An evaluation of yielding timber props as a support system in rockburst conditions

Written contribution by J.F. Curtist The paper is an interesting exercise in the application of mathematics to a theoretical situation presumed to oc¬cur underground. However, some of the assumptions on which the calculations are based are unlikely to occur in any actual mining situation. Assumptions made in the paper Objections to these assumptions are noted seriatim. (1) `it is assumed that any loading-rate effect will be small and can be ignored' (p. 3). A loading rate of the order of 50 kN-12 per cent of the maximum load-is customary to prevent the props being dislodged by the blast. (2) `it is unlikely that all the props will be installed with their full stroke available, but for the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that this is the case' (p. 3). A more reasonable assumption would be that, with the most careful selection of prop length and the most rigid control of stope width, the available stroke length would on average be reduced by the order of 70 mm on installation-20 per cent of full stroke. (3) `each support unit supports a block of 3,3 m2 bound¬ed by vertical fractures with zero cohesion that are parallel and at right-angles to the stope face respec¬tively' (p. 5). Joughin and Jager have shown this to be an unwar¬ranted assumption in respect of the positioning, the direction, and the dip of the fractures present in a stope in rockburst conditions. If, as assumed, there was `zero cohesion' between such blocks, the removal of a hydraulic prop in row 3 supporting such a block would ensure that it fell out before a profile prop could be installed in the same position. (4) `the height of each of these blocks is 3,0 m, the volume of each block is 9,9M3, the mass of each block is 27 225 kg' (p. 5). The concept of individual props being affected by dis¬crete blocks of known and uniform dimensions of relatively low ground velocities (less than or equal to 2,16 m/s) acting in line with the axis of the prop is one that lends itself to neat mathematical calcula¬tions. It does not, however, bear much similarity to the actual conditions that are exposed underground in excavations where rockbursts occur. Ortlepp and co-workers concluded that `the impulse of the shockwave can cause the displacement of the