1.

0 INTRODUCTION
With the increasing demand for resources; technological advancements and
innovations in mining and gradual decrease of shallow resource, a large number of mines
have entered into a state of deep resource mining. With the mining depth increasing
gradually, more and more mining hazards phenomenon appears. The remarkably rich and
persistent gold and platinum deposits in South Africa stimulated the development of a
deep mining industry. The challenges of mining laterally extensive ore bodies at depths
as great as 4000m include high rock stress and temperature, and large vertical and
horizontal distances over which personnel, materials and rock must be transported (Guo
and Huo, 2014; Durrheim, 2014).
As mines progress to depths for which the induced stress levels exceed the intact
strength of the host rock, significant challenges related to rock mass instability must be
met. However, given complexity and the scale of ore bodies in deep mines, it is
increasingly more challenging to predict/pinpoint where and when stress levels will
become problematic. Prediction of where and when large scale instabilities will occur
continues to be the holy grail of rock mechanics in deep mining. There is no perfect
solution; however, there have been a number of technological advancements that greatly
helped to develop our understanding of rock mass behaviour and the risks pertaining to
deep hard rock mines (Cotesta et al., 2014).
High stress areas, which can lead to rockbursts, are a reality in deep mining
environments around the world. The unpredictable nature, and sometimes fatal
consequences of rockbursts, makes working towards identifying increases in strain that
occur prior to failure events, of principal importance for mine safety. As an important line
of defence, ground control measures and burst-resistant rock support are used to prevent
or minimize damage to excavations and thus to enhance workplace safety. The
implementation of real time monitoring of these signals has the potential to significantly
improve deep mine safety by mapping the evolution of strain underground and indicating
potential areas susceptible to failure (Schaub and Smith, 2014; Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
This seminar report discusses rock behaviour under high stress; design of pillars and
supports and stoping methods for deep deposits. Before concluding the report it includes
geomechanic challenges related to deep metalliferous mines.

2.0 ROCK BEHAVIOUR UNDER HIGH STRESS

Under confining pressure conditions application of static load transforms most of the
elastic-brittle rocks to the category of rocks that do not exhibit brittle failure. Under
dynamic loading the above effect would probably be observed at high confining pressure,
since the plastic properties of rock are attenuated with an increase in the rate of application
of the load. As rocks generally consist of multiphase heterogeneous bodies, one may
utilise ideal elastic (Hookean model), elastoplastic (St. Venant model), visco-elastoplastic
(Burger model) and other models with a definite degree of approximation only in some
particular cases. With increase in the depth of deposition, the mechanical properties and
behaviour of identical composition may differ significantly. The latter requires the use of
diverse theories of mechanics for describing the behaviour of geomedia at greater depths
(Bulatov, 1990).
A number of recent developments, suggest that the behaviour of rock in the context
of deep and high stress mining may not be as well understood as is often supposed. Several
peak strength criteria and constitutive laws have been developed for rock and used in rock
engineering design analyses. Currently, perhaps the two most widely used strength
criteria are the MohrCoulomb and the HoekBrown criteria. The classic MohrCoulomb
peak strength criterion consisting of two independent cohesive and frictional components
does not provide a realistic representation of the progressive fracture and breakdown of
rock under stress.
Fracturing of rock under low and high confinement could differ significantly, and that
the constant rock mass degradation approach used in the HoekBrown criterion could be
flawed. They propose a modified HoekBrown failure criterion which incorporates a
confinementdependent value of the Geotechnical Strength Index (GSI) and produces a
sigmoidal peak strength curve. In these cases, the standard HoekBrown criterion can
overestimate rock and rock mass strengths at low confining pressures where tensile or
extensional mechanisms predominate, and underestimate them at high confinement
where shear failure mechanisms operate. Reasonable fits to a range of experimental data
can also be obtained using bi or trilinear envelopes or a generalised HoekBrown
envelope. These findings have obvious implications for the behaviour of deep and high
stress mining excavations (Brown, 2012).

2.1 Rock Mass Strength

Geomechanical engineers typically use rock mass classification approaches to
estimate rock mass strength. These approaches are based upon experience gained at
relatively shallow depths (typically <1000 m) and from observations near excavation
walls. Therefore, the application of these standard approaches, to rock masses at greater
depths and for estimating the strength in pillar cores, could be flawed and lead to costly
mistakes (Kaiser et al., 2010).
Suorineni critically re-examined the original RMR database for its validity,
robustness, and application independent of the geological environments or rock types and
depth. The validity of the method with regard to its stand-up time prediction was also
examined. Figure 2.1 is a plot of depth against frequency of data points. The figure shows
that about 90% of the data came from depths less than 500 m below surface. From Fig.
2.1 it is obvious that the RMR database comprises mainly from depths less than 500 m
below surface (Suorineni et al., 2014).

Fig. 2.1 Distribution of RMR Database with Depth (Sourineni et al., 2014)

At depth, the rock is highly stressed, thus closer to failure, and often highly confined
which leads to a higher interlocking with elevated strength but more brittleness. At depth,
the excavation-induced stresses are typically high enough to exceed the rock mass
strength, at least near the excavation walls at relatively low confining stresses. In the
immediate vicinity of an excavation, the confining pressures are typically less than
UCS/10 for hard, brittle rocks and these rocks tend to fail by spalling or shear slip induced
extension fracturing.
The interlock causes a rapid strength increase at low confinement with much reduced
rock strength degradation (typically as little as 10 to 15%) at a confinement exceeding
UCS/10. Such reduced strength degradation is also observed during shear rupture in
massive brittle rock. While recent attempts have been made by Barton and Pandey to
adapt the Q classification system for rock mass strength determination, the only rock mass
characterization approach for strength determination that has been sufficiently tested is
the GSI. Hoek and Brown presented GSI-based strength equations for isotropic rock
masses containing block forming joints and blocks without defects. They indicated that
the underlying GSI experience is from excavations where block rotation primarily
contributes to the failure process (Kaiser et al., 2015).
Rock mass strength as estimated from classification systems such as by the GSI
approach were calibrated by observations of the rock mass response near underground
openings where the confinement drops to low values near the boundary. There are
indications that the degradation rate from intact to rock mass strength is not independent
of confinement. Hence, the degradation factors under high confinement, may be higher
than those obtained from calibrations at low confinement and the rock masses under
confinement may be significantly stronger than anticipated using conventional
approaches (Kaiser et al., 2010).
The rock mass strength, extrapolated from low to high confinement can be as low as
50% of the anticipated confined rock strength with interlocked and shear rupture
behaviour. This also applies when laboratory data is fitted using the Hoek-Brown
criterion. When collected data is indiscriminately used to estimate the rock mass strength,
even when following standard logging, testing and interpretation procedures, the resulting
properties may often not be representative of the actual rockmass behaviour (Kaiser et al.,
2015).
4

2.2 Rockburst
A rockburst is defined as damage to an excavation that occurs in a sudden and violent
manner and is associated with a mining-induced seismic event, and may cause an
unacceptable workplace hazard. Additionally, large scale deformations in drives, or
squeezing ground conditions in hard rock underground mines have major economic
implications (Hayman, 2014).
Rockbursts are explosive failures of rock which occur when very high stress
concentrations are induced around underground openings. The problem is particularly
acute in deep level mining in hard brittle rock. Fig. 2.2 shows the damage resulting from
a rockburst in an underground mine. The deep level gold mines in the Witwatersrand area
in South Africa, Kolar gold mines in India, nickel mines centred on Sudbury in Canada,
mines in the Coeur dAlene area in Idaho in the USA and the gold mines in the Kalgoorlie
area in Australia, are amongst the mines which have suffered from rockburst problems
(Hoek, 2006).

Fig. 2.2 The Result of Rockburst in an Underground Mine (Hoek, 2006)

5

There is a clear linkage between rockburst activities and mining depth. As mining
migrates to deeper ground, in-situ stress becomes high relative to the rock strength and
the likelihood of rockburst drastically increases. Rockbursts are mostly associated with
hard rocks and geological structures such as faults and dykes and in mining are often
related to high extraction ratios and associated with mining methods causing unfavourable
stress conditions (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
In our country the gold mines at KGF enjoy the distinction of being among the oldest
and deepest mines of the world, which are nearly 120 years old and where some of the
workings reached a maximum depth of 3300 m below ground level. However, as the
richness of the orebody considerably depleted with time, mining in the deeper levels was
discontinued towards the end of 1991 due to economic constraints. Not different from the
other hard rock underground mines in the world, one of the most severe problems related
to mine safety and ground control was the phenomenon of rockbursts in and around the
mining excavations at KGF. Rockburst occur largely in the regions of moderate-to-high
horizontal compressive tectonic stresses (Arora et al., 2000).
2.2.1 Types of rockburst: Rockbursts are classified into five types (strainburst, buckling,
face crush/pillar burst, shear rupture, fault-slip burst). In a broad sense, buckling type
rockbursts can be grouped into strainbursts, and shear rupture type rockbursts can be
considered as fault-slip rockbursts. Rockbursts are either mining-induced by energy
release causing damage at the source (e.g. strainburst without significant dynamic stress
increase from a remote seismic event) or dynamically-induced rockbursts with damage
caused by energy transfer or significant dynamic stress increase from a remote seismic
event (e.g. strainburst with dynamic stress increase caused by a remote seismic event)
(Cai, 2013).
Rock mass failure occurs when the excavation induced stress exceeds the peak
strength of the rock mass. In many deep underground excavations, strainbursts are the
most common rockburst type; they can be mining-induced due to static stress change
caused by nearby mining or dynamically induced due to dynamic stress increase caused
by a remote seismic event (called dynamically-induced strainbursts) ( Kaiser and Cai,
2012).

Fig. 2.3 Strainburst Damage in a Supported Excavation (Kaiser and Cai 2012)

Two conditions must be met for a strainburst to occur. First, the tangential stress (the
maximum principal stress) must be able to build up in the immediate skin of the
excavation. Second, the rock mass surrounding the fracturing rock must create a relatively
soft loading environment such that the rock fails locally in an unstable, violent manner.
The energy released by a strainburst comes from the stored elastic strain energy in the
failing rock and the surrounding rock mass (not from the seismic source). In mining, stress
changes in the drifts (horizontal tunnels in a mine) may occur after development due to
stoping activities; consequently, mining-induced strainbursts can happen during the
production stage (Kaiser and Cai, 2012)
Shear rupture is a failure process which occurs in brittle rocks under confined
conditions and is the process which leads to the creation of some faults. In mining, this
failure process can occur under a variety of boundary conditions ranging from constant
stress to constant stiffness. Depending on the boundary condition surrounding the rupture
process, different rupture creation processes and behaviours occur. Under constant normal
stress boundary conditions, the shear rupture process, the rupture mechanism, rupture
zone geometry, and shear stress versus horizontal displacement response of intact brittle
rocks are dependent on the normal stress to uniaxial compressive strength ratio (Bewick
et al., 2014).

Pillar burst, as the name implies, is defined as a violent failure in the pillar core or the
complete collapse of a pillar. Pillar bursts often occur in deep mines when the extraction
ratio is high at a later stage of mining. The volume of failed rock and the affected
surrounding rock mass is usually larger than that involved in a strainburst and hence the
released seismic energy is much greater. Similar to strainburst, pillar burst can be
classified into mining-induced pillar burst and dynamically induced pillar burst. A
mining-induced pillar burst is caused by static stress increase from increased room span
or nearby stope extraction.
A fault-slip burst is 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 or water infiltration into the fault.
Similar to pillar burst, fault-slip rockbursts occur in deep mines when the extraction
ratio is high and large closures are allowed to persist over large mining volumes.The most
plausible cause of fault-slip along a pre-existing fault is the reduction of normal stress
acting on the fault as a result of nearby mining, although an increase in shear stress or a
combination of normal stress decrease and shear stress increase can similarly cause a fault
to slip. This type of rockburst may release a large amount of seismic energy, coming from
the instantaneous relaxation of elastic strain stored in a large volume of highly stressed
rock surrounding the slip or rupture area (Kaiser and Cai, 2012)
2.2.2 Rockburst mechanism: Understanding the rockburst source mechanism is critical
to deriving strategies to eliminate and mitigate rockburst hazard, and a thorough
understanding of the rockburst damage mechanism is needed to work out tactics to
implement rockburst support. Kaiser classified rockburst damage into three types, i.e.
rock bulking due to fracturing, rock ejection due to seismic energy transfer, and rockfall
induced by seismic shaking . Rock bulking due to rock fracturing can be caused by both
a remote seismic event and the bursting event itself (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).

Typical rockburst damage to underground excavations include stress-induced rock

fracturing, bulking of roof and sidewalls, floor heave, shearing of rock, rock falls and
ejections, etc. A rockburst can be self-initiated or triggered by a remote seismic event.
For example, strainburst, which is the most common rockburst type, can be mininginduced due to static stress change caused by near-by mining or dynamically-induced due
to dynamic stress increase caused by a remote seismic event. Violent rock failure can be
in any of the three forms rock fracture with bulking, block ejection, and seismically
induced fall of ground.
Rock bulking due to rock fracturing can be caused by both a remote seismic event and
the bursting event itself. Rock ejection can be caused by a strainburst event, a pillar burst
event, or by a remote seismic event through dynamic moment transfer. Seismicallyinduced rockfall occurs when an incoming seismic wave accelerates a volume of rock that
was previously stable under static loading conditions, causing forces that overcome the
capacity of the support system. Quite often, all three forms of damage can be observed in
a large rockburst event (Cai, 2013).
2.3 Seismicity
Seismicity associated with deep-level mining has long been a problem, leading to
rockbursts and other similar hazards. Several studies using ground tilting have been
completed in an attempt to understand the phenomena better, and ultimately to reduce the
risk. In recent years, the focus of long-term deformation measurements in deep-level
mines has been on the relationship between seismicity and the volume or area mined and
seismicity and stope closure, applied to the design of stope support (Milev et al., 2012).
Stress changes induced by mining lead to different types of dynamic failures, from
stress fracturing close to the mining face to abutment and pillar failures and fault slips.
All of these dynamic failure processes radiate seismic waves, when seismic wave reaches
an opening, it can accelerate the rock blocks and potentially eject the blocks. The seismic
wave can also add additional dynamic load to the rock mass, thus can fracture the rock
mass which is previously stable under static loading conditions.

Depending on the post-peak stiffness of the rock mass and the system stiffness of the
rock surrounding the fractured rock mass, some of the stored strain energy in the rock
mass can be transferred to the fractured rock mass, causing rock ejection at a high ejection
velocity. The ejected rock blocks possess kinetic energy; therefore, the applied rock
support must be able to absorb or dissipate this kinetic energy (Cai, 2013).
Seismic hazard in mines is positively correlated with the following natural factors:
virgin rock stress, which is a combination of depth and tectonic stress, mechanical
strength of the rock, the degree of homogeneity, or smoothness, of the rock mass that
includes the presence and the nature of geological features specifically those with shear
strength comparable to the shear stresses induced by mining excavations. In addition there
is a number of mining related factors that may exacerbate the intensity of the seismic rock
mass response to mining, among them: the extraction ratio, the extent of the mined-out
area, the rate and spatial and temporal sequence of extraction, additional stress induced
by adjacent mining, and the smoothness of the mine layout itself and in relation to the
geological structures. Smoothness can be defined by the dimensionality of the object, as
measured by its fractal dimension the lower the fractal dimension the smoother the
object. The bulk of seismic activity in mines starts with rock extraction, increases with
the extraction ratio of the ore body and with the depth of mining and tails off with the
cessation of mining (Mendecki, 2013).
3.0 DIFFERENT TECHNIQUES ADOPTED FOR DESIGN OF DEEP MINES
The challenges unique to deep mining are well known. There are countless examples
of underground mines that have gradually progressed downwards and been forced to
reassess their engineering design as they did so. The seemingly incidental difference of
depth dictates a substantial change in design. In most cases, but not all, this translates into
larger engineering requirements for the deeper mine. But it is not merely the amount of
care that goes into engineering design; the process that is used in this work also contrasts
to a considerable degree (Anderson, 2014).

10

3.1 Pillar Design

The current practice of pillar design commonly involves:
Empirical formulae that are based on best-fit equations related to observed pillar
performance data
Use of numerical stress modelling tools such as continuum numerical stress modelling
and various rock mass strength criterion, Displacement discontinuity methods and Use of
discrete numerical stress modelling codes to attempt to simulate the progressive failure
of pillars
While a number of cases are available for the empirical evaluation of pillar stability ,
the dataset is limited and the majority of the cases are from shallow depths (<600 m; no
cases deeper than 1,000 m; there are only two failed pillar cases above a width to height
ratio (W/H-ratio) of 1.5 and no failed cases after W/H-ratio of ~2.3); various pillar types
are included in the dataset that that would not likely display the same behaviour, Because
of these limitations, empirical criteria based on this dataset are not appropriate for pillar
sizing at depths >1,000 m and for W/H-ratio greater than about 1.5 to 2.
Intuitively, an asymptotic relationship with a finite strength for wide pillars or a
linearly increasing strength with pillar width, do not make sense because a horizontal
asymptote would suggest that very wide pillars would have a finite strength. A common
means of evaluating the overall stress level in a pillar is to calculate the average pillar
stress. However, there is some uncertainty in how this stress is computed by various
authors.
For large arrays of pillars in a room and pillar setting and at sufficient distance from
the abutment, average pillar stress (APS) is usually computed using the tributary area
method. For isolated pillars, APS is often set equal to the maximum stress at the pillar
centre or by averaging stresses over various domains. This provides a best fit to the
tributary area approach when a large number of pillars are included. It can be seen that
the results between the two failure criteria are significantly different, particularly in the
W/H-ratio range of 1.0 to 1.8.

11

If one considers the percentage of area over peak being a proxy for pillar stability, it
can be seen that a pillar with a W/H-ratio of 1.0 considering the modified, s-shaped failure
criteria will be in the same relative stability state as a pillar with a W/H-ratio of 1.7
considering the general HoekBrown failure criteria. In other words, if the validity of the
modified s-shaped failure criteria can be demonstrated, there is much potential for
improving the optimisation of pillar design (Kaiser et al., 2010).
3.2 Support Design Tools
The mechanics of rock support is complex, and no model exists that can fully explain
the interaction of various support components in a rock support system. Kaiser
summarized three key support functions as: (1) reinforce the rock mass to strengthen it
and to control bulking, (2) retain broken rock to prevent fractured block failure and
unraveling, and (3) hold fractured blocks and securely tie back the retaining element(s) to
stable ground. Under high stress conditions, fractured rocks between the reinforcing or
holding elements may unravel if they are not properly retained. Widely used retaining
elements are wire mesh, reinforced shotcrete, strap, steel arch, or cast-in-place concrete.
Shotcrete needs to be reinforced by fiber or mesh to increase its tensile strength and
toughness. Mesh-reinforced shotcrete or mesh over shotcrete offers a much superior
retaining function under rockburst conditions.
The supreme excellence in rock support in burst-prone ground is to avoid rockburst
conditions. Hence, the best strategy is to stabilize the rock without fighting against the
loads and stresses in the rocks using heavy rock support. The second principle advocates
the use of yielding support in bursting grounds. When a brittle rock fails, it is always
associated with large rock dilation and may be subjected to large impact energy.
Therefore, the installed rock support system must be deformable and able to absorb
dynamic energy (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
Mine geology and infrastructures are complex and three-dimensional in nature.
Presently in mining practice, either rockburst support is selected based on site specific or
global experience or the design is performed using often simplistic spreadsheet
calculations. However, rock support design cannot be carried out in a systematic manner
without taking into account geometric (mine excavations) and geological complexities.

12

A design tool called BurstSupport is being developed at Laurentian University,

Canada, with support from CEMI (Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation), NSERC
(The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada), and several mining
companies to address the needs of industry. This tool encapsulates some of the research
findings from the Canadian Rockburst Support Handbook and integrates many recent
research outcomes from other investigators. It facilitates the interactive and iterative
process of rockburst support design.
BurstSupport is a standalone Windows-based software tool which enables the user to
assess load, displacement, and energy demands at multiple drift locations by
simultaneously considering anticipated seismic event magnitude and location, in-situ and
mining-induced stress conditions, drift orientation, and rock mass quality. Rock support
can be selected from a pre-defined support database and assigned to drifts at various
locations. Furthermore, 3D mine structures and geological structures can be imported into
the tool for easy manipulation (rotation, zoom, pan, etc.) (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
3.3 Support Design Procedure
Rockburst support design is to meet the load, displacement, and energy demands with
appropriate support capacities, under given ground and excavation conditions. Geological
and geotechnical data are the foundation for all mine. In each design domain, one needs
to estimate the anticipated seismic event magnitude and event location as well as potential
rockburst damage mechanisms, and calculate the load, displacement, and energy demands
on the rock support for the dominant rockburst damage mechanism.
It is often difficult to know in advance which type of rockburst damage mechanism
is likely to occur and dominate the design as the expected damage severity controls the
demand. Hence, all three rockburst damage mechanisms need to be analyzed separately
before the critical support demand can be identified. Then, the best decision on rock
support system selection can be made in view of the worst-case scenario (the controlling
criterion). Furthermore, it can be assessed whether rock support should be designed to
prevent the initiation of damage or whether the rock support system must be designed to
control the failure process with related deformations and energy release. Next, one will
have to examine all available rock support elements and pick the best combination of
support elements to form an integrated rock support system.

13

In recent years, many new support products have been developed. This provides an
enhanced pallet of support options for the users but also introduces a level of uncertainty
as not all new products act in the same manner and have a proven track record. Prudence
is advised when considering products as specified performances may not be achievable
under field conditions. Support systems for rockburst conditions are selected on the basis
of their load-displacement characteristics and the expected nature and severity of rock
mass failure, by combining different holding, reinforcing, and retaining elements and
ensuring the overall integrity of the support system (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
4.0 STOPING METHODS
The deep mining layouts in the gold mines of South Africa evolved gradually over
time in an attempt to control the rockburst problem. Scattered mining with mine pole or
mat pack supports, often supplemented with pillars and sand fill, was used with
considerable success in shallow mining areas. Longwall stoping was introduced to reduce
the problems related to mining-induced seismicity. Hill showed that more than 90% of
the seismicity that occurred could be linked to the isolated pillars left behind by the
scattered mining layouts. He proposed that these pillars could be largely avoided by
implementing the longwall mining method.
The longwall layouts seemed to be largely successful, except for large damaging
seismic events that still occasionally occurred. This was particularly problematic when
mining through or in close proximity to geological structures, and became worse as the
mining depths increased. A few years later, stability pillars where introduced. Studies
showed that the occurrence of rockbursts was significantly reduced in the mining areas
protected by the stability pillars compared with areas where no pillars were used. Large
seismic events are likely to occur infrequently and that the level of seismicity in areas
protected by stability pillars will be lower than traditional longwall faces without pillar
protection. Unfortunately, the rockburst problem in the mining industry did not disappear
with the introduction of the modified layouts (Jooste and Malan, 2015).

14

In recent years, deep-level mines situated in the West Rand region of the
Witwatersrand goldfields adopted layouts that incorporate the systematic use of dip
stabilizing pillars. This layout is largely motivated by its flexibility for mining an orebody
that is disrupted by geological structures, situations where the reef grade is erratic, and
with the occurrence of damaging seismic events associated with the geological structures.
The other major contributor to the selection of the sequential grid method in preference
to the mini-longwall method is the stability of the pillars (dip versus strike pillars).
The mining sequence of the original sequential grid method can be described as follows:

Overall sequence is mining outwards from the shaft on strike, moving from
raiseline to raiseline to the eastern and western boundaries of the mine (dip towards
the south).

Deeper levels will be started up later than the shallower sections, resulting in a V
shaped down-dip mining configuration.

Mining at each new raiseline proceeds first towards the shaft to form the next pillar.

If the pillar formation is completed, mining commences on the opposite side of the
raiseline, mining away from the shaft towards the next pillar position.

Fig. 4.1 Typical sequential grid layout (Jooste and Malan, 2015)

15

To address the issue of slow production rates, a change to the original design was
proposed where multiple raises are mined simultaneously. The multi-raise mining method
differs from the sequential grid method mainly by the number of raiselines that are being
mined on a specific mining level. Stoping therefore occurs in a number of raiselines
simultaneously on the various mining levels. The major advantage of this method
compared to the sequential grid method is that the extraction rate is higher, resulting in a
decrease in the extraction time of a specific mining block due to increased flexibility of
the mining plan (Jooste and Malan, 2015).
The following tables show the depth and stoping methods used in some deep mines
of India and World.

Table 4.1 Details of a Few Deep Mines in India (Source: http://www.miningtechnology.com, 2016)

S.NO.

CURRENT
DEPTH(m)

PROPOSED
DEPTH(m)

3300

closed

Champian Reef
Mine(KGF)
Hutti Gold Mine

Mosaboni Mine

1300

Jaduguda
Uranium Mine
Rampura
Agucha Mine

905

Currently not
under
operation
1000

600

1100

NAME OF
MINE

923

STOPING METHOD

Cut and fill stoping-back filling of mill

tailings, granite packed bottom stopes.
1100 (May go Long diameter blast hole sublevel
up to 3000m) stoping(LDBH)
Horizontal cut and fill, post pillar
stoping.
Horizontal Cut and Fill with deslimed
mill tailings as back fill
Long hole open stoping (LHOS)

16

Table 4.2 Details of a Ten Deepest Underground Metalliferous Mines in the World
(Source: http://www.mining- technology.com, 2016)

S.NO. NAME OF MINE

& COUNTRY

CURRENT
DEPTH(m)

PROPOSED
DEPTH (m)

STOPING METHOD

Mponeng Gold
Mine (South
Africa)

>4000

5000

Sequential grid
mining

TauTona Gold
Mine (South
Africa)

1850 to 3900

3900

Scattered grid mining

Savuka Gold Mine

(South Africa)

3700

4000

Sequential grid
mining

Driefontein Mine
(South Africa)

3400

4000

Kusasalethu Gold
Mine (South
Africa)

3270

3600

Longwall and
scattered mining
methods
Sequential grid
mining

Moab Khotsong
Gold Mine (South
Africa)

3000

3400

South Deep Gold

Mine (South
Africa)

2950

3500

Kidd Creek
Copper and Zinc
Mine (Canada)

2920

3100

Great Noligwa
Gold Mine (South
Africa)

2600

3000

Pillar or remnant
mining

10

Creighton Mine
(Canada)

2500

3000

Mechanised undercut
and fill mining

Scattered mining
method with an
integrated backfill
support system
Fully mechanised
drift and fill and
longhole
stoping
Blasthole stoping with
cemented backfill

17

5.0 GEOMECHANIC CHALLENGES

The geomechanic challenges are substantial and include both gravity-driven and
rockburst-prone ground failure conditions that are further exacerbated by rock mass
characteristics and ever-increasing mining depths. Typically the gravity-driven scenarios
include the recovery of remnant pillars in old mined out areas, mining through
consolidated backfill and recovery of post-failure sill pillars.
Burst-prone conditions become a challenge when mining through stiff and brittle
geological structures, upon recovery of highly stressed sill pillars in narrow vein ore
bodies or when mining at depths in excess of 2,500 m from surface. Gravity driven and
stress induced ground failures may occur simultaneously. Underhand cut-and-fill for sill
pillar recovery in narrow vein ore bodies are also known to involve risk from both of these
failure mechanisms (Yao et al., 2014).
Many of the geomechanic challenges like support failure, mine induced seismicity
arise from inadequate geological, geotechnical and hydrogeological knowledge. In
general, these inadequacies arise because of the inability to sample and investigate even
very small percentages of the orebodies because access to the mining depth is difficult
and expensive to obtain. In particular, improved methods are required for identifying
major geological structures (e.g. dykes, faults) ahead of mining, and for collecting the 3D
discontinuity geometry data, including fracture sizes and apertures, required in Discrete
Fracture Network (DFN) modelling, particularly at depth.

The measurement, or perhaps more realistically, the estimation, of premining stress

fields provides essential inputs into numerical stress and deformation analyses of
underground excavations, mining layouts and extraction scheduling. Quite often, attempts
to measure the stress tensor at a number of points with a view to establishing the pre
mining stress field yield unsatisfactory results, not only because of measurement error,
but also because of the inherent variability of the stress field resulting from, variations in
rock types and their mechanical properties and from the influence of structural features
(Brown, 2012).

18

5.1 In Situ Stress Measurement

In-situ stress measurements shows that osmotic pressure of groundwater, geothermy
will be further raised in deep mining, rock become hard and brittle, geological conditions
deteriorates, and the risk of rockburst will be further increased. With the continuous
expansion of production scale and the mining depth increasing, more and more mining
disasters phenomenon appears, such as goaf collapses, surface subsidence, rockmass
movement, especially rockburst, which seriously affects the mine safety and high efficient
production. Therefore, it is necessary to carry out in-situ stress measurement and
comprehensive forecasting of rockburst in deep mining (Gou and Hou 2014).
While new and/or improved instruments are occasionally introduced to the market,
the main suite of practical instruments, e.g. borehole extensometers, closure meters,
piezometers, inclinometers, stress cells etc., has remained relatively static. The recent step
change in instrumentation functionality lies in the methods of data collection and
transmission. Until very recently, instrumentation data either had to be collected manually
using hand held readout units, local dedicated loggers or the instruments had to be hard
wired back to data acquisition units normally housed in a secure area such as a refuge
station. Both methods of data transmission/acquisition are plagued with practical
problems.
Manual readings require a technician to be available to routinely traverse the mine to
collect the data. If instrumentation is hardwired back to the data acquisition unit it
becomes much more expensive (electrician time to pull wires etc.) and is susceptible to
equipment damage to the wires. In fact, such systems normally suffer significant
downtime due to equipment damage and, hence, there are losses of potentially critical
data (Bawden, 2015)
Areas for future research or development of existing systems or instruments, which
would be beneficial to the industry in general, include the calibration of changes in
seismic velocity as determined by passive tomography to actual changes in rock mass
properties brought about by deformation or degradation. A reliable and low cost means
of measuring global deformation of the host rock mass to mine scale is also necessary
which is independent of local deformation of the excavation surfaces. The development
of low cost pressure or strain cells, which could easily be deployed in nearly every stope
during filling, would also be advantageous. (Counter, 2014).
19

5.2. Seismic Monitoring

World-wide seismic monitoring systems have been used in many deep mines. Over
the last 10 years, more than 200 mines world-wide have adopted seismic monitoring to
manage seismic response to mining. A seismic monitoring system constantly monitors
for rock noise in the mine, and it can locate seismic event locations and provide additional
information about the events such as magnitude, moment, and energy ratio. Monitoring
of seismic events in mines is a very useful tool in outlining potentially hazardous ground
conditions and assisting mine management in effective re-entry decision. However, a
seismic monitoring system cannot predict when and where a rockburst will happen in a
mine and mine safety can only be guaranteed by proper engineering and effective rock
support (Cai, 2013).
Kidd Mine located in Timmins, Ontario is the deepest base metal mining operation in
the world. The mine has an extensive history of seismicity with monitoring systems in
place since the mid-1980s. Currently a combination of microseismic and macro seismic
systems are used to monitor the mine. As mining proceeded to depth, managing the
potential seismic hazard became increasingly critical as deeper mining zones came into
production.
All data is manually processed in house and analysed using seismic analysis software
tracking levels of seismicity within predefined sections of mining blocks or groups.
Seismic hazard is estimated for individual stopes located within the groups to assess
ground support requirements and potential post blast re-entry times using grid and group
based hazard maps and b-values. Seismic source parameters such as apparent stress,
energy index, apparent volume, static and dynamic stress drops, and stress drop ratio are
monitored to detect potential instability in all mining blocks. Omori analysis is used post
blast to track volumetric seismic response relative to the stope location for unusual trends
that may suggest a more regional response or delayed energy release (Disley, 2014).
World -wide microseismic monitoring systems require high bandwidth transmission
and for this reason are normally hard wired in. Such systems normally suffer from
periodic loss of sensors due to equipment damage. The alternate is to provide significant
builtin intelligence at each sensor to reduce the required data bandwidth, an issue fraught
with both high cost and technological challenges with the automated data interpretation.

20

In the future, the ideal would be to incorporate microseismic sensors with

conventional instruments with either greatly improved intelligence at each sensor, or with
a next generation high bandwidth, low power consuming underground wireless
transmission capability (Bawden, 2015).
5.3 Numerical Modelling
Numerical modelling is increasingly being used in the mining industry as part of the
planning process. Its areas of application range from the estimation of in situ stresses at
planned locations of underground facilities, to the effects of stope sequence alternatives
on drift instability. In terms of the size of their study area, numerical models can range
from a section of a given level to mine-wide dimensions, with an increase in complexity
and input information requirements. Microseismic activities induced by mining
operations can be studied using mine-wide numerical models that have been properly
calibrated (Shnorhokian, 2014).
In the South African programme of research into the phenomenon of rockbursting
associated with the mining of deep, tabular or reef deposits, elastic stress and deformation
analyses were originally carried out using closedform solutions developed specifically
for the purpose. An electric resistance analogue approach to the solution of the complex
equations involved was also developed. Salamons solutions for isotropic and
transversely isotropic ground formed the basis of early calculations of energy release rates
(ERR) and excess shear stresses (ESS). Further development of 2D and 3D displacement
discontinuity kernels led to the development of successive versions of numerical
modelling programs such as MINAP, MINF, DIGS and BESOL (Brown, 2012).

The trend in numerical modelling has been toward more and more complex models,
including plasticity (perfectly plastic, postpeak strain softening/hardening, dilatency),
discrete fracture networks, fracture nucleation and propagation, simulated seismicity, etc.
The generalised HoekBrown and MohrCoulomb failure criteria, however, remain the
most widely accepted and used criteria for intact rock and fractured rock mass behaviour
and are incorporated in virtually all commercial complex nonlinear models. Recent
approaches to address the constitutive behaviour of fractured rock masses include the
development of particle flow code (PFC) models and the numerical representation of
21

synthetic rock masses. Most 3D nonlinear codes allow incorporation of ubiquitous

jointing and discrete structures; however, the pervasive application of numerous discrete
structures in a single mechanical model is typically limited (for most commercial software
packages) by computational issues and runtime inefficiencies. Computational limitations
place significant restrictions on using these methods for largescale mine models
(Bawden, 2015).
Numerical modelling for rock engineering applications, including application to deep
and high stress mining, has been developed and refined to a considerable extent in recent
decades. The further developments required are not in the numerical models themselves
(although such developments can be expected to continue to occur and to be welcome),
but in the way in which they are applied to rock engineering problems in terms of model
formulation, the rock and rock mass properties used and the allowance made for their
variability, the failure and/or acceptance criteria adopted, and the interpretation of the
results, including the evidencebased calibration of the models (Brown, 2012).

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Our predecessors developed solutions to the problems of their time that we continue
to use, albeit with mixed results. As our mines continue to go deeper, so do the solutions
of our predecessors continue to become less adequate in terms of their predictive abilities.
Increasing computing power is not accompanied by a similar ability to collect and
determine appropriate rock properties for our powerful and complex numerical modelling
codes. Indeed, field work and laboratory investigations are now being replaced with
computer simulations and laboratories are shutting down. We need to reverse course, as
computer simulations need realistic inputs to be valid (Sourineni, 2014).
Rockbursting is a complex mining-induced phenomenon occurring in deep
underground construction. Much effort has been put into research to understand why
rockburst happens and what the anticipated damage processes are. Unfortunately, due to
the complexity of rock mass and the boundary conditions, we still do not have great
confidence in predictive means and reality repeatedly reminds us of current deficiencies.
As mining progresses to greater depths, violent rock failure cannot be avoided and it will
have to be dealt with on a routine basis by implementing rockburst resistant support
strategies (Kaiser and Cai, 2012).
22

Despite the development and widespread implementation of many technologies

critical to successful deep mining, there has been a major decline in research and
development (R&D) activity and capacity during the past two decades. Nevertheless,
there are some areas of research where world over researchers continue to break new
ground, notably the application of reflection seismology in the hard rock environment,
studies of rockburst mechanisms, and the development of systems to monitor the
underground environment (Durrheim, 2014).

23