Quantifying the effect of stress relaxation on excavation

Stress relaxation is relevant to the design of both civil and mining excavations. While many authors refer to the adverse effect of stress relaxation on excavation stability, some present compelling empirical evidence indicating that stress relaxation does not have a significant effect. Establishing clear definitions of stress relaxation was critical to understanding and quantifying stress relaxation of the various types that have been referred to in the literature. This paper defines three types of stress relaxation – partial relaxation, full relaxation and tangential relaxation. Once clear definitions were determined, it became clear that the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence presented by various authors to support their respective cases are not contradictory; rather, the different conclusions can be attributed to different types of stress relaxation. In particular, when the minor principal stress is negative the intermediate principal stress has been identified as significantly affecting jointed rock mass behaviour. The aim of the study was to review and evaluate existing methods of quantifying the effect of stress relaxation around underground excavations and, if necessary, propose a new set of recommendations. An empirical stope stability model, that has been termed the Extended Mathews stability chart, was considered to be the most appropriate method of quantifying the effects of stress relaxation. A new set of guidelines to account for the effect of stress relaxation on excavation stability in the Extended Mathews stability chart has been proposed from a back-analysis of 55 case histories of stress relaxation.

Injuries associated with continuous miners, shuttle cars, load-haul-dump and personnel transport in New South Wales underground coal mines

In the three years to June 2005, 959 injuries associated with continuous miners (CMs), shuttle cars (SCs), load–haul–dump and personnel transport (PT) were reported by NSW underground coal mines, comprising 23% of all injuries reported. The present paper reports an analysis of the narrative field accompanying these reports to determine opportunities for controlling injury risks. The most common combinations of activity and mechanism were: strain while handling CM cable (96 injuries); caught between or struck by moving parts while bolting on a CM (86 injuries); strains while bolting on CM (54 injuries); and slipping off a CM during access, egress or other activity (60 injuries). For the other equipment considered, the common injury mechanism was the vehicle running over a pothole or other roadway abnormality causing the driver or passengers to be injured (169 injuries). Potential control measures include: monorails for CM services; hydraulic cable reelers; handrails on CM platforms; redesign of CM platforms and bolting rigs to reduce reach distances during drilling and bolting; improvements to guarding of bolting controls; standardisation and shape coding of bolting controls; two handed fast feed; improvements in underground roadway maintenance, vehicle suspension, visibility and seating; and pedestrian proximity warning devices.