N.C. GAY and E. H. WAINWRIGHT (eds). Proceedings ofthe It International Congrest on Rockburats and Seomictty in Mines, Johannesburg, 1982. SATMM. Johaanesbar, 1988. Horst WAGNER Chamber of Mines of South Africa Support requirements for Rockburst Conditions SYNOPSIS ‘This paper describes damage patterns for seismic events observed in South African gold mines. A simple ‘model of support requirements under dynamic loading conditions is developed. This model is based on energy considerations. The capabilities of stope and tunnel support systems employed in local gold mines are examined over a wide range of seismic loading conditions. Recommendations concerning improvements to these support systems are made. INTRODUCTION ‘The design of support systems is one ofthe mos difficult problems in rock engineering. The dificultis stem from an Inability to quantify the loading conditions in all but the ‘most elementary cases. Furthermore the rock structure Support system often is statically indeterminate. In the case of Fockburss, the problem is aggravated by dynamic forces that have to be accommodated by the support structure, ‘This paper examines the basic requirements of support systems intended for use under rockburst conditions and. Studies different support systems in the light of these requirements and practical mining experiences. Where appropriate, suggestions are made as to how these systems cean be improved. DEFINITION OF ROCKBURST CONDITIONS ‘In South Africa it has become accepted practice to define 4 rockburst as a seismic event that results in damage to mining excavations, destruction of mining equipment, and injury to and loss of life of mining personnel. Character- iste features of rockbursts are that rock failure is sudden, ‘ana that considerable seismic energy is radiated from the Source of the event, Seismic studies have shown that the foci of many rockbursts are close to mining excavations but that many seismic events resulting in extensive under= ‘round damage, originate hundreds of metesavay fom the excavation. In general three diferent types of rockbursts can be distinguished, namely 1. rockbursts that result in severe and often devastating ‘damage in a concentrated ares, 2. rockbursts that aflet large areas of the mine but do not cause severe local damage, and 3. rockbursts that occur some’ considerable distance from the excavation but cause severe damage to. 8 ‘mall portion of the excavation. The first mode of damage is typical for many of the ‘ockbursts that have their origin close to the working face, whereas the second mode of failure is typical for very large Seismic events located some considerable distance from the ‘underground workings. ‘The third type of rockburst is associated generally with well defined faults or dykes. Its particularly hazardous a3, the damage is not always confined to the working area but ‘can be observed hundreds of metres away from the origin of the event. Many of these rockburss oceur where tunnels and other service excavations are intersecied by hard dykes. From the above description of rockburst damage, it follows that no simple single mechanism can describe adequately the basic requirements of support systems for tse under these conditions. ‘The description indicates that rckburst damage varies from scattered falls to intense local damage with dis- integration of the rock structure and considerable, some times total, closure ofthe excavation, ‘To make progres inthe development of support systems {or rockburst conditions, iis essential to postulate & num- ber of loading conditions that are consistent with under- ‘round observations of damage pattems, support perfor ‘mance, and seismie observations ‘SOME BASIC CONSIDERATIONS ‘Observations Rockburst damage can be observed both close to the source of seismic events as well as some considerable Aistance from it, Rock failure inthe source region either can be in the form of a sudden movement along a pre- ‘existing geological discontinuity ora newly formed facture plane, of in the form of a sudden failure of structural Clement such ab a pillar or a highly stressed excavation wall, ‘One model that is frequently sed to explain rockbursts in deep gold mine stopes is that of a sudden movement ‘along 2 plane of weakness, Practical observations and theo- retaliate hat the preferential are planes are parallel or near parallel to the stope face and are in- 0,3 m) caused by sian rents ranging in maga from three 10 fie 24 packs or pipe sticks, Figure 5. "The latter is relatively new evelopment that was made possible by the introduction Of active hydraulic support at the stope face, The mai feature of pipe sticks and derivatives of this supports that the ends ofthe support are weaker than the central portion. ‘Thus initial yield deformation is confined tothe ends of the support. By employing this simple and well-known prin- ciple its possible to extend the yield range of timber props from a few to several hundred millimetres. Typically, pipe sticks are installed at centre distances on dip and strike ranging from 1,5 to 2 m, Thus the support density of pipe Stick support varies from 0,25 to 0,45 supports per square mette of hangingwall area. ‘The most recent development in the field of support systems for use in gold mine stopes is that of rapid yielding barrier chocks. Barrier chocks are very powerful hydraulic props that are installed ether in the last line, or behind the [ast line, of hydraulic props 0 protect the working area ‘agninst rockalls from the mined out area. The yield loud Of these chocks ranges from 1,2 MN to 1,6 MN, which is the equivalent of thre to four conventional props. Because ‘of their geometry and design, barierchocks are very stable against Tateal forces. Extensive field ils. using these hocks have shown that it is possible to mine at depth ‘without permanent support in the back area. Evaluation To facilitate the evaluation of the performance of the various stope support systems, the load-compression characteristics of individual support elements ae plotted in Figure 6, Since this paper is concerned with the perfor- mance of support systems under dynamic loading condi tions, the characteristics of support elements are shown as ‘blained from laboratory tests. In this conneetion it must be pointed out that the load deformation characteristics of timber supports and, in particular, packs deteriorate ‘markedly 35 the rate of compressions decreased. In the discussion of the performance requirements of support systems subjected to dynamic loading conditions, ‘twas shown that the work done by the support during yielding isthe most important support parameter. Figure 7 Shows the work done by the diferent support elements as 4 function of yield distance or support compression. This figure iustrates the superiority of hydraulic supports at small amounts of stope closure. The similarity in, work Performance of hydraulic props and pipe sticks is sur- Prising, as is the similarity between sandwich packs and barter chocks. “To assess the capabilites of the various stope support systems the ifferenees in support densities have fo be taken Into account. Figure § shows the work done per unit area supported for two different amounts of stope closure, a8 a Tunetion of the area support density. As indicated ealier the area supported by one pack varies from 5 to 10m, ‘whereas that supported by a prop oF Pipe stick varies from T to 6m, depending on support centre distances. The strong dependency of the Work capabilites of different supports on the area support density isa striking feature shown in Figure 8. Another featureis the poor performance (of skeleton packs particulary in the ease of small amounts fof stope closure. ‘The work done per square metre of hhangingwvall area supported is an excellent yardstick by which to judge the performance of different support ss tems. For example, at a stope closure of 0,1 m the work done by a prop oF pipe stick installed at a density of one Unit per 2m is equivalent to that done by a sandwich prick supporting 6m Alternatively the work done by Drops and pipe sticks is four times that done by a skeleton pack supporting an area of 6 mé. If a more typical pack [ROCKBURSTS AND SEISMICITY IN MINESdensity of one pack per ten square metres of hangingwall area is taken into account, then a prop oF pipe stick that ‘supports 2m* of hangingwall area is twice as efficient as the sandwich pack. Also of importance isthe improvement of packs at larger amounts of stope closure, which is due to the inerease in yield load with pack compression. This finding is supported by many underground observations that show that rockburst damage in the back areas often, is remarkably small. The reason for this appears to be due party to improved support performance in the back area And due party to the fact that rockbursts tend to occur Close tothe face and that theeffecs of a burst diminish with Aistane from the event ‘The above discussion shows that the load deformation characteristics and the support density have to be consider fe jointly to assess the potential of a support system under roekburst conditions. For hydraulic support, which is rapid bearing and has a clearly defined yield load, itis possible to compare dllerent support layouts in terms of their support resistance, SR, SR = FSD (units/m® ‘where Fy isthe yield load in KN and SD is the support ‘density in support units per square metre “Taking into account that the yield load of hydraulic props used in gold mines varies between 300 kN and 400 RN'and the prop density between 0,25 and 0,6 props per Square metre it follows thatthe support resistance in the face area of stope panels supported by rapid yielding Ihydraulic props, ranges from about 75 kNim® to 250 Nim#, Considering the poor early load bearing eapabil ties of timber support systems, and the generally very low support densities of pack support systems and, (0 4 lesser exten, of pipe sticks, it ean be concluded that the Support resistance in the Taoe area of stope panels not supported by means of hydraulic props is generally les than $0 N/m ‘The elect of support resistance on the ability of the support system to support diferent thicknesses of fractured hangingwall strata at various ground velocities is shown Jn Figure 9, In drawing up this igure dynamic stop closure ‘was imited {00,3 m. Any inerease in stope closure beyond this value would render most stope faces inaccessible and ‘would be of dramatic consequences in terms of stope damage, According to Figure 9 the ability of present stope ‘support systems fo support significant thicknesses of frac- ‘uted hangingwal stata is very limited in the event of high ‘peak ground velocities. For example the thickness of Fangingwall strata that can be supported by the highest density hydraulic prop support presently used in South, African gold mine stopes, is 8 m at a ground velocity of ‘mys but only 3,7_m at a ground velocity of 3 mis as ‘compared to a dead weight load bearing capability of 9,25 ‘mof hangingwall strata. Tan attempt to assess the significance ofan increase in support resistance on controlling the extent of rockburst, damage associated with large seismic events, Figure 10 has ‘been prepared. Asin the case of Figure 9 stope closure (00,3 m has been considered asthe upper limit of tolerable {sraund movement. In deriving the relation between support resistance and distance of damage from the source ofses- ric events, it was assumed that the thickness of strata Separated from the intact main hangingwall is 1 3, and 6m respectively. “The trends revealed in Figure 10 are remarkable from several points of view. First, the support resistance has a Song controlling influence’ on the real extent of stope damage caused by seismic events. Second, an increase in support resistance beyond 400 KN? results only in ‘marginal reduction inthe extent of stope damage from the SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR ROCKBURST CONDITIONS source of the event. Third, the area of excessive stope ‘lopure increases rapidly as the support resistance drops below 200 KN/a. Fourth, even the best man-made stope support cannot prevent excessive stope closure in the soutee area of very large seismic events, Fifth, the intro- {duction of rapid yielding hydraulic prop support reduces the area of excesive stope closure. In general, « doubling ‘of support resistance from 100KN/m® to 200 kN/m* ‘esull in a threefold reduetion in the distance of excessive Closure measied fom the source of the event. “A close examination ofthe trends indicated in Figure 10 shows that the thickness of hangingwall strata, which moves suddenly into the stope excavation, is of paramount importane to the effectiveness of support. Unfortunately ‘very litle factual information exists as far as this aspect is Concerned, In the case of many rockburss. superficial tevidence suggests that ths thickness is generally les than Simand often aslittleas 1m, To understand fully the stope ‘support requirements under dynamic loading conditions ‘tigessential that this question be sted in detail, ‘Tunnel support General More than 800 km of tunnels, ore passes, and raises are developed annually in South “Aftican gold mines. The Inajority of these excavations are situated at distances of {Om to 100m below the plane ofthe reef. Inthe so-called seattered method of mining, which is the dominant method ‘of mining in all but the Far West Rand gold-ield and the ERPM gold mine on the East Rand, tunnels are developed in advance of stoping and consequently are subjected to the effects not only of primitive rock stresses but also of the stress changes induced by the stoping. operations Damage to these mine tunnels, either as a result of very high quasi-static stresses or as a result of dynamic stress changes caused by seismic events, is a common pheno ‘enon on many of the mines. On the other hand, mine tunnels that are developed in the stoped-out, that is. de- ‘Stressed, area of a mine, are remarkably stable and free from damage. Those tunnels also are relatively unaffected by rockbursts and generally do not ive cause for concern. 'As far as tunnel support is concerned it was found that passive arch-type support systems were relatively infective in controlling or preventing damage of the rockwvalls of sold mine tunnels. “The introduction of rockbolting in the form either of mechanically end-anchored rockbolts or of fully grouted Support tendons such as studs, re-bars, or steel ropes, ‘sulted in major improvements in tunnel stability. Integ” Tation ofthese support tendons witha system of rope lacing fnd wiremeshing has improved further the performance Of tunnel support systems under both static and dynamic Toading conditions valuation of tunmel support systems Contrary to what ooeurs in gold mine stopes, the stress changes induced by tunnels generally are insufficient to ‘cause seismic events, although there ate some notable ‘exceptions, In general tis cortect to assume thatthe rock burst damage observed in gold mine tunnels is due to ses- ric events induced by stoping operations some distance from the tunnel. The mechanism of rockburst damage in ‘most instances therefore is that of an interaction of a Selamic pulse with the fractured tunnel walls. To be able to assess the requirements of tunnel support systems under seismic loading conditions, the nature and extent of the fracture zone around mine tunnels and the load defor- mation charactristis ofthe support elements have to be known, 215Fleur 11 ~ Fracture zane around typical goldmine tame 1S mm enamored ck tlt 18 mm 9 towed ope Paws 12— Load formation characteris offen aport tendons used in gold mine tuanels. fs 216 ‘A wealth of knowledge exists a far as the extent of rock fracturing around tunnels is concerned. Typieally, rock fracturing commences with the formation of slabs on the ‘tunnel walls parallel to the direction of the prneipal stress. In most instance the direction ofthe later is near vertical and eonseqenty damage commenees inthe tunnel sie- the tunnel walls are unsupported, the newly formed tock slabs ean buckle readily and the horizontal dim sion of the tunnel then will increase until a stable geo- retry in the form of a horizontal ellipse has developed. Sometimes the tunnel root fails asa result of the increased ‘width, In the case ofa supported tunnel the support usual- ly is insufficient to prevent formation of the initial rock slabs in the tunnel sidewalls. However, support of adequate density and rigidity will constrain the rock slabs suficient- |y to prevent buckling and progressive failure ofthe side- wal, The depth of fractured sidewall typically is one third {oone half ofthe eight of the tunnel walls(Figure 1), For the purpose of this discussion itis assumed thatthe depth of fracture zone does not exceed 1 m measured over the {ill height of tunnel. Observations of sidewall movement in tunnels severely damaged by rockbursts support this, assumption. ‘The support tendons employed in gold mine tunnels fall into two dierent categaries, namely, 1. mechanically end-anchored rockbols, and, 2. full column grouted support tendons. ‘The properties of mechanically end-anchored rockbolts are well known, The same cannot be said for full column ‘routed support tendons. First, there is some uncertainty ‘concerning the failure mechanism ofthese tendons. Deper- Figure 13 — Work done by support tendons drng loan. [ROCKBURSTS AND SEISMICITY IN MINESding on the surface of the tendon, failure can be due either te rupture ofthe steal tendon orto breakdown of the bond A the steel grout interface. A further possibility of failure fof the tendon i the eollapse of the resin-impregnated core (of steel ropes. This can result ina breakdown of the bond between rope and grout. Typical load deformation charac- teristics obtained rom pull tests on 2m long support tendons are given in Figure 12. According to this igure the failure strength of most tendons is about 100 kN while the clongation or displacement at failure varies from 20 mm, in the case of mechanically end-anchored bolts, to 50 mm inthe case of some ofthe full column grouted tendons. The ‘work done by these tendons during loading is shown in Figure 13. As for stope support the diflerenoes are rather small and the work done during yielding typically is about 2k fora 16 mm diameter and 2 m long tendon. ‘The number of support tendons employed in typical gold mine tunnels varies from about 5 to 15a running metre of tunnel. Taking into account the sizeof gold mine tunnels land the facts that the Footwall generally Is not supported land that the support pattern in the tunnel walls are very Similar itis found that the support density, expressed in Support unite per square metre of tunnel wal, varies from 0,6 to 1,6 tendons per square metee, Assuming a nominal yield load of 100 KN the above support densities corres ond to a support resistance of 60 kNim® to 160 kN/n. In terms of support resistance the latter figures are com= parable with the values of support resistance employed in old mine stopes. "The thickness of fracture zone in the sidewall of tunnel ‘that can be supported by conventional rock tendons under seismic loading conditions can be estimated using equation 4}. Sinee, in sidewall support, the gravitational potential ‘energy change is zero, the work dane by the support tendon during the seismic event is available fully to control the sidewall movement. The maximum thickness of rock slab ‘that ean be supported is governed by the failure load ofthe support tendon, Fe, and the maximum elongation of the tendon, c. According to Figure 12 the load deformation ccharacieristies of most support tendons are linear. This facilitates the caleulation of the mass of rock slab, May that can be supported at different ground velocities. }M,¥t = 4 Fre or Ma = Frcfi? Assuming a failure load, Fy, of 100 KN and a maximum longation, c, of 20 mm, the thickness of rock slab in the Sidewall of a tunnel that can be supported is shown in Figure Lf. The trends reflected in this figure indicate that the dynamic support capabilities of normal rock tendons are very limited. Figure 15 presents an attempt 10 assess the effect of support resistance on the areal extent of tunnel damage for Sselsmic events having magnitades ranging from two 0 five, Because of the unoertainties concerning the extent of sidewall fracturing, the width of fracture zone was varied from 0,25 m to Im. "The results show that an inerease in support resistance values in excess of 200 KN)n® yields lite improvement. ‘The extent of tunnel damage increases rapidly once the support resistance values fall below SOKN/m®. Another Important observation is thatthe extent of damage in tune nels supported by conventional support tendons is likely tobe far reaching in the ease of seismic events having mag- nitudes in excess of 4. Damage in tunnels subjected 10 ‘seismic events of magnitude 3 oF less is confined to the souree area provided the Value of support resistance is sreater than 60 kN ‘A compatison of damage pattern in stopes and tunnels shows thatthe basic trends are very similar, but that the Pure 14 — Width of fracture nein uel sidewall that can be Ippored ot diferent around vlocies as function of support restr ‘gure 15 — Effet of support reltance on the area extont of ‘at damage ceased 09 scsmle events ranging In Magnitude rom 100 10 fe. 8 SUFPORTREISTANCE Ne ‘gure 16 — Effect of improved yield characteristics of support Tendon on te oral extent of tamnel damage asa result of etme eens hang a mapitude raging frm 0 fo five. Thickness of Fracture sone i tunnel walt 03). SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR ROCKBURST CONDITIONS 217areal extent of damage in tunnels is somewhat larger than ‘hat in stopes subjected to seismic events of the same magnitude, The reason for this appears toe the vey limi- {ed yield characteristic of rock tendon supports. To inves. tigate this mater urtber theeffect of support with improved Yield characteristics was examined on the areal extent of Tne! damage. It vas assumed tha the improved support fendons have the sume yield load but, because of thei better vield properties, are capable of doing fv times more work during Yielding. than’ does conventional rockbolt Support. The results of this suppor simulation are shown in Figure 16. According to thisanalyss significant improve- tents in terms of the length of tunnel afected by a rock- burst can be achioved by employing tunnel support of better yield properties. Of particular practical significance is that the improvements indicated in Figure 16 are not achieved at the cost of employing either denser support or ‘Support of greater strength but by assuming that the sup port tendon yields by an addtional amount of 40mm alter Teaching yield load of 100 KN. “The excellent performance under rockburst conditions ‘of full column grouted ropes with soft centre core and better yield characteristics than end-anchored rockbolt, i wellknown phenomenon and supports the above find= ings. There are many known instances where this type of support withstood the dynamic loads of rockbursts with ‘out exoessive tunnel damage, whereas adjacent sections ‘of the tunnel supported by means of conventional rack bolts, failed completely. "In summary it appears, therefore, that the eorect ap- proach to improve the performance of tunnel support stems under rackburst conditions so improve the yield characteristics of the support rather than is load-bearing capacity. A further and essential requirement of tunnel Support is that its capable of containing the rock fr ‘ments during yielding so as to preserve the integrity of the fracture zone surrounding the tunnel. This requirement is ‘wel ettered for by the us of wiremesh and lacing. CONCLUSIONS The analysis of support requirements under rockburst ‘conditions has shown that support systems have to satisty the following conditions, 1. the support elements must be eapable of yielding At closure rates in excess of 2 ms and preferably in exoess of 3 mis, 2, the support system must be expable of aosommo- dating rockwall displacements of not less than 400 im in the ease of stope support and not less than 6 mm in the ease of tunnel support, 3 the support systems must have a minimum support resistance that, in stope suppor, should not be less than 200 kN/os? and, in tunnel support, not les ‘than 100 KN/m*, 218 4. the ability ofthe support system to do work against the dynamic rock movement during a rockburst fsasimportant asits load-bearing capacity, 5 the support system must be able to maintain the intogrty of the rockmass surrounding the excava tion during the entire yield process. RECOMMENDATIONS ‘A critical examination of support elements and systems ‘employed in gold mine stopes and tunnels suggests that ‘many of the above requirements are satisfied. Inthe case Of stope support there appears to be a serious need to ‘extend the yield rates of hydraulic support from the presently less than 2 mis to 3 m/s. All other requirements are within the scope of present support systems and can be Satisied by adjusting existing stope support standards. In the support of mine tunnels and service excavations there exists an urgent need to improve the yield character- istics of the otherwise very effective rock tendon support system employed virtually throughout the industry. Several possible solutions shouldbe examined, namely, 1. to improve the yield characteristics of the tendon itselt, 2, toallow forthe tendon to move relative to the walls ‘of the borehole at high foads. Ths could be achieved either by a controlled breakdown in bond between the support tendon and the surrounding grout ‘material or by some yielding. mechanism in the end-anchor, 3 to employ a collapsible washer outside the bore= hole, or 4.10 employ a friction type clamping mechanism at the outside of the borehole. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘The author is grateful © Mr W. D. Orllepp forthe many Interesting and stimulating underground visits to rockburst sites and to MrP. K. van der Heover for making available valuable information on rockburst damage in the Klerks- orp district. REFERENCES 1. McGarr, A, GReey, R. W. Band Srorriswooot S. M. Sung ground motion of mine tremors: some implication for near soures ground motion parameters. Bull, Seu, ‘Soe, vol Ty 90.1. 198). Pp. 295319. 2. Tse, JA and Waont, HLA review of six years of operation withthe extended ve of rapid yielding hydraulic Drops at the East Rand Proprietary Mines, Limited and ‘experiences gained throughout the indus. Assn Mine Managers S.A Papers and Discusions. 1976/1977 po. mise. 3. Onrurpe, W. D., Moms O'Fattat, R, Cand Wus0%, JEW. Sonport methods in tunbels. Asin. Mine Managers '. Aft Papers and Discusons. 1972/73 pp 167-196. [ROCKBURSTS AND SEISMICITY IN MINES