The Influence of Mining Sequence and Ground Support Practice on the Frequency and Severity of Rockbursts in Seismically Active Mines of the Sudbury Basin

"The performance of ground support systems under dynamic loading is typically assessed in a qualitative and subjective manner. As a result, it is difficult to develop an explicit knowledge on the mechanisms of action and interaction of support elements subjected to rockbursts. This paper examines rockbursts that have occurred at Creighton, Copper Cliff, and Coleman mines since 2000, 2004, and 2006, respectively. The mines are located in the Sudbury Basin, in Ontario, Canada. The majority of pertinent information was obtained through on-site field assessments, seismic system records, and numerical elastic stress modelling. Passive monitoring is used to link the evolution of the frequency and severity of rockbursts to the evolution of mining and support practice at the three mine sites. Based on the collected data, ground support elements that enhanced the capacity of support systems to withstand dynamic loads are identified. IntroductionThe selection of appropriate mining methods, extraction sequences, rock mass de-stressing techniques, and ground support systems is of great importance in mitigating the level of rockburst-related risk. In burst-prone conditions, the design of support systems should account for the anticipated dynamic load demand and the capacity of the available support options. Furthermore, an economical design should, implicitly or explicitly, take into consideration the consequences of a rockburst and its impact on worker safety and mine productivity. Stacey (2012) has argued that we have a limited understanding of the mechanisms of rock mass behaviour in seismic conditions. This is compounded by a ‘lack of understanding of the mechanisms of action and interaction of support elements under dynamic loads’ (Stacey, 2012). Consequently, the design of support systems required to manage dynamic loads is usually based on experience. The assessment of the dynamic performance of ground support systems is typically subjected to qualitative (and sometimes subjective) interpretations from ground control personnel."