Deep Mining 2017: Eighth International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining – J Wesseloo (ed.

)
© 2017 Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, ISBN 978-0-9924810-6-3
doi:10.36487/ACG_rep/1704_46_Stephenson

Ground control methods in squeezing and rockburst-prone

ground in mining — case studies and benchmarking

RM Stephenson AMC Consultants Pty Ltd, Australia

MP Sandy AMC Consultants Pty Ltd, Australia

Abstract
Underground mines with high rock stress to rock strength ratios tend to experience squeezing ground
conditions or rockbursting conditions, or a combination of both. The ground control methods and strategies
that have evolved to manage such conditions have some similarities and some differences. Mining can
continue successfully in such adverse conditions provided appropriate ground control methods are applied.
This paper discusses various aspects of ground control in high stress environments and presents a literature
review to discuss (1) the rock mass response to high stress conditions, and (2) the implications for ground
support requirements and the effectiveness of support systems over the service life of development.
Case studies are presented to describe examples of ground control methods in both squeezing and
rockburst-prone ground conditions. Information describing the current practices for ground control at a
number of high stress underground mines is also presented.
Keywords: ground control, high stress, squeezing, rockburst-prone

1 Introduction
Underground mines with high rock stress to rock strength ratios tend to experience squeezing ground
conditions or rockbursting conditions, or both. The ground control methods and strategies that have evolved
to manage such conditions have some similarities and some differences. Mining can continue successfully in
such adverse conditions provided appropriate ground control methods are applied.
An extensive study has been conducted on the rock mass response to high stress conditions. An overview of
some of the key references in this area is presented in Section 2.
Once the rock mass conditions and the expected stress environment have been assessed the ground support
requirements need to be considered. This includes the effectiveness of the support systems over the service
life of the development. Multiple passes of rehabilitation will be required in most cases.
The ground control methods, including ground support requirements, will have implications for mine design
and operating costs. Careful consideration should be given to the mining method, stoping sequence, rate of
extraction, and infrastructure standoff distances. These should be determined using appropriate numerical
modelling methods.
Case studies are presented to describe the ground control methods employed at two mines with squeezing
ground conditions and rockburst-prone ground conditions. Ground support and rehabilitation requirements,
monitoring requirements, and geotechnical input to mine design are discussed.
To provide broader context to the example mines discussed in the paper, benchmarking information
documenting the ground support systems employed at a number of mines globally is presented in Section 5.

Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia 681

Ground control methods in squeezing and rockburst-prone ground in mining — case studies RM Stephenson and MP Sandy
and benchmarking

2 Determining rock mass response to high stress conditions

Reports of mining-related seismicity and its association with elevated stresses date back more than a century.
Moore (1918) describes the phenomenon of ‘air blasts’ (rockbursts) in the Kolar Gold Field and refers to
similar problems in the Hillgrove area of New South Wales, the Witwatersrand mines in South Africa and
mines in the Czech Republic.
Interest in the relationship between stress, rock strength and rock mass damage, is universal in the mining
geomechanics community, and is the subject of innumerable publications; only a few of the key references
are discussed briefly here.
Hoek and Brown (1980) discuss the observed ground behaviour in mines in the Zambian Copperbelt and the
Witwatersrand gold mines in South Africa and related this to the ratio between the applied stress and
laboratory strength, σc. The mining geology in these two districts is dominated by quartz-rich, massive, and
very strong rocks. Not surprisingly, the rock mass response to elevated stresses involves brittle, often violent
failure mechanisms such as spalling and rockbursts.
Hoek and Brown’s concept was further developed by Martin et al. (1999), based in part on their extensive
studies of rock damage and damage mechanisms at the Underground Research Laboratory in Canada.
They presented a matrix illustrating the progression of increasing damage associated with increasing stress
to strength ratio, and decreasing rock mass quality in terms of the geological strength index. This was updated
by Kaiser et al. (2000) and includes a comparison of the mining-induced stress and rock strength (right hand
column, Figure 1).
This concept has been further developed by Vakili et al. (2013), including the introduction of closure strain
values for each of the categories as shown in Figure 2.
Similarly, squeezing ground behaviour has challenged tunnelling and mining operations in weak rock masses
from the earliest stages of modern mining history. The Blackwater mine in New Zealand is an example of a
so-called ‘hard rock’ mine that experienced severe squeezing behaviour during the 1940s (Pearson 1942).
In Western Australia’s Yilgarn mining district and Canada’s Sudbury region, so-called ‘hard rock’ mining can
be somewhat of a misnomer because the geology of many of the gold and nickel mines in these areas include
very weak rock materials, in particular serpentinites (talc-chlorite schists) and mica-rich metasediments.
These are often strongly foliated, a characteristic that profoundly affects ground behaviour (Sandy et al.
2010). Strength anisotropy is usually highly developed in such rocks.
Compounding the problem, many of the mines in the Yilgarn craton have encountered unusually high
horizontal stresses at shallow depth; strain bursting in strong rocks and squeezing in weaker rocks has been
observed at depths of 300 m below surface.
Some of these issues have been discussed previously in the literature, including Sandy and Player (1999), Carr
et al. (1999), Struthers et al. (2000), Beck and Sandy (2003), and Sandy et al. (2010).
Canadian experience with squeezing ground is also well-described in the literature, including Sandy et al.
(2007), Mercier-Langevin and Turcotte (2007), Mercier-Langevin and Hadjigeorgiou (2011), Hadjigeorgiou et
al. (2013) and Mercier-Langevin and Wilson (2013).

682 Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia

 Ground support

Figure 1 Relationship between damage, increasing stress and decreasing rock mass quality (Kaiser et al.
2000)

Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia 683

Ground control methods in squeezing and rockburst-prone ground in mining — case studies RM Stephenson and MP Sandy
and benchmarking

Figure 2 Updated matrix of stress versus strength and rock mass quality including reference to closure
strains (Vakili et al. 2013)

3 Ground control in rockburst-prone mines

The case study presented here refers to a long-hole open-stoping with paste backfill operation in Australia
with in situ stresses of up to 72 MPa (major principal stress). Rock strength to rock stress ratios vary from 1.7
to 2.9 in the deepest parts of the mine. The rock mass response to mining in these conditions involves high
levels of seismicity leading to progressive rock mass damage and discrete rockburst events. The ground
control methods rely on seismic monitoring, the application of various levels of ground support, and careful
mine sequencing.
The health of the seismic system is checked on a daily basis and issues are raised immediately in the pre-shift
meeting. Daily analysis of seismic data is conducted to check the database for large events (>ML 0) and to ensure
that these have been processed properly. Rock noise reports are investigated to relate with seismicity recorded
by the system. Displacement monitoring of stope hanging walls is also conducted using extensometers.
Each development plan is analysed for seismic risk and expected damage. The appropriate ground support
scheme is assigned based on this analysis. Face support is recommended for headings that are perpendicular
to the major principal stress orientation. Large-scale structures are reviewed for each development plan to
ensure that these do not coincide with the placement of large spans (intersections).
Each stope is analysed for seismic risk, placement of brows, requirements for backfill, and requirements for
ground support rehabilitation prior to the commencement of stoping activities. Large-scale structures
identified from mapping and/or cavity monitoring system (CMS) surveys are checked to determine the risk

684 Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia

 Ground support

of wedge failure from the hanging wall. Each stope firing is analysed for re-entry times based on the seismic
decay of previous blasts with similar characteristics.
Regular geotechnical inspections are conducted for each active development heading, stope brow, and
previously identified hazards, such as areas requiring rehabilitation that is not yet completed. Photographs
are maintained in a central filing system as records of areas of geotechnical interest. These can be used to
monitor changes in ground conditions. Damage mapping is conducted at a minimum of six-monthly basis.
Elasto-plastic numerical modelling is conducted, typically annually as part of the medium and long term
planning process. Stoping-related stress changes are back-analysed with the model, which has been
calibrated using seismic data and damage mapping. The modelling results are used to determine the
appropriate stoping sequence and infrastructure stand-off distances.
Reconciliations are conducted for all completed stopes. The performance of the stope walls is reviewed in
terms of overbreak, particularly the hanging wall and footwall. The CMS data is used for the analysis together
with structural information and seismic data. Good correlation has been achieved with modelled zones of
yield closely agreeing with overbreak/fall-off.
Ground support systems are selected using the largest expected event as indicated by the seismic data to
determine the most appropriate selection of ground support elements. The optimal system is designed to
provide early confinement but then contain rockburst events if required. The system is expected to limit the
amount of rehabilitation required with the ongoing deformation. In the deepest parts of the mine,
combinations of fibrecrete, weld mesh, split sets, Normet D-bolts, and twin-strand bulbed cable bolts are
used in different patterns for areas expecting various levels of deformation. Osro straps are used on pillars
where required. Ground support in the deepest parts of the mine is installed floor to floor, with the section
below grade line supported in a separate phase, 20 to 50 m behind the advancing face.
Quality control of support elements is conducted on a routine basis. This includes pull tests, fibrecrete and
grout cylinder tests, fibrecrete round determinate panel tests, and inspections of installation practice. The
acceptance criteria for quality control are presented in Table 1. Failures are investigated and the ground
support is replaced, if the problem is widespread.

Table 1 Acceptance criteria for ground support quality control

Ground support type Acceptance criteria

2.4 m split sets — pull test 10 t
2.4 m Posimix bolt — pull test 13 t
2.4 m D-bolt 14 t
Fibrecrete — cylinder strength 32 MPa at 28 days
Fibrecrete — round determinate panel 400 J
Cable bolt grout — cylinder strength 35 MPa at 28 days

4 Ground control in hard rock mines with squeezing ground

The case study presented for squeezing ground conditions refers to another long-hole open-stoping
operation with paste backfill in Australia with in situ stresses of up to 62 MPa (major principal stress). Rock
strength to rock stress ratios vary from 1.2 to 2.6 at the greatest depth of the mine. Various levels of
squeezing ground up to a category of ‘severe’ squeezing is experienced at this operation (> 25% drive closure,
as per the scheme proposed by Sandy et al. 2010), with minor seismicity and few damaging seismic events.
The ground control methods are focussed around reducing rehabilitation, ground support upgrades and the
application of sophisticated numerical modelling methods to determine mine sequencing and mine design.

Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia 685

Ground control methods in squeezing and rockburst-prone ground in mining — case studies RM Stephenson and MP Sandy
and benchmarking

Each development plan is assessed for expected levels of deformation based on prior experience in other
areas of the mine and appropriate ground support standards are assigned. For example, in development that
is assessed as likely to experience severe squeezing, the support standard includes floor to floor fibrecrete,
weld mesh to 1.5 m from the floor, high-displacement bolts (hybrid) in the backs and upper walls spaced at
1.1 m × 1.4 m, and higher-capacity modified split sets (Fero’s Highload Spirol Friction Bolt) in the lower walls.
The Spirol bolts are installed to avoid damage to loader tyres.
Large-scale structures are reviewed for each development plan to ensure that these do not coincide with the
placement of large spans (intersections). Each stope is analysed for expected stand-up time, placement of
brows, and requirements for backfill, and requirements for ground support rehabilitation prior to the
commencement of stoping activities. CMS data of adjacent stopes is used for each analysis to determine
whether overbreak in those stopes could affect planned stoping.
Seismic monitoring is conducted at the mine, however the focus of monitoring is routine inspections, damage
mapping and closure monitoring. Routine inspections are conducted generally daily by site geotechnical
engineers. The observations are documented and rehabilitation plans are issued immediately. Photographs
are maintained in a central filing system as records of areas of geotechnical interest, which can be used to
monitor changes in ground conditions. Damage mapping is conducted each time conditions change in the
development using a damage scale tailored to suit the mine’s typical conditions. The monitoring results are
used to calibrate the elasto-plastic numerical model.
Ground support systems are modelled using the Rocscience software Phase2. Trials are conducted to
determine the most appropriate selection of elements to contain large deformations for as long as possible.
The optimal system is designed to provide early confinement but then deform with the rock mass over time.
The system is not expected to stop deformation in squeezing ground (Potvin & Hadjigeorgiou 2008) but is
expected to limit the amount of rehabilitation required. Combinations of fibrecrete, weld mesh, split sets,
Spirol bolts, hybrid bolts, twin-strand bulbed cable bolts, and Osro straps are used in different patterns for
areas expecting various levels of deformation. In areas where mesh without fibrecrete was applied, the depth
of failure was observed to be greater during rehabilitation.
Quality control of the ground support elements is conducted regularly, including pull tests, paste fill,
fibrecrete and grout cylinder tests, fibrecrete round determinate panel tests, and inspections of installation
practice. The acceptance criteria for quality control are presented in Table 2. Failures are investigated and
the ground support is replaced, if the problem is widespread.

Table 2 Acceptance criteria for ground support quality control

Ground support type Acceptance criteria

2.4 m split sets — pull test 90% passing 80 kN
Fibrecrete — cylinder strength 32 MPa at 28 days
Fibrecrete — round determinate panel 360 J
Cable bolt grout — cylinder strength 50 MPa at 7 days

5 Current practices for ground support

Mines experiencing stress-driven failure such as spalling, rockburst, and squeezing ground require careful
consideration of the implications in order to select appropriate ground support for development. These
types of rock mass responses present a challenge for maintaining safe access during development and
subsequent stoping.
Appropriate surface support needs to be combined with bolts that can withstand often large displacements.
Figures 3 and 4 show examples from different mines of intense sidewall buckling where the rock mass bulking
locally exceeds 30%.

686 Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia

 Ground support

Figure 3 Buckling in the walls with considerable bulking

Figure 4 Wall buckling observed during rehabilitation activities

Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia 687

Ground control methods in squeezing and rockburst-prone ground in mining — case studies RM Stephenson and MP Sandy
and benchmarking

The rock mass bulking (locally of the order 25 to 35%) and associated shearing on fractures presents a
challenge for most types of ground support, particularly bolts with thin tube construction such as ‘Swellex’
and ‘split set’ type bolts.
Numerous, careful observations from more than 20 mines globally show that the bulking and deformation is
accompanied by significant shearing. As noted by Beck and Sandy (2003) and Sandy et al. (2010), this can
lead to the bolts becoming trapped, and eventually being ‘guillotined’. Often the collar fixtures are torn off,
rendering the bolt completely ineffective as well as allowing the surface support to ‘open up’, potentially
releasing any contained slabs (Sandy et al. 2007) (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Failure of bolts (split sets) to secure the overlap between adjoining sheets

The combination of fibrecrete and weld mesh is important for controlling ongoing deformation that can occur
with stress-driven failure (Louchnikov et al. 2014). The fibrecrete adds early confinement to the rock mass
and controls excessive failure from occurring at the active face. The mesh prevents the fibrecrete from
becoming a hazard when cracking exceeds the capacity of the fibres.
Development trending perpendicular to σ1 in high stress mining environments should have some level of
dynamic support (Sandy et al. 2010). For mines that are rockburst-prone, the face should be meshed for all
development trending perpendicular to σ1.
Dynamic ground support will be required for areas with a high seismic risk. Seismic risk can be evaluated on
site using software such as Vantage from the Institute of Mine Seismology (IMS 2016) or mXrap (Harris &
Wesseloo 2015) from the Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG). The software uses the existing seismic
database to assess the probability of seismic hazards in certain areas of the mine. These areas are typically
proximal to stoping and are closely related to the advancing mining front, or to large-scale structures that
are ‘reactivated’ as a response to mining.
Villaescusa (2014) suggests that the objective for dynamic support in this type of situation should be rockbolts
that allow for moderate displacement (about 100–200 mm), shotcrete and mesh. Published case studies have
reported success with dynamic ground support systems. Chinnasane et al. (2012) describe using a
combination of friction bolts, 4-gauge wire mesh, 75 mm shotcrete, modified cone bolts, 0-gauge mesh
straps, and cable bolts. Turner and Green (2005) describe the good performance of solid bar bolts with mesh
for containing small rockbursts, particularly in comparison to friction bolts.
It should be noted that designing support to manage high seismic risk is a complex task and it is beyond
the scope of this paper to describe it in detail. A good introduction to the topic is available in the ‘Canadian
Rockburst Research Program Handbook’ (Mining Research Directorate 1996). Examples of the application
of this approach are provided by Scott et al. (2008) and Louchnikov and Sandy (2017). Interested readers

688 Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia

 Ground support

are also referred to the update on this topic provided by Kaiser and Cai (2013) in their Keynote address to
Ground Support 2013.
As part of a review of a proposed depth extension to an existing gold mine in Ghana, a benchmarking study was
undertaken of current ground support practices in mines with stress-driven failure. The study involved
comparing stress versus strength, consideration of modulus/strength, rock mass response, seismicity, and
ground support. Seismicity and squeezing ground conditions are rated semi-quantitatively based on the
authors’ knowledge of the mines. Ratings used for the semi-quantitative assessment are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Semi-quantitative ratings of dynamic ground conditions

Rating Description
Strong Events with ML > 1.0 resulting in significant damage to active mine areas, requires
seismicity active management including exclusion zones/periods, dynamic support, careful
extraction sequencing with dedicated access
Moderate Events with ML > 0.0 resulting in visible damage, requires upgraded support, seismic
seismicity monitoring using a suitable (mine-wide) system, and assessment of potential re-design
requirements if situation deteriorates (changes to extraction sequence, access)
Minor Events with ML < 0.0 resulting in little or no damage. Commission portable monitoring
seismicity to assess seismic population, and correlation with blasting, structures,
pillars/abutments or otherwise
Severe Drive closure typically > 25%, requires one or more phases of major rehabilitation,
squeezing ‘purging’
Moderate Drive closure typically 10–25%, specialist yielding support essential to maintaining
squeezing control, mesh required over fibrecrete to control scats
Minor Drive closure < 10%, conventional support mostly effective (may require some
squeezing rehabilitation bolting)

Data from mines with squeezing ground conditions are presented in Table 4 and data from mines with
rockburst-prone ground conditions are presented in Table 5. The strength to stress ratio presented in these
tables only considers in situ stresses. In some cases, the mines have adopted poor mining sequences with
closure pillars, flat mining fronts, or unusually high mining rates, all of which can adversely affect the
mining-induced stresses.

Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia 689

Table 4 Ground support benchmarking data for rockburst-prone mines
Mine Strength: Rating Surface support Rockbolts Bolt spacing Other support
location stress ratio (seismicity) (m)
Australia 75 mm fibrecrete and weld mesh to 2.4 m D-bolt Face meshed for drives
1.2–2.6 Moderate 1.0 × 1.5
(Mine A) 1.8 m from floor sub-parallel to σ1
Australia 75 mm fibrecrete plus weld mesh to
0.5–1.4 Strong 2.4 m Garford dynamic bolt 1.2 × 1.2 Face meshed
(Mine B) floor
Australia Closure pillar mining
3.3–4.2 Strong Mesh 1.8 m from floor 2.4 m Kinloc bolt 1.1 × 1.1
(Mine C) sequence
Australia 50–75 mm fibrecrete plus weld mesh Face meshed, cable bolts
0.6–1.8 Strong 2.4 m D-bolt 1.4 × 1.1
(Mine D) to floor and mesh straps
Australia
2.9–5.8 Minor Weld mesh to 2 m from floor 2.4 m de-bonded resin bolts 1.3 × 1.2 –
(Mine E)
Australia
1.8–5.3 – 60 mm fibrecrete plus weld mesh 2.4 m Garford dynamic bolts 1.5 × 1.4 –
(Mine F)
Australia Face meshing where
1.4–1.9 Strong 75 mm fibrecrete plus mesh to floor 3 m de-bonded resin bolts 1.4 × 1.5
(Mine G) required
Table 5 Ground support benchmarking data for mines with squeezing ground
Mine Strength: Rating Bolt spacing
Surface support Rockbolts Other support
location stress ratio (squeezing) (m)
Australia 50 mm fibrecrete and weld mesh to Cable bolts 1.5 m spacing
1.2–2.6 Severe 2.4 m hybrid bolt 1.1 × 1.4
(Mine H) floor and Osro straps
Ghana 2.4 m friction bolts and 1.0–1.2 ×
0.5–2.2 Severe Weld mesh Cable bolts
(Mine I) cement-grouted solid bar bolts 1.0–1.2
Canada 2.3 m solid bar resin bolts, Cable bolts 2 m spacing
0.5–1.6 Severe Weld mesh to 0.6 m from floor 0.9 × 0.9
(Mine J) 2.0 m hybrid bolts and mesh straps
New
50 mm fibrecrete and weld mesh to
Zealand 1.2 Severe 2.4 m grouted DCS 1.0 × 1.0 Face bolted and meshed
1.5 m from floor
(Mine K)
Canada 2.0 m split sets, 2.3 m solid
0.9–1.4 Severe Weld mesh to 0.6 m from floor 1.2 × 1.2 Mesh straps
(Mine L) bar, 2.0 m hybrid bolts
Australia 50–75 mm fibrecrete plus weld mesh Cable bolts and mesh
0.6–1.8 Severe 2.4 m D-bolt 1.4 × 1.1
(Mine M) to floor straps
 Ground support

6 Conclusion
Ground control methods in mines with rockburst-prone and squeezing ground conditions have similarities,
as discussed in the two case studies. These are:
 Development design and stope design checks are conducted.
 Monitoring is conducted by (typically) daily inspections by a geotechnical engineer.
 Methods of quality control of ground support are similar.
 Ground support regimes are adopted using a combination of support elements including mesh,
fibrecrete, bolts with a high displacement capability, Osro straps, and cable bolts.
 Elasto-plastic numerical modelling methods are employed as input to mine design and stope
sequencing.
The major difference in ground control between the two mines in the case studies is monitoring methods.
Although microseismic monitoring is employed at both mines, the mine with rockburst-prone conditions
relies heavily on this monitoring during the daily processes and short-term design. The mine with squeezing
ground conditions places a higher emphasis on closure monitoring and damage mapping.
The benchmarking information indicates that mines with high stress to strength ratios tend to employ a
combination of fibrecrete and mesh for surface support, and bolts with dynamic capability. Face meshing is
common, particularly in mines with rockburst-prone conditions.

References
Beck, DA & Sandy, MP 2003, ‘Mine sequencing for high recovery in Western Australian mines’, AusIMM Bulletin, vol. May/June, no. 3.
Carr, C, Lappalainen, P & Sandy, MP 1999, ‘Developments in ground control at Outokumpu’s Forrestania Nickel Mines, Western
Australia’, in E Villaescusa, A Thompson & C Windsor (eds), Rock Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 227–283.
Chinnasane, DR, Yao, M, Landry, D & Paradis-Sokoloski, P 2012, ‘Performance of dynamic support in highly burst-prone ground
conditions at Vale’s Copper Cliff Mine – a case study’, in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Seminar on Deep
and High Stress Mining 2012, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 57–69.
Hadjigeorgiou, J, Karampinos, E, Turcott, P & Mercier-Langevin, F 2013, ‘Assessment of the influence of drift orientation on observed
levels of squeezing in hard rock mines’, in Y Potvin & B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on
Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 109–118.
Harris, PH & Wesseloo, J 2015, mXrap software, version 5, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, The University of Western Australia,
Perth, Western Australia, www.mxrap.com
Hoek, E & Brown, ET 1980, Underground Excavations in Rock, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
IMS 2016, IMS Vantage, software, Institute of Mine Seismology, Hobart, www.imseismology.org/download-vantage
Kaiser, PK & Cai, M 2013, ‘Critical review of design principals for rock support in burst-prone ground – time to rethink!’, in Y Potvin &
B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground
Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 3–37.
Kaiser, PK, Diederichs, MS, Martin, CD & Steiner, W 2000, ‘Underground works in hard rock tunnelling and mining’, GEOENG 2000
Invited Papers, vol. 1, Technomics Publishing, Pennsylvania, pp 841–926.
Louchnikov, V & Sandy, MP 2017, ‘Selecting an optimal ground support system for rockbursting conditions’, in J Wesseloo (ed.),
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for Geomechanics,
Perth, in press.
Louchnikov, V, Sandy, MP, Watson, O, Orunesu, M & Eremenko, V 2014, ‘An overview of surface rock support for deformable ground
conditions’, Proceedings of the Twelfth AusIMM Underground Operator’s Conference, The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Carlton South, pp. 57–65.
Martin, CD, Kaiser, PK & McCreath, DR 1999, ‘Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure around tunnels’,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 136–151.
Mercier-Langevin, F & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2011, ‘Towards a better understanding of squeezing potential in hard rock mines’, Mining
Technology, vol. 120, pp. 36–44.
Mercier-Langevin, F & Turcotte, P 2007, ‘Evolution of ground support practices at Agnico-Eagle’s LaRonde Division – innovative
solutions to high-stress yielding ground’, Proceedings of the First Canada-US Rock Mechanics Symposium, Vancouver.

Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia 691

Ground control methods in squeezing and rockburst-prone ground in mining — case studies RM Stephenson and MP Sandy
and benchmarking

Mercier-Langevin, F & Wilson, D 2013, ‘Lapa Mine – ground control practices in extreme squeezing ground’, in Y Potvin & B Brady
(eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 119–131.
Mining Research Directorate 1996, Canadian Rockburst Research Program 1990-1995, A Comprehensive Summary of Five Years of
Collaborative Research on Rockbursting in Hardrock Mines, CAMIRO Mining Division, Canada, pp. 385.
Moore, ES 1918, ‘Air blasts in the Kolar goldfield, India’, Proceedings of AIMME, Colorado, September.
Pearson, EW 1942, Thesis on the Blackwater Mine, Waiuta, New Zealand, Dissertation, Diploma of Associateship of Otago School of
Mines, University of Otago, Dunedin.
Potvin, Y & Hadjigeorgiou, J 2008, ‘Ground support strategies to control large deformations in mining excavations’, The Journal of the
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, July 2008.
Sandy, MP, Gibson, W & Gaudreau, D 2007, ‘Canadian and Australian ground support practices in high deformation environments’,
in Y Potvin (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Deep and High Stress Mining, Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 297–311.
Sandy, MP & Player, JR 1999, ‘Reinforcement design investigations at Big Bell’, in E Villaescusa, A Thompson & C Windsor (eds), Rock
Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 301–315.
Sandy, MP, Sharrock, G, Albrecht, J & Vakili, A, 2010, ‘Managing the transition from low stress to high stress conditions’, in P Hagan
& S Saydam (eds), Proceedings of the Second Australasian Ground Control in Mining Conference, The Australasian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Calrton South, pp. 247–253.
Scott, C, Penney, AR & Fuller, P 2008, ‘Competing factors in support selection for the West Zone of the Beaconsfield Gold Mine,
Tasmania’, Proceedings of Narrow Vein Mining Conference 2008, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Carlton
South, pp. 173–178.
Struthers, MA, Turner, MH, McNabb, K & Jenkins, PA 2000, ‘Rock mechanics design and practice for squeezing ground and high stress
conditions at Perseverance Mine’, in G Chitombo (ed.), Proceedings of MassMin 2000, The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Carlton South, pp. 755–764.
Turner, M & Green, T 2005, ‘Threadbar bolts in a seismically active, high stress, high yield environment – Otter-Juan Mine, Kambalda’,
in Y Potvin & M Hudyma (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Rockburst and Seismicity in Mines,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 67–73.
Vakili, A, Sandy, M, Mathews, M & Rodda, B 2013, ‘Ground support design under highly stressed conditions’, in Y Potvin & B Brady
(eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 551–564.
Villaescusa, E 2014, Geotechnical Design for Sublevel Open Stoping, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Florida.

692 Deep Mining 2017, Perth, Australia