Rockburst in South African Deep Level Gold Mining: What Do We Know? - RASIM 2022

Mining induced seismicity and rockbursts have been part of the deep level gold mining industry in South Africa for many years. One could be forgiven for thinking that we should know everything there is to know by now to have rockbursting under control to a level that it has minimal impact on safety and production. Well, we don’t… There are things we know that we know, and they are implemented, or should be. There are thigs we know that we don’t know, and they are researched, or should be. There are things we don’t know that we don’t know, and, well, we don’t know… We know that seismicity and the associated potential for rockbursts generally increase with an increase in stress (increase in mining depth and/or mining span and creation of remnants) and proximity to faults and dykes. We know there are a number of potential sources of events in a mine; that is: mining abutments, pillar abutments, mining faces and geological structures (faults and dykes). We know there are a number of event mechanisms associated with these sources; that is: slip on a geological structure, shear through intact rock and bursting of the rock near the edge of a mining excavation. One of the tools used more and more and with increased success to identify event source mechanisms is Moment-Tensor analysis (MT). This typically assist in differentiating between three event mechanism components: volumetric deformation component, axial deformation component and slip / shear component. The insight gained from MT assist greatly in identifying the most likely event source to assist in understanding the rockmass response to mining. We know that the seismic response in our mines are mining induced (not natural). This may seem trivial, but it is important to realise that we influence the seismic response with the way we mine, and by how much we mine (extraction ratio). Therefore we put design rules and strategies in place to reduce the seismic hazard and we install rockburst support in our mining excavations. We know the seismic response to mining is influenced by the properties of the rockmass, including strength, stiffness and brittleness, but quantifying its influence is typically more difficult than expected. We know numerical modelling can improve the engineer’s understanding of the potential rockmass response associated with designed mining layouts and strategies. For our environment (narrow, tabular large area) elastic boundary element modelling remains the most convenient and practical approach, but it overestimates the stress at mining abutments and underestimates the stress further away from these abutments. Adding a crushing (based in limit equilibrium) modelling approach vastly improves the boundary element modelling ability to simulate the deformed (interpret fractured) zones and associated redistribution of stress. We don’t know how to quantify what an acceptable seismic risk is. We don’t know if we can mine remnants at an acceptable seismic risk. Some remnants are extracted surprisingly easy, others serve us with devastating rockbursts. The limit equilibrium modelling shows potential to significantly improve our ability to quantify the rockburst risk. We don’t know if large-scale preconditioning is possible and will be effective to significantly reduce the seismic risk associated with remnant and pillar mining. Research is required (and has been initiated). Vast areas of ground have been extracted historically in the South African gold fields. Most gold reserves are now in deeper ground (4000 m) and historic remnants (areas left before due to mining difficulties) as well as pillars (regional stability pillars). If we cannot find ways to extract these reserves at acceptable risk levels, the future of the South African gold mining industry is very short.