See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282718287

Rock support design in burst-prone ground utilizing an interactive design tool

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS
5 455

3 authors, including:

M. Cai P. K. Kaiser
Laurentian University Laurentian University
153 PUBLICATIONS 5,951 CITATIONS 212 PUBLICATIONS 9,348 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Strength of Veined Brittle Rocks View project

A study of pillars instability in deep underground mines (NSERC Discovery Grants Program) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by M. Cai on 28 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARMA 12-599

Rock support design in burst-prone ground utilizing an interactive design

tool
Cai, M.
Bharti School of Engineering, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Kaiser, P.K. and Duff, D. J.
Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Copyright 2012 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 46 US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in Chicago, IL, USA, 24-27 June
2012.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: As mining and civil tunneling progresses to depth, excavation-induced seismicity and rockburst problems increase
and cannot be prevented. As an important line of defense, ground control measures and burst-resistant rock support are used to
prevent or minimize damage to excavations and thus to enhance workplace safety. Rock support in burst-prone ground differs
from conventional rock support where controlling gravity-induced rockfalls and managing shallow zones of loose rock is the main
target. Rock support in burst-prone ground needs to resist dynamic loads and large rock dilation due to violent rock failure. After
reviewing the rockburst phenomenon, types of rockbursts, damage mechanisms, and rockburst support design acceptability
criteria, this paper introduces an interactive design tool for conducting rockburst support design in underground mines.

Rockburst risk can often be reduced by selecting

1. INTRODUCTION appropriate mining or excavation methods and
As the depth of mining and underground construction sequences, and by strategically placing developments
increases, stress-induced rock fracturing is inevitable and and other infrastructure. However, due to uncertainties in
in some cases rocks can fail violently, leading to seismic rock mass properties and boundary conditions (e.g., in-
events and rockbursts. A rockburst is defined as damage situ stress, fault zone distribution), all engineering
to an excavation that occurs in a sudden or violent design, calculations, and seismicity monitoring will have
manner and is associated with a seismic event [1, 2]. to rely on ground control measures and burst-resistant
Many hard rock mines in Canada, China, Chile, South rock support as an important line of defense to ensure
Africa, Australia, Sweden, and other countries, and some underground safety. For this reason, it is imperative to
deep civil tunnels in Switzerland, China, and Peru have design proper burst-resistant support when mining and
experienced rockbursts to various degrees. tunneling at depth.
Considerable research effort, at an international scale
(e.g., Australia, Canada, South Africa), has been devoted 2. ROCKBURSTING AND ROCKBURST
to the understanding of the rockburst phenomenon. DAMAGE
Various microseismic monitoring systems are in
operation at many mines and tunnel construction sites 2.1. Rockburst phenomenon
around the world. From the waveforms recorded, the Rockburst is a twentieth century phenomenon as the first
time, location, radiated energy, seismic moment and recorded incident occurred in the early 1900s in the gold
other source parameters of a seismic event can be mines in the Witwatersrand, South Africa [3].
estimated. Monitoring of seismic events in mines is a Rockbursting is the result of sudden and violent failure
very useful tool for outlining potentially hazardous of rock. There is a clear linkage between rockburst
ground conditions and assisting mine management in activities and mining depth. As mining migrates to
effective re-entry decision-making. Advanced 3D deeper ground, in-situ stress becomes high and the
numerical modeling and visualization can identify likelihood of rockburst increases drastically. Rockbursts
potentially hazardous areas and assist in mine planning are mostly associated with hard rocks and geological
and design. structures such as faults and dykes and in mining are
often related to high extraction ratios and associated with strainburst comes from the stored elastic strain energy in
mining methods causing unfavorable stress conditions. the failing rock and the surrounding rockmass (not from
the seismic source).
2.2. Types of rockbursts
Ortlepp and Stacey [4] and Ortlepp [5] classified During tunnel and shaft construction, strainbursts
rockbursts into five types (strainburst, buckling, face normally occur within three diameters of the opening
crush/pillar burst, shear rupture, fault-slip burst). In a from the face. Such strainbursts can also occur right at
broad sense, buckling type rockbursts can be grouped the tunnel face and in the floor. In mining, stress changes
into strainbursts and shear rupture type rockbursts can be in the drifts may occur after development due to stoping
considered as fault slip rockbursts. For brevity of activities; consequently, mining-induced strainbursts can
discussion, we consider here three rockburst types, i.e., happen at the production stage. Delayed strainbursts
strainburst, pillar burst, and fault-slip burst. Rockbursts occur in situations where the maximum principal stress
are either mining-induced by energy release causing remains constant but the rock strength degrades over
damage at the source (e.g., strainburst without time, or the rock strength reduces due to loss of
significant dynamic stress increase from a remote confinement.
seismic event) or dynamically-induced rock bursts with Due to a possibly unstable equilibrium situation near an
damage caused by energy transfer or dynamic stress excavation, strainbursts may be triggered by a small
increase from a remote seismic event (e.g., strainburst dynamic disturbance, a production blast, a remote pillar
with dynamic stress increase caused by a remote seismic burst, or a remote fault slip event. For such dynamically-
event). triggered strainbursts, little or none of the released
2.2.1 Strainburst energy stems from the trigger event.
Rock mass failure occurs when the excavation-induced 2.2.2 Pillar burst
stress exceeds the peak strength of the rock mass. In Pillar burst, as the name implies, is defined as a violent
many mines, strainbursts are the most common rockburst failure in the pillar core or the complete collapse of a
type; they can be mining-induced due to static stress pillar, whether in a room, post, crown, rib, or sill pillar.
change caused by near-by mining or dynamically- Pillar bursts often occur in deep mines when the
induced due to dynamic stress increase caused by a extraction ratio is high at a later stage of mining. The
remote seismic event (called dynamically-induced volume of failed rock and the affected surrounding
strainbursts). An example of strainburst damage is rockmass is usually larger than that involved in a
shown in Fig. 1. strainburst and hence the released seismic energy is
Two conditions must be met for a strainburst to occur. higher.
Firstly, tangential stress (maximum principal stress) Similar to strainburst, pillar burst can be classified into
must be able to build up in the immediate skin of the mining-induced pillar burst and dynamically-induced
excavation. Secondly, the rockmass surrounding the pillar burst. A mining-induced pillar burst is caused by
fracturing rock must create a relatively “soft” loading static stress increase from increased room span or near-
environment such that the rock fails locally in an by stope extraction. The seismic source is in the
unstable, violent manner. The energy released by a confined core of the pillar and rockburst damage and
seismic source is co-located. On the other hand, a
dynamically-induced pillar burst is caused by dynamic
stress increase from a remote seismic event. In this case,
the rockburst damage and the seismic source (e.g., fault-
slip event) are not co-located.
2.2.3 Fault-slip burst
A fault-slip burst is damage caused by the dynamic
slippage along a pre-existing fault or along a newly
generated shear rupture. A critically stressed fault, with
shear stresses exceeding the shear strength, can slip
when the degree of freedom is changed as it is
intersected by a mine opening. Alternatively, it may slip
when the shear strength is reduced due to a drop in
clamping stress. Finally, it may slip when the mining-
induced shear stress is increased and exceeds the
Fig. 1 An example of strainburst damage to a supported strength of the fault, which is a function of the normal
excavation. stress, the coefficient of friction of the fault surface, its
waviness or dilation characteristics, and, in the case of this process, the broken rock volume increases as it is
fracture propagation, the strength of the rockmass. fractured and fragmented.
Similar to pillar burst, fault-slip rockbursts occur in deep Rock ejection can be caused either by a strainburst
mines when the extraction ratio is high and large event, a pillar burst event, or by a remote seismic event
closures are allowed to persist over large mining through dynamic moment transfer. Ejected rock may
volumes. The most plausible cause of fault-slip along a travel at velocities in excess of 3 m/s; velocities up to 10
pre-existing fault is the reduction of normal stress acting m/s were estimated by Ortlepp and Stacey [4]. The upper
on the fault as a result of near-by mining although an end of this ejection velocity range cannot be explained
increase of shear stress or a combination of normal stress by the moment transfer damage mechanism alone. When
decrease and shear stress increase can similarly cause a rock suddenly fractures, part of the stored strain energy
fault to slip. This type of rockburst releases a large in the surrounding rocks can be transferred to blocks in
amount of seismic energy, coming from the the form of kinetic energy, causing rock ejection. With
instantaneous relaxation of elastic strain stored in a very high strain energy stored in the rock near the excavation,
large volume of highly stressed rock surrounding the slip the stress wave from a remote seismic event may add a
or rupture area. They may create sufficiently high dynamic stress disturbance and cause a strainburst
ground vibrations or ground motions that can cause (“bring the bucket to overflow”). In this case, the
damage to excavations (dynamically-induced ejection velocity is not directly related to the momentum
strainbursts), cause shake down of loose or insufficiently from the seismic source but more closely related to the
supported rock, and/or trigger strainburst and pillar burst energy stored in the near-wall rock and how this stored
at relatively remote locations (hundreds of meters from energy is released.
the seismic source).
Seismically-induced rockfalls, as the name suggests, are
Shear rupture type rockbursts have been observed in caused by the (low frequency) shaking of ground due to
some mines, particularly in South African mines [5, 6]. a large remote seismic event, perhaps induced by a pillar
Large rockbursts, with Richter magnitude exceeding mL burst or a fault-slip rockburst. It occurs when an
= 3.5, can result from violent propagation of shear incoming seismic wave accelerates a volume of rock that
fracture through intact rocks. Ortlepp [5] strongly was previously stable under static loading conditions,
advocated shear rupture as one of the most important causing forces that overcome the capacity of the support
source mechanisms for major rockbursts. There is system. Note that it is also possible that the first
however a possibility that his bias is in part influenced incoming seismic wave may fracture a volume of rock,
by the relatively soft mining system stiffness and subsequent vibration induced by the seismic waves
encountered in tabular orebodies in South Africa. accelerate the fractured rocks, causing falls of ground.
Seismically-induced rockfalls occur frequently at
intersections where the span is large and roof rock
2.3. Rockburst damage mechanism confinement is low.
Understanding the rockburst source mechanism is
critical to derive strategies to eliminate and mitigate
rockburst hazard, and a thorough understanding of the 2.4. Factors influencing rockburst damage
rockburst damage mechanism is needed to work out
tactics to implement rockburst support. Damage mechanism Damage severity Required
support functions
Kaiser et al. [2] classified rockburst damage into three < 0.25
0 25 m
types, i.e., rock bulking due to fracturing, rock ejection
due to seismic energy transfer, and rockfalls induced by Rock bulking Minor
seismic shaking (see Fig. 2). Rock bulking due to rock due tto fracturing
d f t i

fracturing can be caused by both a remote seismic event

and the bursting event itself. Brittle rock fracturing Reinforce
< 0.75 m
occurs as a result of crack and fracture initiation,
Rock ejection
propagation, and coalescence. This leads to the due to strainburst
generation of new fracture surfaces in a previously intact or seismic energy Moderate Hold
transfer
or less fractured media and, as a consequence, this
rockmass disintegration leads to rock mass bulking. This Retain
< 1.5 m
bulking process is in large part a result of geometric
block incompatibilities and thus is much larger than Seismically-induced
rockfall Major
dilation during rockmass yielding. Most importantly, it
Fig. 2 Rockburst damage mechanism, damage severity, and
is directional, perpendicular to the excavation wall. In required support functions (modified from Kaiser et al. [2]).
There are many factors that influence rockburst damage section, we discuss how to design rock support systems
and the severity of the damage [1, 2, 7-9]. Fig. 3 for highly stressed, burst-prone tunnels.
summarizes the main factors and groups them into four
categories – seismic event, geology, geotechnical, and
mining. Factors in the first two groups (seismic event 3. ROCKBURST SUPPORT DESIGN
and geology) determine the intensity of dynamic load at
the damage locations, and the factors in the last two
3.1. Rock support functions
The mechanics of rock support is complex, and no
groups (geotechnical and mining) determine site
models exist that can fully explain the interaction of
response due to seismic impulses. Rockburst damage is
many support components in a rock support system.
therefore governed by a combination of these factors.
Nevertheless, Kaiser et al. [2] summarized three key
When the size of an opening is large or when multiple support functions as: (1) reinforce the rockmass to
openings are created close to each other, the chance of strengthen it and to control bulking, (2) retain broken
having a rockburst is greatly increased due to the rock to prevent fractured block failure and unraveling,
reduction of loading stiffness. Hence, excavation or and (3) hold fractured blocks and securely tie back the
yield zone geometry can also influence the rockburst retaining element(s) to stable ground.
propensity.
The goal of reinforcing the rockmass using rockbolts is
When geological weaknesses, such as faults or shears, or not only to strengthen it, thus enabling the rockmass to
stress raisers, such as dykes, are nearby, the released support itself [10] but also to control the bulking
energy may often be larger because these geological process, as rockbolts prevent fractures from propagating
structures tend to create unfavorable stress and loading and opening up. Fully grouted rebars, threadbars, or
system conditions, e.g., by involving large rock volumes cablebolts are ideal for rock reinforcement.
in the deformation and failure process.
Under high stress conditions, fractured rocks between
Rockburst damage severity is often classified by the the reinforcing/holding elements may unravel if they are
depth of failure or the volume of rock failed and the not properly retained. Widely used retaining elements
degree of damage to the installed rock support system. A are wire mesh, reinforced shotcrete, strap, steel arch, or
three-class (minor, moderate, major) classification can cast-in concrete. Shotcrete needs to be reinforced by
be found in Fig. 2. fiber or mesh to increase its tensile strength and
It is interesting to note from Fig. 3 that many factors, toughness. Mesh-reinforced shotcrete or mesh over
such as mining sequence, excavation span, and installed shotcrete has an important retaining function under
rock support system are in the mining activity category. rockburst conditions. In conventional rock support
These factors are created by mining operations, and systems, the retaining element is often the weakest link.
hence working on these factors provides us the A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If we want
manageable means to reduce and control rockburst to increase the overall capacity of the rock support
damage potential. There are many methods to achieve system, the problem of weak retaining function must be
this goal, such as changing the mining method, altering addressed.
the mining sequence, changing drift locations, etc. This When a brittle rock fails, it is always associated with
is where having a good underground construction large rock dilation or bulking. When a seismic event
strategy will pay off quickly. It should be pointed out occurs, rocks can be subjected to large impact energy.
that having a good construction strategy is not enough When a rock fails in an unstable manner, the stored
and there must be a rockburst support plan implemented strain energy can be released, leading to rock ejection.
in addition. The importance of having effective rock Therefore, the installed rock support system must be
support systems in bursting ground has been able to absorb dynamic energy while also
demonstrated by numerous case histories. In the next accommodating large static and dynamic rock
deformation due to rock failure and associated bulking.
The holding function is needed to tie retaining elements
of the support system and loose rock back to stable
ground, to dissipate dynamic energy due to rock ejection
and rock movement, and to prevent gravity-driven falls
of ground. When rockburst damage is anticipated,
yielding holding elements such as conebolts and high
capacity friction bolts must be used in the support
system. A yielding support system is able to tolerate
large tunnel convergence without “self-destruction”
Fig. 3 Main factors influencing rockburst damage. while at the same time absorbing large dynamic energy,
thus providing necessary support to ensure safety while has to be used to reduce the demand to realistic support
maintaining serviceability of the tunnel. A yielding rock load capacities.
support system is a system in harmony with its
surrounding rock mass.
(b) Displacement criterion

The reinforcement, retaining, and holding functions do Even when rock support systems are installed, rock
fracturing cannot be prevented when the stress is high.
not act independently. These support functions are
When a rock fractures, it significantly increases its
achieved by various rock support elements that are well
volume as it bulks. Near the excavation boundary,
connected, forming an integrated rock support system.
volume increase in the tangential, loading direction is
The connection between the retaining elements and the
reinforcing and holding elements deserves special restrained and the fractured rocks can only deform in the
attention to ensure optimal overall capacity of the “radial” direction, leading to large bulking deformations
at the wall. Hence, the installed rock support system
support system. Fig. 2 illustrates that all three support
must have sufficient displacement capacity to meet or
functions are needed in an effective rockburst support
exceed the displacement demand. The displacement
system no matter what the rockburst damage mechanism
or damage severity is. factor of safety (FSDisp) is defined by:
Support Disp. Capacity
3.2. Rockburst support design acceptability FS Disp = (2)
Disp. Demand
criteria
Rock support in burst-prone ground differs from (c) Energy criterion
conventional rock support where controlling gravity-
induced rockfalls and managing shallow zones of loose When a rock block is ejected from the excavation
rock is the main concern. In addition to these design boundary, it possesses kinetic energy. If a rockfall is
issues, rock support in burst-prone ground needs to resist triggered, the energy demand is increased by the change
dynamic loading and large rock bulking due to violent in potential energy. Hence, the designed energy
rock failure. absorption capacity of the support system must meet or
exceed the energy demand. The energy factor of safety
The classical approach used in engineering design (FSEnergy) is defined by:
considers the relationship between the capacity (strength
Support Energy Capacity
or resisting force) of the support element and the FSEnergy =
demand (stress or disturbing force). Rock support design Energy Demand (3)
for burst-prone ground can follow the same approach but
the capacities must also be defined in terms of load, When a rock with mass m is ejected from the tunnel roof
displacement, and energy dissipation capacities. First, at an ejection velocity of ve, the support system with a
the expected loading condition or demand on the support large displacement capacity contains the ejected rock
is determined and, second, various support elements are after a displacement of ds, the energy demand is [2]:
dimensioned and then integrated into a support system to 1
achieve a support capacity that exceeds the anticipated E = mve2 + mgds
2 (4)
demand. The demand is influenced by many factors,
such as opening size and shape, rock mass properties, in- where g is the gravitational acceleration. Hence, the
situ stress level and orientation, seismic source type and support system for rock failing in the roof must be able
characteristics, stress wave magnification, support to absorb this amount of kinetic energy.
conditions and properties, etc. In burst-prone ground, the
(d) System compatibility criterion
following four design acceptance criteria need to be
simultaneously considered. Not all of them may be The previous three design criteria, i.e., load,
critical and thus not all will, in a given case, affect the displacement, and energy criteria, are intended for the
final support system. design of reinforcement and support holding elements.
However, these elements can only work to achieve their
(a) Force criterion design capacity if the surface support elements are
The load factor of safety (FSLoad) is defined by: strong and can effectively transfer the loads to the
reinforcement and holding elements. There is a strong
Support Load Capacity
FS Load = (1) interaction between the reinforcement/holding elements
Load Demand and the surface support elements, i.e., the capacity of the
reinforcement/holding elements depends on the capacity
In general, the force criterion covers the design for both of the surface support elements, and the capacity of the
static and dynamic loads. Under dynamic loading surface support elements also depends on the capacity of
conditions, the dynamic acceleration will increase the the reinforcement/holding elements.
load demand significantly and a yielding support system
An optimal rock support system is one with compatible determined. Support selection for rockburst conditions is
and balanced support elements where all support selected on the basis of the load–displacement
elements work in harmony to contribute their capacities characteristics of the support system and the expected
to the fullest. The holding and the surface retaining nature and severity of rockmass failure, by combining
elements’ capacity of the system must be compatible to different holding, reinforcing, and retaining elements
rock load and rock deformation, and holding element’s and ensuring the overall integrity of the support system.
capacity must be compatible to the surface retaining This is achieved by considering compatible support
element’s capacity. In design, it is difficult to calculate elements to form an integrated rock support system,
the demand for surface support elements. Hence, thereby eliminating the weakest link in the system. A
empirical design methods are often used but it is satisfactory design can rarely be achieved in one step,
important to ensure that the load, displacement, and but instead demanding various iterations and
energy capacities of surface support are compatible to comparisons of design options.
those of the reinforcement/holding elements.
3.4. Rockburst support design tool
3.3. Rockburst support design procedure
Mine infrastructures are complex and 3D in nature.
As explained above, rockburst support design is to meet
Presently in mining practice, either rockburst support is
the load, displacement, and energy demands with
selected based on site specific or global experience or
appropriate support capacities, under given ground and
the design is performed using a simplistic spreadsheet
excavation conditions.
calculation. However, rock support design cannot be
Geological and geotechnical data are the foundation for carried out in a systematic manner without taking into
all mine and tunnel design. Because rock mass behavior account geometric complexity from mine excavations
can vary drastically in a mine or along a tunnel, it is and geological complexities. Furthermore, when
necessary to establish rock mass domains according to performing such time and effort consuming designs
varying geological, geometrical, and seismic data manually, costly mistakes can be made if attention is not
considerations. First, rock mass zones (or blocks) are paid to the interaction of the various influence factors
typically divided into domains based on seismic reviewed above.
activities, which is mostly influenced by mining
A design tool called BurstSupport is being developed at
activities. Next, within each domain, sub-zones are
Laurentian University, Canada, with support from CEMI
identified within which the key engineering design
(Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation) and
parameters are comparable. The most common
several mining companies (see acknowledgements) to
parameters are in situ or mining-induced stress,
address the needs of industry. This tool is in the
lithology, intact rock strength, discontinuity frequency,
prototype stage and encapsulates some of the research
and rock mass quality.
findings from the Canadian Rockburst Support
In each design domain, one needs to estimate the Handbook [2] and integrates many recent research
anticipated seismic event magnitude and event location outcomes from other investigators. As well, it facilitates
as well as potential rockburst damage mechanisms, and the interactive iterative process of rockburst support
calculate the load, displacement, and energy demands on design. Parties potentially interested in the tool are
the rock support for the dominant rockburst damage invited to contact the authors.
mechanism. It is often difficult to know in advance
BurstSupport is a standalone Windows based software
which type of rockburst damage mechanism is likely to
tool which enables the user to assess load, displacement,
occur and the expected damage severity of that damage
and energy demands at multiple drift locations by
mechanism. Hence, all three rockburst damage
considering anticipated event magnitude and location,
mechanisms need to be analyzed separately before the
in-situ stress conditions, drift orientation, and rock mass
critical support demand can be identified. Then, the best
quality simultaneously. Furthermore, 3D mine structures
decision on rock support system selection can be made
and geological structures can be imported into the tool
in view of the worst-case scenario. Furthermore, it can
for easy manipulation such as rotation, zoom, pan, etc.
be assessed whether rock support should be designed to
The screenshot presented in Fig. 4 shows the
prevent the initiation of damage or whether the rock
development stage user interface of the tool. Being able
support system must be designed to control the failure
to effectively display 3D geometries, the tool stands as a
process with related energy release.
3D visualization platform for data fusion and integration.
Next, one will have to examine all available rock support
As shown in Fig. 4, the user can specify a design seismic
elements and pick the best combination of the support
event or multiple seismic events (shown as balls in the
elements to form an integrated rock support system with
figure) which may occur in the mine during operation
the desired support capacities exceeding the anticipated
and calculate resultant peak particle velocities (ppv)
load, displacement, and energy demands previously
along the drifts that require rockburst support
 node along the drift centrelines can be imported into the
BurstSupport tool. Maximum tangential stress in a plane
perpendicular to the drift axis is found and the depth of
failure is estimated using the empirical method described
in Kaiser et al. [2] and Martin et al. [14].
Event-2 A convenient feature of the tool is that the user is able to
manually select rock support systems with defined
support capacities and assign the rock support pattern to
a specific section of the drift visually. Suggested values
of load, displacement, and energy capacities of most
Event-1 commercially available rockbolts are included but the
user has the freedom to modify or define support
properties as well (Fig. 5). Through an interactive,
iterative process of adjusting rock support type and bolt
spacing, the factors of safety for load, displacement, and
energy can be checked to meet the minimums required.
Fig. 4 Calculated ppv visualized on mine drifts. One example of calculated factor of safety for the energy
demand is presented in Fig. 6. The result shows that the
consideration. The calculation of ppv is based on the lowest factor of safety for the energy demand is 2.45,
scaling law given by Kaiser et al. [2] as because high energy absorption rockbolts (with an
* energy capacity of 25 kJ at a 1 × 1 m2 pattern) are
M 0a
ppv = C * , (5) applied. If rockbolts with a 10 kJ energy capacity are
R used, the minimum factor of safety is 0.98 at one drift
where M0 is the seismic moment in GN⋅m, R is the section. In this fashion, we can address the rockburst
distance between the drift location and the seismic damage problem proactively by prescribing cost-
source in m, and a* and C* are empirical constants. effective rock support systems to the mine drifts.
Seismic moment can be related to the event magnitude. As illustrated above, an optimal support design strategy
Based on the analysis of seismic data from a global is obtained following an iterative process wherein the
database, it was found that a* in Eq. (5) should be fixed tool assists in achieving optimization and verification
at a* = 0.5 and C* values are determined from log (R⋅ppv) tasks effectively. Another useful feature of the tool is the
vs. log (M0∆σ) plots with a reasonable upper-bound limit statistical analysis of prescribed rock support for the
(e.g., at 95% confidence level), where ∆σ is stress drop. drifts such as total numbers of rock support in one
The ppv values shown Fig. 4 are calculated using the particular section of the drift so as to facilitate mine
scaling law with two seismic events whose Richter planning. For example, the total numbers of rockbolts in
magnitudes are mL = 3.0 (event-1) and 2.0 (event-2), one mine level can be found easily from the statistical
respectively. The maximum ppv due to each event at a
drift location is shown in the figure.
Alternatively, the tool allows direct import of ppv values
to the drift locations, calculated using the synthetic
ground motion (SGM) approach. The SGM technique
was widely used in earthquake study [11] and has
attracted some attention in mining [12, 13]. The SGM
approach generates the modeled near-field waveforms
by considering fault-slip mechanism, stress drop, slip
direction, slip time, and slip amount. The source waves
are then propagated in the media by a nonlinear site
response analysis using 3D numerical models which can
effectively consider the influence of excavations,
geological structures, and mining-induced stress changes
on wave propagation. Accurate ppv or ppa at the drift
locations can be obtained from the numerical analyses.
Mining-induced stresses influence the depth of failure
and hence the required amount of rock support. Stress
analysis can be performed using an external 3D FEM, Fig. 5 Screen shot of defining rock support window.
FDM, or BEM tool and stress component values on each
analysis. 4. CONCLUSIONS
Rockbursting is a complex natural and mining-induced
3.5. Design verification phenomenon occurring in deep underground
Although some model-based design and numerical construction. Much effort has been put into research to
methods are used, rock support system design for understand why it happens and to anticipate where it will
underground excavations is largely dependent on happen. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of rock
empirical methods and practical experience. Because of mass and the boundary conditions, we still do not have
the uncertainties associated with design, it is difficult to great confidence in predictive means and reality
arrive at a cost-effective design based on these methods repeatedly reminds us of current deficiencies. As mining
alone. progresses to greater depths, violent rock failure cannot
be avoided and it will have to be dealt with on a routine
The observational design approach, advocated by Peck
basis by implementing rockburst resistant support
[15], is recommended for use in rockburst support
strategies.
design as well. The fundamental principles of the
observational design approach include avoiding difficult The first important step that leads to mastering the
ground conditions, letting the rock support itself [10], science and art of rockburst support design is to
conducting robust design, having an adequate field understand rockburst mechanisms and identify major
monitoring plan, having plans for contingency measures, factors that influence rockburst damage. Next, it is
and adjusting construction methods according to imperative to understand the three important functions of
exposed condition. Observational methods utilize rock support – reinforce, retain, and hold. Most
monitoring as an integral part in the rock support system importantly, four design acceptability criteria, i.e., load,
design process. The underlying logic is that a design is displacement, energy, and system compatibility criteria,
not complete until the design assumptions have been must be satisfied in design. By following these design
verified and the structure's performance has been acceptability criteria, a clear distinction between the
matched with performance predictions. rockburst support design and conventional rock support
design is made.
Field monitoring provides input for feedback loops in
the design process. Analysis of microseismic monitoring Finally, realizing that the design procedure for rock
may indicate that the design seismic magnitude and support design in burst-prone ground is iterative, a
location needs adjustment; analysis of convergence data design tool called BurstSupport is under development to
and depth of failure data may suggest that the adopted assist ground control engineers to quickly and
rock mass properties, or even the in-situ stress field, systematically evaluate different rockburst support
needs modification; observation of rock support system options in a user-friendly manner. BurstSupport design
performance may show that the selected support system tool, which considers seismic event and ground motion,
needs modification. The BurstSupport tool can be used as well as rock mass quality and mining-induced
by ground control engineers to conduct this design stresses, assesses the load, displacement, and energy
verification. A rational design combined with field demands, and provides ground control engineers with a
observation and monitoring is the key to the success of new set of tools for mine planning and geomechanics
rockburst support design in burst-prone ground. design. It is envisioned that rockburst risk management
can be significantly improved using the developed tool.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Financial supports from CEMI, LKAB, MIRARCO,
NSERC, VALE, and XSTRATA NICKEL (XN) are
greatly appreciated. Technical advice and direction from
Denis Thibodeau of Vale, Lars Malmgren of LKAB, and
Brad Simser of XN are also thankfully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Hedley, D. G. F. 1992. Rockburst Handbook for

Ontario Hardrock Mines. CANMET Special Report
SP92-1E.
Fig. 6 Factor of safety for shown design events of magnitude
mL = 3.0 and 2.0 energy demand visualized on mine drifts. 2. Kaiser, P. K. , D. D. Tannant, and D. R. McCreath.
1996. Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook.
 Geomechanics Research Centre, Laurentian University,
Sudbury, Ontario.

3. Blake, W. and D. G. F. Hedley. 2003. Rockbursts, case

studies from North American hard-rock mines. SME.

4. Ortlepp, W.D. and T.R. Stacey. 1994. Rockburst

mechanisms in tunnels and shafts. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 9: 1, 59-65.

5. Ortlepp, W. D., Rock Fracture and Rockbursts -- An

Illustrative Study. The South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, 1997), 98p.

6. Ortlepp, W.D. 2000. Observation of mining-induced

faults in an intact rock mass at depth. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 37: 1-2, 423-436.

7. Cai, M. and D. Champaigne. 2009. The art of rock

support in burst-prone ground. Keynote Lecture. In
RaSiM 7: Controlling Seismic Hazard and Sustainable
Development of Deep Mines , 33-46. Rinton Press.

8. Durrheim, J., M.K.C. Roberts, A.T. Haile, T.O. Hagan,

A.J. Jager, M.F. Handley, S.M. Spottiswoode, and
W.D. Ortlepp. 1998. Factors influencing the severity of
rockburst damage in South African gold mines. J. South
Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 53-57.

9. Heal, D., Y. Potvin, and M. Hudyma. 2006. Evaluating

rockburst damage potential in underground mining. In
Golden Rocks 2006, The 41st U.S. Symposium on Rock
Mechanics (USRMS): "50 Years of Rock Mechanics -
Landmarks and Future Challenges" ,

10. Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T., Underground excavations in

rock . (London: Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
1980), 527p.

11. Boore, D.M. 2003. Simulation of Ground Motion Using

the Stochastic Method. Pure and Applied Geophysics
160: 3 , 635-676.

12. Hildyard, M. 2001. Wave interaction with underground

openings in fractured rock. . University of Liverpool.

13. Hildyard, M.W. and A.M. Milev. 2001. Simulated

rockburst experiment: Development of a numerical
model for seismic wave propagation from the blast, and
forward analysis. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 235-
245.

14. Martin, C.D., P.K. Kaiser, and D.R. McCreath. 1999.

Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting the depth of
brittle failure around tunnels. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 36: 1, 136-151.

15. Peck, R.B. 1969. Advantages and limitations of the

observational method in applied soil mechanics.
Geotechnique 19: 2, 171-187.

View publication stats