Discussions on rockburst and dynamic ground support in deep mines

The paper is a summary of discussions on four topics in rockburst and dynamic ground support.Topic 1 is the mechanisms of rockburst.Rockburst events are classified into two categories in accordance with the triggering mechanisms,i.e.strain burst and fault-slip burst.Strain burst occurs on rock surfaces when the tangential stress exceeds the rock strength in hard and brittle rocks.Fault-slip burst is triggered by fault-slip induced seismicity.Topic 2 is prediction and forecasting of rockburst events.Prediction for a rockburst event must tell the location,timing and magnitude of the event.Forecasting could simply foresee the probability of some of the three parameters.It is extremely challenging to predict rockbursts and large seismic events with current knowledge and technologies,but forecasting is possible,for example the possible locations of strain burst in an underground opening.At present,the approach using seismic monitoring and numerical modelling is a promising forecasting method.Topic 3 is preconditioning methods.The current preconditioning methods are blasting,relief-hole drilling and hydrofracturing.Defusing fault-slip seismicity is difficult and challenging but has been achieved.In very deep locations(>3000 m),the fracturing could extend from the excavation face to a deep location ahead of the face and therefore preconditioning is usually not required.Topic 4 is dynamic ground support against rockburst.Dynamic ground support requires that the support system be strong enough to sustain the momentum of the ejecting rock on one hand and tough enough on the other hand to absorb the strain and seismic energies released from the rock mass.The current dynamic support systems in underground mining are composed of yielding tendons and flexible surface retaining elements like mesh/screen and straps.Yielding props and engineered timber props are also used for dynamic support.

Performance of identical rockbolts tested on four dynamic testing rigs employing the direct impact method

Impact drop tests are routinely used to examine the dynamic performance of rockbolts.Numerous impact tests have been carried out in the past decades on independently designed,constructed and operated testing rigs.Each laboratory has developed testing procedures;thus,the results are often reported in different ways by various laboratories.The inconsistency in testing procedures and reporting formats presents a challenge when comparing results from different laboratories.A series of impact tests of identical rockbolts was carried out using the direct impact method(i.e.the mass free-fall method)on the rigs in four laboratories in different countries.The purpose of these tests was to investigate the level of consistency in the results from the four rigs.Each rig demonstrated a high level of repeatability,but differences existed between the various rigs.The differences would suggest that there is noticeable equipment-dependent bias when test results obtained from different laboratories are compared.It was also observed that the energy dissipated for the plastic displacement of the bolt was smaller than the impact energy in the tests.The average impact load(AIL)and the ultimate plastic displacement(D)of the bolt describe the ultimate dynamic performance of the bolt.In the case where the bolt does not rupture,the specific plastic energy(SPE)is an appropriate parameter in describing the impact performance of the bolt.Two other relevant parameters are the first peak load(FPL)and the initial stiffness(K)of the bolt sample.The information from this test series will guide the formulation of standardised testing procedures for dynamic impact tests of rockbolts.