina- in the left-hand column of Fig. 1, not only in stopes, but
tion has the potential to give rise to a risk’. In some earlier in other underground mining excavations as well. This
accounts, a risk source appears to have been referred to as ‘definition’ will be interpreted rather liberally in that
a hazard, defined in the previous Australian Standard as which follows.
‘a source of potential harm’ (Standards Australia, 2004).
This term is not defined in AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009. The Generic geomechanics risks in deep and high
level of risk is defined as the ‘magnitude of a risk or stress mining
combination of risks, expressed in terms of the combina- The nature of the uncertainty and the errors that provide
tion of consequences and their likelihood’. This definition the sources of geomechanics risk in geotechnical
allows for the common practice in the mining industry engineering more broadly have been discussed widely
and elsewhere of quantifying risk as the product of the in the literature. For example, Einstein and Baecher
likelihood of the occurrence of an event and the (1983) classified the sources of uncertainty as:
consequences of that event (Brown, 2007a; Steffen N inherent spatial and temporal variability
et al., 2008; Brown and Booth, 2009). The Standards N measurement errors (systematic or random)
Australia (2009) definition of an event as an ‘occurrence N model uncertainty
or change of a particular set of circumstances’ is N load uncertainty
consistent with this usage. The consequence of an event
is the ‘outcome of an event affecting objectives’ and
N omissions.
Baecher and Christian (2003) described these sources of
likelihood is the ‘chance that something will happen’ uncertainty as being aleatory (randomness) or epistemic
(Standards Australia, 2009). (lack of knowledge). Similarly, in discussing variability
A risk evaluation process as applied to stope design is in soil properties, Phoon and Kulhawy (1999) suggested
shown in Fig. 1. The left hand column of Fig. 1 that there are three primary sources of geotechnical
identifies possible causes of stope failure. It is suggested uncertainty – inherent variability, measurement error,
that, in terms of the Standards Australia (2009) and transformation (or model) uncertainty. In discuss-
definitions, these occurrences are best described as ing risk in a general engineering context, in common
events. Following an approach that is commonly with Baecher and Christian (2003) and others, Brown
adopted in the mining industry (Steffen et al., 2006; (2007a) concluded that there are two general types of
Tapia et al., 2007), in the central column risks are uncertainty:
categorised in terms of consequences as being expected N what we know we don’t know, or parameter
fatalities, expected economic loss, loss of production, uncertainty
probability of force majeure, industrial action and N what we don’t know we don’t know, or conceptual
stakeholder resistance. The right hand column in uncertainty.
Fig. 1 is concerned with the level of risk as defined by Recently, Hadjigeorgiou and Harrison (2011) provided a
Standards Australia (2009). The question then remains valuable account of uncertainty and the sources of error
as to what we mean by a geomechanics risk. For present in rock engineering. In discussing the use of rock mass
purposes, and for consistency with the terminology used classification schemes in the design of underground
178 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4

excavations they identify two groups of errors. The first N rock and rock mass strength criteria (Kaiser et al.,
group consists of errors intrinsic to the classification 2010; Valley et al., 2011)
scheme used, including errors of omission, errors of
superfluousness, and errors of taxonomy associated with
N (lack of) knowledge of the behaviour of the rock and
rock mass under high stress (Kaiser et al., 2010;
the requirement to select a particular classification rating Valley et al., 2011) (see the section on ‘Rock
value for a geomechanical property. The second group behaviour under high stress’)
of errors are associated with implementation, and
include errors of circumstance, errors of convenience,
N weathered, altered or otherwise weakened rock
(Mercier-Langevin and Turcotte, 2006; Potvin and
errors of ignoring variability, and errors of ignoring Slade, 2006; Mercier-Langevin, 2010)
uncertainty.
Clearly, deep and high stress mining is susceptible to
N estimates of the pre-mining stresses and the effects of
geological structures and rock mass anisotropy and
the geomechanics risks or hazards associated with heterogeneity on those estimates (Thin et al., 2006;
uncertainties and errors of these several types, as well Dight and Dyskin, 2007; Valley et al., 2010b)
as to other categories of risk (Sweeney and Scoble,
2006). It should be possible to develop a detailed (if not
N high horizontal in situ stress fields, even at relatively
shallow depths (Barrett and Player, 2002; Villaescusa
comprehensive) list of these risks or hazards and their et al., 2002)
sources similar to that developed for open pit slopes by
Brown and Booth (2009) who identified geology,
N the relationship of induced stress to rock and rock
mass strength, including in squeezing ground
structure, rock mass, hydrogeology and geotechnical (Mercier-Langevin and Hadjigeorgiou, 2010)
model hazards or risks. In discussing the management of
geotechnical risks in mining projects, Hebblewhite
N the treatment of variability in the stresses and
strengths using probabilistic methods (Reusch and
(2003) suggested that the risks within a mining operation Beck, 2007; Valley et al., 2010b)
can be categorised as occupying three levels or super- N natural seismicity
imposed layers: N mining-induced seismicity including the effects of
N Level 1 – day-to-day operational risks managed geological structures (Li et al., 2002; McGill, 2004;
through mechanisms such as training and Safe Morrison et al., 2002; Beck et al., 2007; Orrego et al.,
Operating Procedures. 2010; Yao and Moreau-Verlan, 2010)
N Level 2 – specific site or mining condition-related N excavation and mining layout and sequencing (Beck
risks managed through management initiatives such and Sandy, 2002; Mercier-Langevin and Turcotte,
as Ground Control Management Plans. 2006; Pretorius, 2006)
N Level 3 – core risks associated with the mining N mining highly-stressed remnants and shaft, rib,
method or system. crown, sill and waste pillars (Mikula and Lee, 2002;
Hebblewhite (2003) then listed and discussed the core Cockram et al., 2004; Kiboko et al., 2004; Pretorius,
risks associated with block caving, longwall mining, 2006; Simser, 2006; Andrieux et al., 2010)
open stoping and room-and-pillar mining, based on the
classification of rock mass response to underground
N mining under fill, including in sill pillars (Brown,
1999; Simser, 2006)
mining suggested by Brady and Brown (2004).
The following partial list of generic geomechanics
N mining into or under previously mined or caved
ground (Sharrock et al., 2002)
risks and/or risk sources (mainly Hebblewhite’s Level 2
and 3 risks) that may be encountered in deep and high
N model formulation, numerical analysis and the
interpretation of results (see the section on
stress mining includes several issues referred to in the ‘Numerical modelling’)
papers presented to previous seminars in this series
(geomechanics risks that are specific to caving methods
N pillar strength estimation methodologies (Board
et al., 2007; Kaiser et al., 2010)
of mining will be discussed in the section on N blasting effects
‘Geomechanics risks in block and panel caving’):
N geological boundaries which may be unknown or
N ground support performance (Swan et al., 2006;
Simser, 2007)
inadequately or incorrectly defined (Falmagne and
Frenette, 2006)
N fill and fill barricade performance.
Clearly, it will never be possible to carry out enough
N geological structures including dykes, faults and shear geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological investigation
zones, possibly containing low shear strength miner- and design analysis to enable geomechanics risks of this
als (Guilfoyle et al., 2006; O’Connor et al., 2010) wide range of types to be fully accounted for in the
N several aspects of site hydrogeology planning stages of a mining project. However, as a project
N orientations, spacings, persistences and shear proceeds through the various stages from concept to
strengths of the joint sets in the rock mass (Gumede detailed design and implementation, the level of uncer-
and Stacey, 2007; Stacey and Gumede, 2007) tainty and risk associated with many of the sources of
N values and distributions of the compressive strengths geomechanics risk identified previously can be expected to
and elastic properties of the rock materials (Kaiser be reduced in the manner illustrated in Fig. 2. In mining, it
et al., 2010; Valley et al., 2010b, c) might be more usual to describe the stages of a project as
N brittle and burst-prone rock (Falmagne and Frenette, conceptual or scoping, pre-feasibility, feasibility, design,
2006) implementation or operation, and closure, although many
N the effects of heterogeneity and anisotropy, e.g. mining companies now use their own terminologies for
foliation, on the mechanical properties of the rock these various stages. In practice, risk assessment and risk
materials (Valley et al., 2010c) management approaches are used to minimise the levels of
N rock mass classification values and their use in risk and to manage the residual risks (see the section on
estimating rock mass strengths ‘Risk assessment and management’).
Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 179

now the usual case in which mining is mechanised, the

low strength of the rock mass can place limitations on
the practicable sizes of the extraction level excavations
and of the equipment that can be used. There is now a
tendency for block and panel caving to be used in
stronger orebodies which produce coarser fragmentation
than did the traditional applications of block caving.
This enables more widely-spaced drawpoints and larger,
more productive items of equipment to be used.
However, there are the dangers that the fragmentation
may be too coarse to be handled by the drawpoints or
the load–haul–dump equipment, and that caving may
become stalled in these stronger orebodies, particularly
those with restricted footprints.
In the new generation of ‘super caves’, block and
panel caving are being applied to generally, but not
necessarily, stronger orebodies, to deeper and sometimes
2 Illustration of uncertainty reduction during the develop- ‘blind’ orebodies subject to higher stresses, to lower
ment of a project until the potential for failure is mini- grade orebodies, and to greater caving block heights
mised to an acceptable level (Valley et al., 2010b, after than has previously been the case. Production rates of
Hoek, 1991) well in excess of 100 000 t of ore per day are being
planned in several cases.
Block and panel caving are low cost mining methods
Geomechanics risks in block and panel caving that are capable of automation to produce an under-
Over the last 20 years, there has been increased interest ground ‘rock factory’. However, they are capital
internationally in the use of large-scale (or mass mining) intensive requiring considerable investment in infra-
block and panel caving methods of underground mining. structure and development before production can
Indeed, there has been a trend for some companies to commence. They are relatively inflexible in that, once
plan, and in several cases to bring into production mining has started, a change to another underground
successfully, a transition from large-scale open pit to method is difficult to achieve economically. This places
underground cave mining methods (Moss et al., 2004; great onus on ‘getting it right’ when a caving project is
Arancibia et al., 2008; Glazer and Townsend, 2010; being investigated and planned. In addition to a range of
Marshall, 2011). There have also been transitions from generic and caving-specific geomechanics risks, the
open pit to sublevel caving (Singh et al., 2010) and from extremely large-scale or ‘super cave’ projects now being
sublevel caving to block caving (Manca and Dunstan, planned and implemented involve a range of engineering
2008). The following discussion of modern, large-scale and management challenges which include:
block and panel caving is based on that given by Brown
(2007b).
N their massive scales, involving project management
challenges
Figure 3 shows schematics illustrating the essential N the very long lead times from the start of investiga-
features of block caving, and a conceptual model of the tions until the commencement of production – up to
stress caving mechanism likely to apply in modern, deep 20 years in some cases
block and panel caving mines. N the high capital costs, generally in the order of a few
Historically, block caving was used for relatively billion dollars
shallow, massive, low strength, and usually low grade, N high in situ rock temperatures at depth and the
orebodies which produced fine fragmentation. In what is associated refrigeration and ventilation requirements.
3 a the essential features of block caving (courtesy of Newcrest Mining Ltd) and b conceptual model of stress caving
(after Duplancic and Brady, 1999)

At the Resolution Copper Mining project in Arizona, geomechanics and other risks associated with mining
USA, for example, the in situ rock temperatures at the projects and operations. Early applications of risk
proposed mining depth of 2200 m are y80uC (Pascoe concepts to underground mining geomechanics evalu-
et al., 2008) ated the influence of parameter and other input
N the large amounts of development required and its variability on the probability of failure using the general
generally long design life approach illustrated in Fig. 2 (McCracken and Stacey,
N the desirability from a health and safety perspective 1989; Tyler et al., 1991; Pine, 1992). The consideration
of no-entry mining and of the automation of of the cost implications of the calculated probabilities
production, and possibly development, processes of failure, often using cost-benefit analysis, followed
N water and environmental management – ever present slightly later (Brummer et al., 1993; Suorineni et al.,
concerns in major mining projects 1995; Diederichs and Kaiser, 1996; Horsley and
N underground communications and control systems. Medhurst, 2000). The application of probability, risk,
The geomechanics-related risks and the application of reliability and capacity and demand concepts to other
risk management approaches to block and panel cave areas of geotechnical engineering, including open pit
mining have been discussed in some detail by Brown mine slope stability, had preceded these developments
(2007a,b) as well as by a number of other authors. by a few years (McMahon, 1975; Priest and Brown,
Generally, these risks may be identified within the 1983; Whitman, 1984; Harr, 1987).
context of several major issues: The Australian mining industry has used risk-based
N Caveability: will the orebody cave satisfactorily? management techniques since the 1980s (Hebblewhite,
N Caving mechanics and performance (including cave 2009). Risk-based underground mining regulations were
initiation by undercutting and continued cave propa- introduced in Australia from the early 1990s. In mid-
gation): will the cave propagate at an acceptable rate 2011, Safe Work Australia published draft national risk-
and in a controlled manner spatially? Can the process based model Work Health and Safety Regulations and
be stopped and started once initiated (Marshall, Codes of Practice for Ground Control in Open Pit and
2011)? Note that the stress caving mechanism Underground Mines. In South Africa, an industry Code
illustrated in Fig. 3b produces microseismic events of Practice requires that a risk assessment be carried out
that can be recorded to monitor the progress of before any new support system is introduced (Stacey
caving (Duplancic and Brady, 1999; Beck et al., et al., 2006).
2006b; Glazer and Townsend, 2010). To the best of the writer’s knowledge, detailed risk
N Fragmentation: will the fragmentation produced assessment and management approaches of the type
naturally at the draw points be neither too coarse illustrated in Fig. 1 were applied to open pit mine slope
nor too fine? stability before they were applied to the wider range of
N Excavation stability: will the undercut and extraction underground mining geomechanics risks. Examples of
level excavations, in particular, remain stable open pit slope stability applications are given by Brown
throughout their design lives? In many cases, there and Booth (2009), Calderón and Tapia (2006), Steffen
is a major risk of damaging rock bursting (Beck et al., (1997), Steffen et al. (2006, 2008), Tapia et al. (2007) and
2007). Terbrugge et al. (2006). This difference may be
N Major operational hazards: is there a risk of major accounted for, at least in part, by the fact that the
collapses, rockbursts, air blasts, and/or mud, slurry geomechanics risks associated with a given underground
and water inflows? mining project or operation, including cases of deep and
N Surface subsidence: can we predict the nature, extent high stress mining, are likely to be more wide-ranging
and development of surface subsidence and its impact
and varied than those associated with bench, inter-ramp
on natural surface features and surface installations?
and overall slope stability in a given open pit mine.
Chitombo (2010) has succinctly summarised some of the
As in Fig. 1, risk assessment and management
major geomechanics-related challenges or risks that may
approaches in underground mining, especially quantita-
threaten the future viability of cave mining as:
tive risk assessment approaches, are more likely to be
N ‘not being able to achieve continuous caving resulting in
applied to particular aspects of mining or mining risk, or
cave stalling or slow caving rates;
to components of the overall mine structure such as
N differential cave propagation due to the presence of
shafts, stopes, ore or rock passes, ventilation raises, and
different geological lithologies;
crusher chambers, than to the mining operation as a
N seismicity caused by unfavourable undercutting prac-
whole (Cockram et al., 2004; Dunn, 2004; Logan and
tices;
Tyler, 2004; Joughin and Stacey, 2005; Stacey and
N early dilution or waste ingress and accelerated fines
Gumede, 2007). It would appear to the writer that there
migration containing waste;
is scope to further develop and apply some of these
N structural collapses and instabilities due to mining of
approaches. As discussed in several papers to this series
large panel widths; and
of international seminars, risk-based approaches are
N extraction level instabilities due to poor undercutting
widely used for the assessment and management of
practice, the presence of remnant pillars or compaction
of caved materials (as) a consequence of poor draw seismic risk (Hudyma et al., 2006; Pretorius, 2006;
practices.’ Durrheim et al., 2007).
Risk assessment forms an important part of the
conceptual, pre-feasibility and feasibility studies of
Risk assessment and management potential mining projects, whether they be new devel-
The last 20 years or so have seen the relatively rapid opments on green field sites or represent expansions of,
development and application of risk assessment and or changes to, existing operations. It allows significant,
management methods to evaluate and manage the and sometimes critical, risks to be identified during the

4 An operational risk management decision-making process (Brown and Booth, 2009, courtesy of Newcrest Mining Ltd):
HMMP, hazardous materials management plan
planning stages and risk management options or control used strength criteria are the Mohr–Coulomb and the
measures to be devised and the residual risks evaluated. Hoek–Brown criteria (Brady and Brown, 2004). The
The writer has had experience of cases in which the classic Mohr–Coulomb peak strength criterion consist-
results of this process were critical to decisions taken at ing of two independent cohesive and frictional compo-
senior management and Board levels as to whether or nents does not provide a realistic representation of the
not to proceed with a project. Risk management plans progressive fracture and breakdown of rock under
are also an essential feature of modern operations. stress. The Hoek–Brown criterion is widely applied to
Figure 4 shows the risk management decision-making jointed rock masses but may also be applied to intact
process adopted by Newcrest Mining’s Cadia Valley rock. In fact, much more data for intact rock than for
Operations. This approach provided the basis for the rock masses were used in its original development by
development of a range of operational risk and hazard Hoek and Brown (1980). One of the acknowledged
management plans including the air inrush hazard deficiencies of both the Mohr–Coulomb and Hoek–
management plan for the Ridgeway Mine discussed by Brown criteria is that they do not allow for the influence
Logan and Tyler (2004). of the intermediate principal stress on peak strength.
Several adaptations of these criteria and new criteria
Rock behaviour under high stress that seek to overcome this deficiency have been
proposed. As discussed in some detail previously, the
Background
writer considers that the Hoek–Brown criterion has
The behaviour of rock under elevated confining pressure often been applied and extended to circumstances for
has been investigated in standard triaxial compression which its use was not originally intended (Brown, 2008).
tests (with s1.s25s3, where s1, s2 and s3 are the
Aspects of the Hoek–Brown criterion that have
principal stresses) for more than 100 years since the
received considerable attention from Diederichs, Kaiser,
pioneering work of von Kármán (1911) who tested
Martin and their co-workers in Canada, over the last 15
Carrara marble at confining pressures of up to 326 MPa.
years or so, are the difficulties associated with its use in
Mogi (2007) summarises the results of standard triaxial
modelling brittle spalling failures in strong rock around
tests on a wide range of carbonate and silicate rocks
underground excavations and in estimating rock strength
tested at confining pressures of up to 500 MPa. The
under high confinement (Diederichs et al., 2004; Kaiser
treatment of this subject given in the standard text books
and Kim, 2008; Martin and Christiansson, 2009; Kaiser
(Brady and Brown, 2004; Jaeger et al., 2007) would
et al., 2010; Bahrani et al., 2011; Valley et al., 2011). As
suggest that it is reasonably well, if not fully, under-
argued by Kaiser et al. (2010) and subsequently by
stood. However, a number of recent developments,
including some made at this series of Deep and High Bahrani et al. (2011) and Valley et al. (2011), rock and
Stress Mining seminars, suggest that the behaviour of rock mass strengths under high confinement may be
rock in the context of deep and high stress mining may higher than those derived from standard approaches.
not be as well understood as is often supposed. For They suggest that the mechanics of the fracturing of rock
purposes of illustration, this discussion will focus mainly under low and high confinement could differ significantly,
on the behaviour of rock material rather than on the and that the constant rock mass degradation approach
more complex behaviour of in situ rock masses. used in the Hoek–Brown criterion could be flawed. They
propose a modified Hoek–Brown failure criterion which
Applicability of standard strength criteria incorporates a confinement-dependent value of the
Several peak strength criteria and constitutive laws have Geotechnical Strength Index and produces a sigmoidal
been developed for rock and used in rock engineering peak strength curve. Figure 5 shows a further modifica-
design analyses. Currently, perhaps the two most widely tion of this criterion fitted to experimental data for

5 Sigmoidal and modified generalised Hoek–Brown failure criteria fitted to laboratory compression test data for a
Carrara marble (from Gerogiannopoulos, 1976) and b quartzite (Valley et al., 2011)
Carrara marble and a quartzite (Valley et al., 2011). In (1999), Lanaro et al. (2009), Martin and Stimpson
these cases, the standard Hoek–Brown criterion with a (1994) and Watson et al. (2009) in the following way:
constant value of the parameter mi can over-estimate rock
and rock mass strengths at low confining pressures where ‘They (Martin and Stimpson, 1994; Eberhardt
tensile or extensional mechanisms predominate, and et al., 1999) showed that the UCS, Young’s
under-estimate them at high confinement where shear modulus and p-wave velocity measured on cores
failure mechanisms operate. Reasonable fits to a range of decrease and Poisson’s ratio increases as samples
experimental data can also be obtained using bi- or tri- are obtained from rock at increasing depth and
linear envelopes or a generalised Hoek–Brown envelope consequently increasing in situ stresses. They
with a high value of mi and a low value of the Hoek– suggest that these effects are caused by increasing
Brown parameter a. These findings have obvious microcracking with depth. This is also supported by
implications for the behaviour of deep and high stress the strong non-linearity of stress versus volumetric
mining excavations. strain from damaged samples, reflecting higher
Another, possibly less significant, reason why stan- volume of closing micro-cracks at the early stage
dard testing methods and strength criteria may under- of loading. Similar behaviour was also observed on
estimate the strength of rock around deep excavations samples taken from deep mines in South Africa
under high stress is that on the boundary of an (Watson et al., 2009). Crack count using Scanning
underground excavation where the minor principal Electron Microscope (SEM) analyses support that
stress is either zero or very small, the rock is in a state samples from depth contain larger amounts of
of approximately biaxial compression with the value of microcracks. Lanaro et al. (2009) reported a strong
the intermediate principal stress s2, which generally acts negative correlation between sample strength and
along the axis of the excavation, being non-negligible measured in situ strength and explained this
when compared to the major principal stress s1, which observation by sample disturbance.’
generally acts tangentially at the excavation boundary. As have others before them (Corthésy and Leite, 2008;
Recent studies by Yun et al. (2010, 2011) have shown Matsuki et al., 2004), Valley et al. (2010a) carried out a
that, depending on the stress path followed and the s2/s1 series of numerical analyses to simulate the drilling
ratio used in the test, the compressive strength of granite process and its effect on the recovered core. Their results
in biaxial compression can be more than 50% greater suggest that, as the drilling progresses and the induced
than the uniaxial compressive strength sc, of similar stress reaches a particular threshold, tensile yielding
sized specimens of the same rock. Brown (1974) initiates from the outer edge of the core and propagates
obtained a similar result for marble but with a lesser towards the centre of the core when the bit passes the
increase over the standard sc value. point in question. However, while extensive yielding or
damage may be generated in the core, no damage is
Influence of core damage produced in the borehole wall at the simulated stress
An important issue that is not always fully recognised, level. This finding has important implications for a
or taken into account when considering rock behaviour number of stress measurement methods and for the
in the context of deep and high stress mining, is the analysis of excavation stability using intact rock
influence of stress relief on the cores extracted by drilling strengths determined from laboratory tests on recovered
and tested in order to establish rock material properties core.
and strength criteria. In fact, the influence of damage on The stress path followed by the recovered core and by
the rock properties measured on cores recovered from the surrounding rock during the drilling and core
relatively high stress environments has been studied by a recovery process can be expected to have a significant
number of investigators. Recently, Valley et al. (2010a) influence on the damage suffered by the core. As has
summarised a number of findings of Eberhardt et al. been argued most cogently by Harrison and Hudson

6 Typical variations in fracture pattern with confining pressure s3 (Tarasov, 2010)
(2003), during the evolution of the final stress state to discussing the progress made in rock mechanics over the
which the rock is subjected in any application, the failure last 50 years.
locus may be reached before the anticipated failure state The application of numerical methods, specifically the
(assuming that the failure locus is known accurately), in finite element method (FEM), to rock engineering began
which case failure will occur unexpectedly. In fact, the in the early to mid-1960s. Since that time, the develop-
complete stress path defined as the variations in the ment and application of numerical methods of analysis
magnitudes and orientations of the stress tensor compo- has been a major feature of rock mechanics and rock
nents resulting from engineering-induced or natural engineering research and practice. A comprehensive
changes, should be considered in sampling and testing review of the formulation of numerical methods and
and in design analyses for underground excavations. In their application in rock mechanics and rock engineering
many mining applications, including on and around the is given by Jing (2003). Jing’s paper contains no less than
extraction levels of block and panel caving operations, the 774 references to the published literature in the field to
stress state and the stress path taken to reach that stress 2003, but obviously does not deal with more recent
state can vary significantly during construction and developments.
operation. The main numerical methods were developed origin-
ally for continuum applications but, from the 1960s,
Embrittlement at high confining pressures were adapted to allow for the discontinuous nature
In a series of recent papers, including some presented to of rock masses (Goodman et al., 1968; Wittke, 1977),
previous Deep and High Stress Mining seminars, Tarasov often treating them as equivalent continua. Impor-
and his co-authors have discussed the phenomenon of tantly, specific discontinuum methods of numerical
super brittleness in ‘hard’ rocks (Tarasov and Dyskin, analysis have been developed. In rock mechanics and
2005; Tarasov and Ortlepp, 2007; Tarasov and Randolph, rock engineering, these various methods have been
2007, 2008, 2011; Tarasov, 2008a,b, 2010, 2011). Received applied mainly to stress and deformation analyses, but
wisdom is that rocks tested in conventional triaxial they have also been applied to the modelling of fracture
compression show increasing ductility as the confining processes and of fluid flow and heat transfer in rock
pressure s3, increases. However, in this series of papers, masses. Following Jing (2003), the numerical methods
Tarasov presents evidence from his own experimental that have been developed or adapted for rock
investigations and from those of a number of other authors mechanics and rock engineering applications may be
who have been concerned mainly with fault formation at classified as:
depth, to suggest that after a critical confining pressure has N FEM and related methods, including meshless
been reached (s3min(emb) in Fig. 6), brittleness may increase methods (Goodman et al., 1968; Wittke, 1977, 1990;
progressively within an embrittlement range. This concept Zienkiewicz, 1977; Beck et al., 2009, 2010).
may appear to be counter-intuitive, but the evidence for its N finite difference methods (FDMs) including the finite
existence under macroscopic shear rupture conditions in volume approach, applied perhaps most notably in
strong rocks seems compelling. This behaviour is not the well-known FLAC series of codes (Hart et al.,
observed in what Tarasov (2010) refers to as ‘soft’ rocks, 2008; Itasca, 2011; Sainsbury et al., 2011).
although he does not provide definitions of ‘hard’ and N boundary element methods (BEMs) using direct and
‘soft’ in this context. Tarasov (2008a,b, 2010) proposes a indirect, including displacement discontinuity, for-
new frictionless model within shear rupture zones that mulations (Brady, 1979, 1987; Crouch and Starfield,
consist of segmented ‘domino’ or ‘book shelf’ structures to 1983; Beer and Watson, 1992).
account for the super brittleness phenomenon. Although N discrete element methods (DEM) (Jing and
some ramifications of the mechanisms proposed by Stephansson, 2007) including the explicit or Distinct
Tarasov and his co-authors have been observed in natural Element Method (Cundall, 1971, 1987; Itasca, 2011),
faulting and in shear zones associated with rockbursts in the implicit or discontinuous deformation analysis
the deep level gold mines of South Africa (Tarasov and method (Shi and Goodman, 1985; Ma, 2011), key
Ortlepp, 2007), it is probably unlikely that they will be block theory (Goodman and Shi, 1985), DEM
encountered in deep and high stress mining more generally. formulations for particle systems including bonded
particle systems (Potyondy and Cundall, 2004), and
Numerical modelling quasi-static and dynamic lattice network models
(Cundall and Damjanac, 2009; Cundall, 2011).
Numerical modelling in rock mechanics and rock N hybrid or linked methods of a number of types (FEM/
engineering BEM, DEM/BEM, DEM/FEM) (Lorig and Brady,
The discussion to be presented in this section is a 1982; Elsworth, 1986; Brady, 1987; Beer and Watson,
modified version of that given by Brown (2011) in 1992).

N discrete fracture network-based methods which may in North American hard rock mines for more than 100
be combined with a number of the other methods years.
(Pine et al., 2006; Beck et al., 2009; Rogers et al., In the South African programme of research into the
2010). phenomenon of rockbursting associated with the mining
N coupled hydro-mechanical (Beck et al., 2010) and of deep, tabular or reef deposits, elastic stress and
thermo-hydro-mechanical models (Detournay, 1995; deformation analyses were originally carried out using
Stephansson et al., 1996; Hudson et al., 2001). closed-form solutions developed specifically for the
N inverse solution methods as used in back analysis in purpose (Cook et al., 1966; Salamon, 1963, 1964,
rock engineering (Gioda and Sakurai, 1987; Sakurai, 1968). An electric resistance analogue approach to the
1993). solution of the complex equations involved was also
Despite the significant advances that have been made, it developed (Salamon et al., 1964; Cook et al., 1966).
must be recognised that the successful application of Salamon’s solutions for isotropic and transversely
numerical methods in rock engineering design analyses isotropic ground formed the basis of early calculations
depends to a great extent on the geotechnical models, the of energy release rates and excess shear stresses (Ryder
constitutive models and the boundary conditions devel- and Jager, 2002). By the late 1960s, the MinSim program
oped from the site characterisation data. Because of the had been developed in assembly language (Plewman
difficulty of defining some of the input data determinis- et al., 1969). Further development of two- and three-
tically, probabilistic or stochastic methods are often used dimensional displacement discontinuity kernels (Crouch
to represent the rock mass geometry, the mechanical and Starfield, 1983) led to the development of successive
properties of rocks and rock masses, and in the analyses versions of numerical modelling programs such as
themselves. When formal probabilistic or stochastic MINAP, MINF, DIGS and BESOL (Ryder and Jager,
methods are not used, a range of input data may be used 2002).
in sensitivity studies. As Starfield and Cundall (1988) A wide range of computer codes have been used in the
pointed out, rock mechanics problems are data-limited numerical analyses reported in the papers presented to
and so cannot be modelled unambiguously. the Deep and High Stress Mining series of seminars.
As the numerical methods of design analysis outlined They include the range of displacement discontinuity
here were developed, high levels of expertise in the and related programs introduced previously (MinSim,
numerical methods themselves, and in their application MINF, DIGS, BESOL), as well as FEM (ABAQUS,
in rock mechanics and rock engineering, were developed Phase2), BEM (Examine2D, Examine3D, Map3D,
by a number of individuals and groups internationally. Map3D Fault-Slip), FDM (FLAC, FLAC3D) and
However, it has been the writer’s experience that, despite DEM (3DEC, PFC3D) codes. The three-dimensional
the vast range of knowledge and experience that is now elastic boundary element code, Map3D, and its variants,
available in this field, the application of these methods in is perhaps more widely represented in the papers than
engineering practice often suffers, because some analysts any other code, particularly in the papers from Australia
regard the computer codes used as ‘black boxes’ and pay and, to a lesser extent, South Africa. The most advanced
insufficient attention to the mechanics of the problems numerical modelling reported in the series of proceed-
concerned, the failure criteria used, the input data ings includes that carried out by Beck et al. (2006a,b,
including rock and rock mass properties, and to the 2007) and Reusch and Beck (2007) using the three-
meaning or ‘believability’ of the results obtained. dimensional, non-linear, FEM code, ABAQUS, with
Furthermore, there is a tendency to disregard features continuum, discontinuum, strain softening and dilation
of a problem that are not catered for specifically in the modelling capability. These authors calculate values of
software selected or available for use. Although the dissipated plastic energy for use in the interpretation of
paper was written more than 20 years ago, the writer their results.
considers that many of those seeking to use modern Figure 7 shows an example of the modelled three-
numerical methods in rock engineering design analyses dimensional plastic strain at an early stage of extraction
should pay greater attention to the guidance provided by of a block cave. Differential growth in the damage zone
Starfield and Cundall (1988), especially their warning around the cave and the effects of the regional structure
that numerical modelling is an aid to thought rather are clearly evident. The mine was able to adjust the cave
than a substitute for thinking. layout to optimise the effects of plastic strain (Beck
et al., 2006b).
Numerical modelling in deep and high stress Despite the power and adaptability of numerical model-
mining ling codes, and the wide range of numerical modelling
Serious consideration of the geomechanics problems expertise now available, as noted above, the warnings
associated with deep and high stress mining began sounded by Starfield and Cundall (1988) still have to be
before the advent of modern high-speed digital compu- borne in mind. In this series of seminars, Beck et al. (2006a),
ters and the numerical modelling methods listed in the O’Connor et al. (2010) and Wiles (2007) have pointed to the
section on ‘Numerical modelling in rock mechanics and need to use evidence-based model calibration in order to
rock engineering’. For example, a significant programme obtain reliable predictions. Valley et al. (2010b) have
of research on rock mechanics as applied to deep-level discussed the need to consider a range of uncertainties in
hard rock mining and the associated problem of modelling the behaviour of underground excavations.
rockbursts, was established in South Africa in 1953 Reusch and Beck (2007) and Valley et al. (2010b) have
(Hill, 1954, 1966). At around the same time, a similar used a point estimate method in preference to the more
problem was under investigation in the Kolar goldfield, widely used Monte Carlo simulation method, in analysing
India (Taylor, 1962–63). And as Morrison et al. (2002) the effects of parameter variability in FEM simulations. It
discuss, rockbursting has been experienced and investigated has also been shown that the utility of numerical modelling

7 Example of modelled plastic strain at an early stage of the extraction of a block cave (Beck et al., 2006b)
programs can be enhanced by their integration with is difficult and expensive to obtain, so that the only
engineering design, mine planning and post-processing information available often comes from geological and
software (Spottiswoode, 2004; Maybee et al., 2006; geotechnical drilling campaigns supported in some cases
O’Connor et al., 2010). by geophysical surveys and geological interpretation.
Even the construction of an 8?4 m diameter exploration
shaft to a depth of approaching 2?2 km in the pre-
Further challenges feasibility stage of the Resolution Copper Project,
This paper has discussed only some of the risks and Arizona, and the development of an exploration level
challenges faced by deep and high stress mining. For with associated investigation and testing during the
example, McCarthy (2002) suggested that the risks that feasibility study stage, cannot be expected to provide the
must be addressed in feasibility studies for deep mining detailed information and answers required for fully-
projects include: informed decision making (Brown, 2007b).
N increased geological risk due to sparse data density The following paragraphs identify and discuss briefly
N increased capital risk due to the higher cost of just some of the challenges remaining in this general area
and in some of the areas discussed earlier in this paper.
establishing the mining operation
N increased technical risk due to the challenging Geological and geotechnical data collection and
environment for materials handling, ventilation,
site characterisation
services, employees and ground control.
Many of the geomechanics risks and risk sources listed
Although the review given here of progress made under
in the section on ‘Generic geomechanics risks in deep
some of the themes of this seminar shows that significant
and high stress mining’ relate to the quantity and quality
advances have been made in understanding and practice,
of the geological and geotechnical data collected and to
it is clear that the generic risks identified by McCarthy
their use in site characterisation. In particular, improved
(2002) remain largely unresolved and have to be
methods are required for identifying major geological
managed in the various stages of deep mining projects.
structures (e.g. dykes, faults) ahead of mining, and for
The further challenges identified and discussed briefly
collecting the three-dimensional discontinuity geometry
here will concern only some of the geomechanics-related
data, including fracture sizes and apertures, required in
issues touched on earlier in this paper.
discrete fracture network modelling, particularly at
Many of the geomechanics risks and risk sources depth. It is often said that we need to be able to see
listed in the sections on ‘Generic geomechanics risks in through the Earth or make the Earth transparent (Hood
deep and high stress mining’ and ‘Geomechanics risks in et al., 1999; Fairhurst, 2011). It is often further suggested
block and panel caving’ arise from inadequate (in that geophysical methods have the potential to provide
several senses) geological, geotechnical and hydrogeolo- this capability, but the writer must admit that he does
gical knowledge, even at the feasibility study and not understand exactly how.
implementation stages of deep mining projects. In
general, these inadequacies arise because of the inability Estimation of pre-mining stress fields
to sample and investigate even very small percentages of The measurement, or perhaps more realistically, the
the orebodies and the rock masses influenced by mining estimation, of pre-mining stress fields provides essential
during the conceptual, pre-feasibility and feasibility inputs into numerical stress and deformation analyses of
stages of projects. Generally, access to the mining depth underground excavations, mining layouts and extraction

scheduling. Quite often, attempts to measure the stress and present this paper. He especially wishes to thank
tensor at a number of points with a view to establishing members of the ACG staff, Christine Neskudla,
the pre-mining stress field yield unsatisfactory results, Josephine Ruddle, Irene Neskudla and Bel Doley, for
not only because of measurement error, but also because having provided him with access to the proceedings of
of the inherent variability of the stress field resulting the previous seminars in the series and with guidance in
from, inter alia, variations in rock types and their the preparation of the paper. He also wishes to thank
mechanical properties and from the influence of Joe Carvalho, Bruce Hebblewhite, Evert Hoek, Peter
structural features. As a result of his association with a Kaiser and Benoı̂t Valley for having provided material
number of large-scale and deep block and panel caving used in the preparation of this paper and the associated
projects, in recent years the writer has become convinced lecture, Rob Morphet for reviewing the paper, and
of the value of studies of the type reported by Jillian Roche for her assistance in preparing it for
Kloppenburg et al. (2010), Windsor (2009) and publication.
Windsor et al. (2006), in which the structural setting This paper has been reproduced with the kind
and kinematics of a mining district are analysed on an permission of the Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
historical basis, and the observed structure, strain and The University of Western Australia. The Sixth
stress are reconciled. International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining
proceedings volume, 28–30 March 2012, Perth, Australia
Understanding rock behaviour under high stress (ISBN 978-0-9806154-8-7, www.acg.uwa.edu.au).
Some recent advances in the understanding of rock
behaviour under high stress were summarised in the References
section on ‘Rock behaviour under high stress’. It is clear
Andrieux, P., Hadjigeorgiou, J., Sampson-Forsythe, A., Simser, B.,
from this summary that a number of major issues in this Turichshev, A. and Brummer, R. 2010. Recent case histories of
area remain unresolved (for example, making allowance the application of the empirical destressability index methodol-
for the influences of core damage and of the stress path ogy, Proc. 5th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed.
to failure), and that advances in knowledge and under- M. van Sint Jan and Y. Potvin), October 2010, Santiago, Chile,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 17–27.
standing will be required if we are to be able to predict
Arancibia, E., Carrasco, F., Fuentes, S. and Guarda, J. 2008. Design of
adequately the behaviour of a range of mining excava- extraction layout for the Chuquicamata underground project,
tions at depths in the order of 2 km. Further develop- Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on ‘Mass mining’, (ed. H. Schunnesson and
ment of the approaches discussed in the section on E. Nordlund), June 2008, Luleå, Sweden, Luleå University of
‘Rock behaviour under high stress’ is considered likely Technology Press, 3–14.
Baecher, G. B. and Christian, J. T. 2003. Reliability and statistics in
to produce some of the advances required. geotechnical engineering, New York, John Wiley.
Bahrani, N., Valley, B., Kaiser, P. K. and Pierce, M. 2011. Evaluation
Formulation and evidence-based calibration of of PFC2D grain-based model for simulation of confinement-
numerical models dependent rock strength degradation and failure processes, Proc.
45th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symp., June 2011, San
As demonstrated in the section on ‘Numerical model- Francisco CA, USA, Paper ARMA 11-156 (CD-ROM).
ling’, numerical modelling for rock engineering applica- Barrett, D. and Player, J. 2002. Big Bell, high stress at shallow depth,
tions, including application to deep and high stress Proc. 1st Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, November
mining, has been developed and refined to a consider- 2002, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
Section 28.
able extent in recent decades. In the writer’s opinion, the
Beck, D. and Sandy, M. 2002. Mine sequencing for high recovery in
further developments required are not in the numerical Western Australian mines, Proc. 1st Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and
models themselves (although such developments can be high stress mining’, November 2002, Perth, Australia, Australian
expected to continue to occur and to be welcome), but in Centre for Geomechanics, Section 8.
the way in which they are applied to rock engineering Beck, D., Arndt, S., Thin, I., Stone, C. and Butcher, R. 2006a. A
conceptual sequence for a block cave in an extreme stress and
problems in terms of model formulation, the rock and deformation environment, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and
rock mass properties used and the allowance made for high stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon),
their variability, the failure and/or acceptance criteria October 2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval,
adopted, and the interpretation of the results, including Section 11. Also in 2007. Challenges in deep and high stress
mining, (ed. Y. Potvin et al.), 65–76, Perth, Australian Centre for
the evidence-based calibration of the models referred to
Geomechanics.
in the section on ‘Numerical modelling’. Beck, D., Reusch, F. and Arndt, S. 2007. Estimating the probability of
mining-induced seismic events using mine-scale, inelastic numer-
Quantitative risk analysis and management ical models, Proc. 4th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress
The writer considers that there is a need for the further mining’, (ed. Y. Potvin), November 2007, Perth, Australia,
development of quantitative risk analysis and manage- Beck, D., Reusch, F., Arndt, S., Thin, I., Stone, C., Heap, M. and
ment methods and their application at all stages of deep Tyler, D. 2006b. Numerical modelling of seismogenic develop-
(and other) mining projects, including in decision- ment during cave initiation, propagation and breakthrough, Proc.
making on mining methods and strategies, and in the 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. J.
estimation of capital and operational mining costs, and Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon), October 2006, Quebec City,
Que., Canada, Université Laval, Section 12. Also in 2007.
the costs of risk mitigation measures and residual risks, Challenges in deep and high stress mining, (ed. Y. Potvin
using approaches such as that developed by Cretu et al. et al.), 275–281, Perth, Australian Centre for Geomechanics.
(2011). Beck, D. A., Fillery, B. and Reusch, F. 2010. 3D hydro-mechanical
simulation of faulted open pit slopes, Proc. 44th US Rock
Mechanics Symp. and 5th US–Canada Rock Mechanics Symp.,
Acknowledgements June 2010, Salt Lake City UT, USA, Paper ARMA 10-425 (CD-
ROM).
The author is grateful to Winthrop Professor Yves Beck, D. A., Pfitzner, M. J., Arndt, S. M. and Fillery, B. 2009.
Potvin, Director of the Australian Centre for Estimating rock mass properties and seismic response using higher
Geomechanics (ACG), for having invited him to prepare order, discontinuous, finite element models, Rock engineering in

difficult conditions (Proc. 3rd Canada–US Rock Mechanics Symp. Cundall, P. A. 1987. Distinct element models of rock and soil structure,
and 20th Canadian Rock Mechanics Symp.), (ed. M. Diederichs Analytical and computational methods in engineering rock
and G. Grasselli), May 2009, Toronto, Canada (CD-ROM). mechanics, (ed. E. T. Brown), 129–163, London, Allen and
Been, K., Brown, E. T. and Hepworth, N. 2002. Liquefaction potential Unwin.
of paste fill at Neves Corvo mine, Portugal, Trans. IMM A, 111A, Cundall, P. A. 2011. Lattice method for modelling brittle, jointed rock,
47–58. Continuum and distinct element numerical modeling in geome-
Beer, G. and Watson, J. O. 1992. Introduction to finite and boundary chanics – 2011 (Proc. 2nd International FLAC/DEM Symp.), (ed.
element methods for engineers, Chichester, John Wiley. D. P. Sainsbury et al.), February 2011, Melbourne, Australia,
Board, M., Damjanac, B. and Pierce, M. 2007. Development of a Itasca International Inc., 11–19.
methodology for analysis of instability in room and pillar mines, Cundall, P. A. and Damjanac, B. 2009. A comprehensive 3D model for
Proc. 4th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. Y. rock slopes based on micromechanics, Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on
Potvin), November 2007, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for ‘Rock slope stability’, November 2009, Santiago, Chile, ISRM
Geomechanics, 273–282. (CD-ROM).
Brady, B. H. G. 1979. A direct formulation of the boundary element Detournay, E. 1995. Coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical processes in
method of stress analysis for complete plane strain, Int. J. Rock rock mechanics, with applications to the petroleum industry,
Mech. Min. Sci., 16, (4), 235–244. Proc. 8th ISRM Cong. on ‘Rock mechanics, (ed. T. Fuji),
Brady, B. H. G. 1987. Boundary element and linked methods for September 1995, Tokyo, Japan, Balkema, Vol. 3, 1061–1068.
underground excavation design, Analytical and computational Diederichs, M. S. and Kaiser, P. K. 1996. Rock instability and risk
methods in engineering rock mechanics, (ed. E. T. Brown), 164– analyses in open stope mine design, Can.Geotechn. J., 33, (3), 431–
204, London, Allen and Unwin. 439.
Brady, B. H. G. and Brown, E. T. 2004. Rock mechanics for Diederichs, M. S., Kaiser, P. K. and Eberhardt, E. 2004. Damage
underground mining, 3rd edn, Dordrecht, Kluwer. initiation and propagation in hard rock during tunnelling and the
Brown, E. T. 1974. Fracture of rock under uniform biaxial compres- influence of near-face stress rotation, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
sion, Proc. 3rd Cong. on ‘Advances in rock mechanics’, Sci., 41, (5), 785–812.
September 1974, Denver CO, USA, National Academy of Dight, P. M. and Dyskin, A. V. 2007. Accounting for the effect of rock
Sciences, Vol. 2A, 111–117. mass anisotropy in stress measurements, Proc. 4th Int. Semin. on
Brown, E. T. 1999. The evolution of support and reinforcement ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. Y. Potvin), November 2007,
philosophy and practice for underground mining excavations, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 415–424.
Proc. Int. Symp. on ‘Ground support’, (ed. E. Villaescusa et al.), Dunn, M. J. 2004. Initial risk assessment of rock passes in AngloGold’s
March 1999, Kalgoorlie, Australia, Balkema, 3–17. SA region, Proc. 2nd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress
mining’, February 2004, Johannesburg, SAIMM, 413–421.
Brown, E. T. 2007a. Block caving geomechanics, 2nd edn, Brisbane,
JKMRC. Duplancic, P. and Brady, B. H. 1999. Characterisation of caving
mechanisms by analysis of seismicity and rock stress, Proc. 9th
Brown, E. T. 2007b. Rock mechanics – the basic mining science:
ISRM Cong., (ed. G. Vouille and P. Berest), August 1999, Paris,
challenges in underground mass mining, Proc. 11th Cong. ISRM
France, Balkema, Vol. 2, 1049–1053.
Cong. on ‘Rock mechanics’, (ed. L. Ribeiro e Sousa et al.), July
Durrheim, R. J., Cichowicz, A., Ebrahim-Trollope, R., Essrich, F.,
2007, Lisbon, Portugal, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 3, 1335–1347.
Goldbach, O., Linzer, L. M., Spottiswoode, S. M. and
Brown, E. T. 2008. Estimating the mechanical properties of rock
Stankiewicz, T. 2007. Guidelines, standards and best practice
masses, Proc. 1st SHIRMS, (ed. Y. Potvin et al.), Vol. 1, Mining
for seismic hazard assessment and rockburst risk management in
and civil, September 2009, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for
South African mines, Proc. 4th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high
Geomechanics, 3–22.
stress mining’, (ed. Y. Potvin), November 2007, Perth, Australia,
Brown, E. T. 2011. Fifty years of the ISRM and associated progress in
rock mechanics, Proc. 12th ISRM Cong. on ‘Rock mechanics’,
Eberhardt, E., Stead, D. and Stimpson, B. 1999. Effects of sample
(ed. Q. Qian and Y. X. Zhou), October 2011, Beijing, China, CRC
disturbance on the stress-induced microfracturing characteristics
Press/Balkema, 29–45.
of brittle rock, Can. Geotechn. J., 36, (2), 239–250.
Brown, E. T. and Booth, A. 2009. Risk management, Guidelines for Einstein, H. H. and Baecher, G. B. 1983. Probabilistic and statistical
open pit slope design, (ed. J. Read and P. Stacey), 381–400, methods in engineering geology, Part I Exploration, Rock Mech.
Melbourne, CSIRO Publishing. Rock Eng., 16, (1), 39–72.
Brummer, R. K., Nosé, J. P., Hay, L. and Kaiser, P. K. 1993. Risk- Elsworth, D. 1986. A hybrid boundary element-finite element analysis
cost-benefit analysis applied to the design of support in burst- procedure for fluid flow simulation in fractured rock masses, Int.
prone mines, Proc. Int. Cong. on ‘Mine design’, (ed. W. F. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 10, (6), 569–584.
Bawden and J. F. Archibald), August 1993, Kingston, Canada, Fairhurst, C. 2011. Grand challenges in earth resources engineering –
Balkema, 969–980. and some implications for rock mechanics and rock engineering,
Calderón, A. R. and Tapia, A. D. 2006. Slope-steepening decision using Continuum and distinct element numerical modelling in geome-
quantified risk assessment: the Chuquicamata case, 50 years of chanics – 2011 (Proc. 2nd Int. FLAC/DEM Symp.), (ed. D. P.
rock mechanics – landmarks and future challenges (Proc. 41st US Sainsbury et al.), February 2011, Melbourne, Australia, Itasca
Rock Mechanics Symp.), (ed. D. Yale et al.), 17–21 June, Golden, International Inc., 3–10.
U.S.A., Paper 06–1145, 8 p. (CD-ROM). Falmagne, V. and Frenette, P. 2006. Ground control challenges at
Chitombo, G. P. 2010. Cave mining – 16 years after Laubscher’s 1994 Mine Doyen – a case history, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and
paper ‘Cave mining – state of the art’, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on high stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon),
‘Block and sublevel caving’, (ed. Y. Potvin), April 2010, Perth, October 2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval,
Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 45–61. Section 3.
Cockram, M. J., Makinen, E. O. and Kirsten, H. A. D. 2004. A Gerogiannopoulos, N. G. 1976. A critical state approach to rock
methodology to quantify risk and an application to remnant mechanics, PhD thesis, University of London, London, UK.
mining, Proc. 2nd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, Gioda, G. and Sakurai, S. 1987. Back analysis procedures for the
February 2004, Johannesburg, South Africa, SAIMM, 147–158. interpretation of field measurements in geomechanics, Int. J.
Cook, N. G. W., Hoek, E., Pretorius, J. P. G., Ortlepp, W. D. and Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 11, (6), 555–583.
Salamon, M. D. G. 1966. Rock mechanics applied to the study of Glazer, S. N. and Townsend, P. A. 2010. Relationship between
rockbursts, J. SAIMM, 16, (10), 436–528. production rates, the caving process and seismicity rates at
Corthésy, R. and Leite, M. H. 2008. A strain-softening numerical Palabora Mining Company, Proc. 5th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and
model of core discing and damage, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., high stress mining’, (ed. M. van Sint Jan and Y. Potvin), October
45, (3), 329–350. 2010, Santiago, Chile, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 491–
Cretu, O., Stewart, R. and Berends, T. 2011. Risk management for 502.
design and construction, Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley. Goodman, R. E. and Shi, G.-H. 1985. Block theory and its application
Crouch, S. L. and Starfield, A. M. 1983. Boundary element methods in to rock engineering, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall.
solid mechanics, London, Allen and Unwin. Goodman, R. E., Taylor, R. L. and Brekke, T. L. 1968. A model for the
Cundall, P. A. 1971. A computer model for simulating progressive, mechanics of jointed rock, J. Soil Mech. Foundat. Div., 94, (SM3),
large-scale movements in blocky rock systems, Proc. Int. Symp. 637–659.
on ‘Rock mechanics’, October 1971, Nancy, France, ISRM, Vol. Guilfoyle, K., Slade, N. and Kenworthy, S. 2006. The N3500 project –
1, Paper II-8. deep, high stress and talc, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high

stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeourgiou and M. Grenon), October Kaiser, P. K., Kim, B.-H., Bewick, R. P. and Valley, B. 2010. Rock
2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval, Section 13. mass strength at depth and implications for pillar design, Proc.
Gumede, H. and Stacey, T. R. 2007. Measurement of typical joint 5th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. M. van Sint
characteristics in South African gold mines and the use of these Jan and Y. Potvin), October 2010, Santiago, Chile, Australian
characteristics in the prediction of rock falls, J. SAIMM, 107, (5), Centre for Geomechanics, 463–476.
335–344. Kiboko, M. K., Hagan, T. O., Vieira, F. M. C. C. and Rangasamy, T.
Hadjigeorgiou, J. and Harrison, J. P. 2011. Uncertainty and sources of 2004. A review of shaft pillar extraction in the South African gold
error in rock engineering, Harmonising rock engineering and the mines, Proc. 2nd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’,
environment (Proc. 12th ISRM Cong.), (ed. Q. Qian and Y. X. February 2004, Johannesburg, South Africa, SAIMM, 423–437.
Zhou), October, Beijing, China, CRC Press/Balkema, 2063–2067. Kloppenburg, A., Grocott, J. and Hutchinson, D. 2010. Structural
Hammah, R. E. and Carvalho, J. L. 2011. An introduction to the setting and synplutonic fault kinematics of a cordilleran Cu–Au–
Christensen criterion – an answer to true, representative model- Mo mineralization system, Bingham Canyon Mining District,
ling of intact rock yielding/failure? Proc. Int. Symp. on ‘Rock Utah, Econ. Geol., 105, (4), 743–761.
slope stability in open pit mining and civil engineering’, Lanaro, F., Sato, T. and Nakama, S. 2009. Depth variability of
September 2011, Vancouver BC, Canada, University of British compressive test results of Toki granite from Shobasama and
Columbia (CD-ROM). Mizunami construction sites, Japan, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 42,
Harr, M. E. 1987. Reliability based design in civil engineering, New (4), 611–629.
York, McGraw-Hill. Li, T., Singh, U. and Coxon, J. 2002. A case study of management of
Harrison, J. P. and Hudson, J. A. 2003. Visualising and understanding high stress and seismicity at Junction Mine, Proc. 1st Int. Semin.
the stress path for rock mechanics modelling and testing, and rock on ‘Deep and high stress mining‘,November 2002, Perth,
engineering design, Technology roadmap for rock mechanics Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Section 29.
(Proc. 10th ISRM Cong.), September 2003, Johannesburg, South Logan, A. and Tyler, D. 2004. Air inrush risk assessment for caving
Africa, SAIMM, Vol. 1, 487–492. mines, Proc. MassMin 2004, (ed. A. Karzulovic and M. Alvaro),
Hart, R. D., Detournay, C. L. and Cundall, P. A. (eds.) 2008. August 2004, Santiago, Chile, Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile,
Continuum and distinct element modeling in geo-engineering, 717–721.
Proc. 1st FLAC/DEM Symp., August 2008, Minneapolis MN, Lorig, L. J. and Brady, B. H. G. 1982. A hybrid discrete element-
USA, Itasca Consulting Group Inc. boundary element method of stress analysis, Issues in rock
Hebblewhite, B. K. 2003. Management of geotechnical risks in mining mechanics (Proc. 3rd US Symp. on ‘Rock mechanics’), (ed. R. E.
projects, Proc. Mining Risk Management Conf: Effective risk Goodman and F. E. Heuzé), August, Berkeley, USA, AIME,
management for mining project optimisation, September 2003, 628–636.
Sydney, Australia, AusIMM. Ma, G. W. 2011. Discontinuous deformation analysis: advances and
Hebblewhite, B. K. 2009. Mine safety – through appropriate combina- challenges, Harmonising rock engineering and the environment,
tion of technology and management practice, Procedia Earth (Proc. 12th ISRM Cong.), (ed. Q. Qian and Y. X. Zhou), October
Planet. Sci., 1, (1), 13–19. 2011, Beijing, China, CRC Press/Balkema, 99–108.
Hill, F. G. 1954. An investigation of the problem of rockbursts; an
Manca, P. and Dunstan, G. 2008. Planning the transition from SLC to
operational research project, Part I, The approach to the problem
block caving operations at Ridgeway gold mine, Proc. 5th Int.
and analyses of the rockbursts that have occurred on the ERPM
Conf. on ‘Mass mining’, (ed. H. Schunnesson and E. Nordlund),
during the years 1948–1953, J. Chem. Metall. Min. Soc. South
June 2008, Luleå, Sweden, Luleå University of Technology Press,
Afr., 55, 63–83.
401–412.
Hill, F. G. 1966. Preface to ‘Rock mechanics applied to the study of
Marshall, K. 2011. The future is underground, Mater. World, 19, (8),
rockbursts’, J. SAIMM, 66, (10),435.
34–35.
Hoek, E. 1991. When is a design in rock engineering acceptable? Proc.
Martin, C. D. and Christiansson, R. 2009. Estimating the potential for
7th ISRM Cong., (ed. W. Wittke), September 1991, Aachen,
spalling around a deep nuclear waste repository in crystalline
Germany, Balkema, Vol. 3, 1485–1497.
rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 46, (2), 219–228.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T. 1980. Underground excavations in rock,
Martin, C. D. and Stimpson, B. 1994. The effect of sample disturbance
London, IMM.
on laboratory properties of Lac du Bonnet granite, Can.
Hood, M., Hatherly, P. and Gurgenci, H. 1999. Mining in 2015, Min.
Mag. Min. Commun., 181, (4), 222–229. Geotechn. J., 31, (5), 692–702.
Horsley, T. P. and Medhurst, T. P. 2000. Quantifying geotechnical risk Matsuki, K., Kaga, N., Yokoyama, T. and Tsuda, N. 2004.
in the mine planning process, Proc. MassMin 2000, (ed. G. Determination of three dimensional in situ stress from core
Chitombo), October–November 2000, Brisbane, Australia, discing based on analysis of principal tensile stress, Int. J. Rock
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 105–112. Mech. Min. Sci., 41, (7), 1167–1190.
Hudson, J. A., Stephansson, O., Andersson, J., Tsang, C.-F. and Jing, Maybee, G., Sampson-Forsythe, A., Cotesta, L. and O’Connor, C.
L. 2001. Coupled T-H-M issues relating to radioactive waste 2006. Geomechanical challenges at Xstrata Nickel’s Thayer
repository design and performance, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Lindsley Mine, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress
38, (1), 143–161. mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon), October 2006,
Hudyma, M., Potvin, Y. and Heal, D. 2006. The mine seismicity risk Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval, Section 2.
analysis program (MS-RAP) – transforming microseismic data McCarthy, P. 2002. Feasibility studies and economic models for deep
into rock engineering knowledge, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep mines, Proc. 1st Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’,
and high stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeourgiou and M. Grenon), November 2002, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for
October 2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval, Geomechanics, Section 4.
Section 29. McCracken, A. and Stacey, T. R. 1989. Geotechnical risk assessment
Itasca. 2011. FLAC Ver 6.0, FLAC3D Ver 4.0, FLAC/Slope Ver 6.0, for large-diameter raise-bored shafts, Proc. Conf. on ‘Shaft
UDEC Ver 5.0 & 3DEC Ver 4.1, Itasca Consulting Group Inc., engineering’, June 1989, Harrogate, UK, IMM, 309–316. Also
Minneapolis, MN, USA (see www.itascacg.com/home.php). Trans. IMM A, 98A, 145–150.
Jaeger, J. C., Cook, N. G. W. and Zimmerman, R. W. 2007. McGill, R. B. 2004. Strategies to manage seismicity in a deep VCR
Fundamentals of rock mechanics, 4th edn, Oxford, Blackwell. environment on Mponeng, Proc. 2nd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and
Jing, L. 2003. A review of techniques, advances and outstanding issues high stress mining’, February 2004, Johannesburg, South Africa,
in numerical modelling for rock mechanics and rock engineering, SAIMM, 79–94.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 30, (3), 283–353. McMahon, B. K. 1975. Probability of failure and expected volume of
Jing, L. and Stephansson, O. 2007. Fundamentals of discrete element failure in high rock slopes, Proc. 2nd Australia–New Zealand
methods for rock engineering: theory and applications, Conf. on ‘Geomechanics’, July 1975, Brisbane, Australia,
Amsterdam, Elsevier. Institution of Engineers Australia, 308–313.
Joughin, W. C. and Stacey, T. R. 2005. Risks associated with Mercier-Langevin, F. 2010. LaRonde extension – mine design at three
rockpasses in deep-level tabular mines based on historical pass kilometres, Proc. 5th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress
performance, J. SAIMM, 105, (1), 795–802. mining’, (ed. M. van Sint Jan and Y. Potvin), October 2010,
Kaiser, P. K. and Kim, B.-H. 2008. Rock mechanics challenges in Santiago, Chile, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 3–15.
underground construction and mining, Proc. 1st SHIRMS, (ed. Mercier-Langevin, F. and Hadjigeorgiou, J. 2010. Towards a better
Y. Potvin et al.), Vol. 1, Mining and civil, September 2009, Perth, understanding of squeezing potential in hard rock mines, Proc.
Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 23–38. 5th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. M. van Sint

Jan and Y. Potvin), October 2010, Santiago, Chile, Australian Salamon, M. D. G. 1963. Elastic analysis of displacements and stresses
Centre for Geomechanics, 143–154. induced by the mining of seam or reef deposits Part I:
Mercier-Langevin, F. and Turcotte, P. 2006. Expansion at depth of Fundamental principles and basic solutions as derived from
Agnico-Eagle’s La Ronde Division – meeting geotechnical idealized models, J. SAIMM, 64, (4), 128–149.
challenges without compromising production objectives, Proc. Salamon, M. D. G. 1964. Elastic analysis of displacements and stresses
3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. J. induced by the mining of seam or reef deposits. Part II:
Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon), October 2006, Quebec City, Displacement, strain and stress, J. SAIMM, 64, (6), 197–218.
Que., Canada, Université Laval, Section 1. Salamon, M. D. G. 1968. Two-dimensional treatment of problems
Mikula, P. A. and Lee, M. F. 2002. Forecasting and controlling pillar arising from mining tabular deposits in isotropic or transversely
instability at Mt Charlotte Mine, Proc. 1st Int. Semin. on ‘Deep isotropic ground, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 5, (2), 159–185.
and high stress mining’, November 2002, Perth, Australia, Salamon, M. D. G., Ryder, J. A. and Ortlepp, W. D. 1964. An
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Section 24. analogue solution for determining the elastic response of strata
Mogi, K. 2007. Experimental rock mechanics, Leiden, Taylor and surrounding tabular mine excavations, J. SAIMM, 65, (2), 115–
Francis/Balkema. 137.
Morrison, D., Blake, W. and Hedley, D. 2002. 100 years of Sharrock, G., Slade, N., Thin, I. and Duplancic, P. 2002. The
rockbursting in North American hard rock mines, Proc. 1st Int. prediction of stress induced caving on a mining abutment, Proc.
Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, November 2002, Perth, 1st Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, November 2002,
Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Section 2. Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Section
Moss, A., Russell, F. and Jones, C. 2004. Caving and fragmentation at 13.
Palabora: prediction to production, Proc. MassMin 2004, (ed. A. Shi, G.-H. and Goodman, R. E. 1985. Two dimensional discontinuous
Karzulovic and M. Alvaro), August 2004, Santiago, Chile, deformation analysis, Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 9,
Instituto de Ingenieros de Chile, 585–590. (6), 541–556.
O’Connor, C., Cotesta, L., Brummer, R. and Thibodeau, D. 2010. Simser, B. P. 2006. Strategic and tactical approaches for mining at
Non-linear modelling calibration process for Vale nickel mines depth at Xstrata’s Craig Mine, Proc. Third Int. Semin. on ‘Deep
Ontario division, Proc. 5th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress and high stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon),
mining’, (ed. M. van Sint Jan and Y. Potvin), October 2010, October 2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval,
Santiago, Chile, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 521–535. Section 6.
Orrego, C., Cuello, D. and Rojas, E. 2010. Determination of induced Simser, B. P. 2007. The weakest link – ground support observations at
stress condition inside Pilar Norte sector, Proc. 5th Int. Semin. on some Canadian Shield hard rock mines, Proc. 4th Int. Semin. on
‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. M. van Sint Jan and Y. ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. Y. Potvin), November 2007,
Potvin), October 2010, Santiago, Chile, Australian Centre for Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 335–348.
Geomechanics, 155–168. Singh, U., Dixon, R. A. and McArthur, C. 2010. Interaction between a
Pascoe, C., Oddie, M. and Edgar, I. 2008. Panel caving at the propagating cave and an active pit at Telfer Mine – Part I:
Resolution copper project, Proc. MassMin 2008, (ed. H. interaction management, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on ‘Block and
Schunnesson and E. Nordlund), June 2008, Luleå, Sweden, sublevel caving’, (ed. Y. Potvin), April 2010, Perth, Australia,
Luleå University of Technology Press, 35–42. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 307–320.
Phoon, K.-K. and Kulhawy, F. H. 1999. Characterisation of Spottiswoode, S. 2004. A seismic and modelling analysis of dip-pillar
geotechnical variability, Can. Geotechn. J., 36, (4), 612–624. mining, Proc. Second Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress
Pine, R. J. 1992. Risk analysis design in mining geomechanics, Trans. mining’, 23–25 February, Johannesburg, South Africa, SAIMM,
IMM A, 101A, 149–158. 67–78.
Pine, R. J., Coggan, J. S., Flynn, Z. N. and Elmo, D. 2006. The Stacey, T. R. and Gumede, H. 2007. Evaluation of risk of rock fall
development of a new numerical modelling approach for accidents in gold mine stopes based on measured joint data, J.
naturally fractured rock masses, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 39, (5), SAIMM, 107, (5), 345–350.
395–419. Stacey, T. R., Terbrugge, P. J. and Wesseloo, J. 2006. Risk as a rock
Plewman, R. P., Diest, F. H. and Ortlepp, W. D. 1969. The engineering design criterion, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and
development and application of a digital computer method for high stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon),
the solution of strata control problems, J. SAIMM, 70, (2), 33–44. October 2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval,
Potvin, Y. and Slade, N. 2006. Controlling extreme ground deforma- Section 27. Also in Challenges in deep and high stress mining, (ed.
tion: learning from four Australian case studies, Proc. 3rd Int. Y. Potvin et al.), 19–25, Perth, Australian Centre for
Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou Geomechanics.
and M. Grenon), October 2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Standards Australia. 2004. AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk management,
Université Laval, Section 33. Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Potyondy, D. O. and Cundall, P. A. 2004. A bonded-particle model for Standards Australia. 2009. AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk management
rock, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 41, (8), 1329–1364. principles and guidelines, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Pretorius, M. J. 2006. Quantification and management of risk in a deep Starfield, A. M. and Cundall, P. A. 1988. Towards a methodology for
mining environment, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high rock mechanics modelling, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 25, (3),
stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon), October 99–106.
2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval, Section 26. Steffen, O. K. H. 1997. Planning open pit mines on a risk basis, J.
Priest, S. D. and Brown, E. T. 1983. Probabilistic stability analysis of SAIMM, 97, (2), 47–56.
variable rock slopes, Trans. IMM A, 92A, 1–12. Steffen, O. K. H., Contreras, L. F., Terbrugge, P. J. and Venter, J.
Reusch, F. and Beck, D. 2007. Simulating shaft and crusher damage in 2008. A risk evaluation approach for pit slope design, Proc. 42nd
deep mines, Proc. 4th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress US Rock Mechanics Symp. and 2nd US–Canada Rock
mining’, (ed. Y. Potvin), November 2007, Perth, Australia, Mechanics Symp., June–July, San Francisco CA, USA, Paper
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 65–79. ARMA 08-231 (CD-ROM).
Rogers, S., Elmo, D., Webb, G. and Catalan, A. 2010. A discrete Steffen, O. K. H., Terbrugge, P. J., Wesseloo, J. and Venter, J. 2006. A
fracture network based approach to defining in situ, primary and risk consequence approach to open pit design, Proc. Int. Symp.
secondary fragmentation distributions for the Cadia East panel on ‘Stability of rock slopes in open pit mining and civil
cave project, Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. on ‘Block and sublevel caving’, engineering’, April, Cape Town, South Africa, SAIMM, 81–96.
(ed. Y. Potvin), April 2010, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre Stephansson, O., Jing, L. and Tsang, C.-F. (eds.) 1996. Coupled
for Geomechanics, 425–439. thermo-hydro-mechanical processes of fractured media,
Ryder, J. A. and Jager, A. J. (eds.) 2002. Rock mechanics for tabular Amsterdam, Elsevier.
hard rock mines, Johannesburg, SIMRAC. Summers, J. 2000. Analysis and management of mining risk, Proc.
Sainsbury, D. P., Hart, R. D., Detournay, C. L. and Nelson, M. J. MassMin 2000, (ed. G. Chitombo), October–November 2000,
(eds.) 2011. Continuum and distinct element numerical modeling Brisbane, Australia, Australasian Institute of Mining and
in geomechanics – 2011 (Proc. 2nd Int. FLAC/DEM Symp.), Metallurgy, 63–79.
February 2011, Melbourne, Australia, Itasca International Inc. Suorineni, F. T., Dusseault, M. B. and Brummer, R. K. 1995.
Sakurai, S. 1993. Back analysis in rock engineering, Comprehensive Probabilistic risk and reliability evaluation of ground control
rock engineering, (ed. J. A. Hudson et al.), 543–569, Oxford, practices in underground mining: the safety and economic
Pergamon Press. implications, Proc. 35th US Symp. on ‘Rock mechanics’, (ed.

J. J. K. Daeman and R. A. Schultz), June, Reno, USA, Balkema, Mechanics Symp., (ed. J.-C. Roegiers), July 1991, Norman OK,
579–584. USA, Balkema, 1037–1047.
Swan, G., Carlisle, S., Maybee, G., Pritchard, C., Sampson-Forsythe, Valley, B., Bahrani, N. and Kaiser, P. K. 2010a. Rock strength
A., Simser, B. and Counter, D. 2006. Ground support systems for obtained from core samples and borehole wall instabilities – the
high stress conditions: theory vs experience, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. effect of drilling induced damage, Rock mechanics in civil and
on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou and M. environmental engineering, Proc. European Rock Mechanics
Grenon), October 2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Symp. 2010, (ed. J. Zhao et al.), June 2010, Lausanne,
Laval, Section 37. Switzerland, CRC Press/Balkema, 331–334.
Sweeney, D. and Scoble, M. 2006. Back analysis of risk and boundary Valley, B., Kaiser, P. K. and Duff, D. 2010b. Consideration of
condition and decision analysis applied to deep mining, Proc. 3rd uncertainty in modelling the behaviour of underground excava-
Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. J. tions, Proc. 5th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed.
Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon), October 2006, Quebec City, M. van Sint Jan and Y. Potvin), October 2010, Santiago, Chile,
Que., Canada, Université Laval, Section 28. Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 423–436.
Tapia, A., Contreras, L. F., Jeffries, M. and Steffen, O. 2007. Risk Valley, B., Kim, B.-H., Sourineni, F. T., Bahrani, N., Bewick, R. P. and
evaluation of slope failure at the Chuquicamata Mine, Proc. Int. Kaiser, P. K. 2011. Influence of confinement dependent failure
Symp. on ‘Rock slope stability in open pit mining and civil processes on rock mass strength at depth, Harmonising rock
engineering’, (ed. Y. Potvin.), September 2007, Perth WA, engineering and the environment, Proc. 12th ISRM Cong., (ed. Q.
Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 477–495. Qian and Y. X. Zhou), October 2011, Beijing, China, CRC Press/
Tarasov, B. G. 2008a. Intersonic shear rupture mechanism, Int. J. Rock Balkema, 855–860.
Mech. Min. Sci., 45, (6), 914–928. Valley, B., Suorineni, F. T. and Kaiser, P. K. 2010c. Numerical
Tarasov, B. G. 2008b. New insight into the nature of shear rupture analyses of the effect of heterogeneities on rock failure process,
propagation in pristine rocks and pre-existing faults, Proc. 1st Proc. 44th US Rock Mechanics Symp. and 5th US–Canada Rock
SHIRMS, (ed. Y. Potvin et al.), Vol. 2, Fundamental and Mechanics Symp., June 2010, Salt Lake City UT, USA, Paper
petroleum, September 2009, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre ARMA 10-468 (CD-ROM).
for Geomechanics, 37–68. Villaescusa, E., Li, J., Baird, G. and Seto, M. 2002. Stress measurement
Tarasov, B. G. 2010. Superbrittleness of rocks at high confining from oriented core in Australia, Proc. 1st Int. Semin. on ‘Deep
pressure, Proc. 5th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, and high stress mining’, November 2002, Perth, Australia,
(ed. M. van Sint Jan and Y. Potvin), October 2010, Santiago, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Section 37.
Chile, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 119–133. von Kármán, T. 1911. Festigkeitsversuche unter allseitigem Druck,
Tarasov, B. G. 2011. Experimental evidences of dramatic embrittlement Zeitschrift Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, 55, 1749–1757.
of hard rocks due to rising confining pressure at triaxial
Watson, B. P., Kuijpers, J. S., Henry, G., Palmer, C. E. and Ryder,
compression, Harmonising rock engineering and the environment
J. A. 2009. Nonlinear rock behaviour and its implications for
(Proc. 12th ISRM Cong.), (ed. Q. Qian and Y. X. Zhou), October
deeper level platinum mining, J. SAIMM, 108, (1), 5–13.
2011, Beijing, China, CRC Press/Balkema, 845–849.
Whitman, R. V. 1984. Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical
Tarasov, B. G. and Dyskin, A. V. 2005. The phenomenon of
engineering: 17th Terzaghi Lecture, J. Geotechn. Eng., 110, (2),
anomalous rock embrittlement, Controlling seismic risk (Proc.
145–188.
6th Int. Symp. on ‘Rockburst and seismicity in mines’), (ed. Y.
Wiles, T. D. 2007. Evidence based model calibration for reliable
Potvin and M. Hudyma), March 2005, Perth, Australia, ACG,
predictions, Proc. 4th Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress
311–317.
mining’, (ed. Y. Potvin), November 2007, Perth, Australia,
Tarasov, B. G. and Ortlepp, W. D. 2007. Shock loading-unloading
mechanism in rockburst shear fractures in quartzite causing
genesis of polyhedral sub-particles in the fault gouge, Proc. 4th Windsor, C., Cavieres, P., Villaescusa, E. and Periera, J. 2006.
Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. Y. Potvin), Reconciliation of strain, structure and stress in the El Teniente
November 2007, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for Mine region, Chile, In-situ rock stress: measurement, interpreta-
Geomechanics, 183–192. tion and applications (Proc. Int. Symp. on ‘In-situ rock stress’,
Tarasov, B. G. and Randolph, M. F. 2007. Paradoxical features of (ed. M. Lu et al.), June 2006, Trondheim, Norway, Taylor and
primary shear fractures and general faults, Proc. 4th Int. Semin. Francis, 244–260.
on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. Y. Potvin), November Windsor, C. R. 2009. Rock stress measurements in upper Earth’s crust,
2007, Perth, Australia, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, 165– Proc. 2009 Australian Mining Technology Conf. on ‘Technology
182. solutions for challenging financial times’, (ed. P. Knights and P.
Tarasov, B. G. and Randolph, M. F. 2008. Frictionless shear at great Lever), October 2009, Brisbane, Australia, AusIMM (CD-ROM).
depth and other paradoxes of hard rocks, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Wittke, W. 1977. Static analysis for underground openings in jointed
Sci., 45, (3), 316–328. rock, Numerical methods in geotechnical engineering, (ed. C. S.
Tarasov, B. G. and Randolph, M. F. 2011. Superbrittleness of rocks Desai and J. T. Christian), 589–638, New York, McGraw–Hill.
and earthquake activity, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 48, (6), Wittke, W. 1990. Rock mechanics: theory and applications with case
888–898. histories, Berlin, Springer.
Taylor, J. T. M. 1962–63. Research on ground control and rockbursts Yao, M. and Moreau-Verlan, L. 2010. Strategies for mining in highly
on the Kolar Goldfield, India, Trans. IMM A, 72, 317–338 burst-prone ground conditions at Vale Garson Mine, Proc. 5th
Terbrugge, P. J., Wesseloo, J., Venter, J. and Steffen, O. K. H. 2006. A Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and high stress mining’, (ed. M. van Sint Jan
risk consequence approach to open pit slope design, J. SAIMM, and Y. Potvin), October 2010, Santiago, Chile, Australian Centre
106, (7), 503–511. for Geomechanics, 549–560.
Thin, I., Windsor, C., Villaescusa, E. and Stone, C. 2006. Yun, X., Mitri, H. S. and Yang, X. 2011. Empirical failure criterion for
Understanding the stress environment for the Perseverance biaxially loaded rock, Harmonising rock engineering and the
Deeps Pre-feasibility Study, Proc. 3rd Int. Semin. on ‘Deep and environment, Proc. 12th ISRM Cong., (ed. Q. Qian and Y. X.
high stress mining’, (ed. J. Hadjigeorgiou and M. Grenon), Zhou), October, Beijing, China, CRC Press/Balkema, 909–914.
October 2006, Quebec City, Que., Canada, Université Laval, Yun, X., Mitri, H. S., Yang, X. and Wang, Y. 2010. Experimental
Section 10. investigation into biaxial compressive strength of granite, Int. J.
Tyler, D. B., Trueman, R. and Pine, R. J. 1991. Rockbolt support Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 47, (2), 334–341.
design using a probabilistic method of key block analysis, in Rock Zienkiewicz, O. C. 1977. The finite element method, 3rd edn, London,
Mechanics as a Multidisciplinary Science, Proc. 32nd US Rock McGraw–Hill.

Progress and Challenges in Some Areas of Deep Mining

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress and Challenges in Some Areas of Deep Mining

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Progress and Challenges in Some Areas of Deep Mining

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mining Technology

Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy: Section A

ISSN: 1474-9009 (Print) 1743-2863 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymnt20

Progress and challenges in some areas of deep

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/1743286312Y.0000000012

Published online: 22 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1000

View related articles

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Introduction N longwall coal mining

Deep and high stress mining methods Geomechanics risks

ß 2012 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, The University of Western Australia

1 Risk evaluation process (Stacey et al., 2006)

178 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4

Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 179

now the usual case in which mining is mechanised, the

180 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4

Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 181

182 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4

Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 183

6 Typical variations in fracture pattern with conﬁning pressure s3 (Tarasov, 2010)

184 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4

Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 185

186 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4

Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 187

188 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4

Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 189

190 Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4

Mining Technology 2012 VOL 121 NO 4 191

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.