See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276081885

Intense rockburst impacts in deep underground

construction and their prevention

Article in Canadian Geotechnical Journal · April 2015

DOI: 10.1139/cgj-2014-0359

CITATIONS READS

9 469

2 authors:

Alejandro Mazaira Petr Konicek

2 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS Institute of Geonics AS CR
37 PUBLICATIONS 136 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stress-state monitoring of coal pillars, phase II View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Petr Konicek on 01 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1426

ARTICLE
Intense rockburst impacts in deep underground construction
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15

and their prevention1

A. Mazaira and P. Konicek

Abstract: In the last few decades, in both mining and civil engineering projects, deeper excavations have been carried out than
in the past. With this increase in depth, rocks may overstress and rock failures can occur during excavation. When competent
rock strata are encountered under high stress conditions, these failures can vary from superficial spalling to explosive rockburst.
Intense rockbursts may cause fatal injuries to workers and significant loss of equipment and time. The occurrence of rockbursts
is always difficult to predict and special steps and measures must be taken to control them. First, burst-prone zones must be
predicted by an early exhaustive geological study and by the assessment of in situ stress level and orientation. Second, basic
design parameters, e.g., shape, size, and excavation method, should be modified and adapted to the expected conditions to
minimize rockburst risk. Third, in situ pre-conditioning methods, e.g., destress blasting, can be applied to decrease the capacity
of the rock mass to store energy. Finally, special rock support and reinforcement systems, i.e., yielding systems, must be installed
after excavation to ensure total stability of the opening. This paper reviews the geological and geomechanical factors that
provoke and influence rockbursts in overstressed rock masses and the engineering measures taken to control them.

Key words: rockburst, in situ stress, induced stress, destress blasting, yielding support.

Résumé : Au cours des dernières décennies, des excavations toujours plus profondes ont été creusées dans le cadre de projets
miniers ou de génie civil. Plus on s’enfonce dans le sol, plus la roche risque d’être soumise à des contraintes excessives et de se
For personal use only.

fracturer durant une excavation. Lorsqu’on rencontre des couches de roches compétentes soumises à des contraintes élevées, les
fractures rocheuses peuvent varier, allant du simple écaillement superficiel à l’éclatement explosif de la roche. Les éclatements
de roche de forte intensité peuvent mortellement blesser les ouvriers, lourdement endommager le matériel et entraîner
d’importantes pertes de temps. Il est difficile e prédire la survenue des éclatements de roche. Aussi, des dispositions et mesures
spécifiques doivent être prises afin d’éviter qu’ils se produisent. Il faut avant tout prédire les zones exposées au risque
d’éclatement en réalisant préalablement une étude géologique exhaustive et en évaluant sur place le niveau et l’orientation des
contraintes. Dans un deuxième temps, les paramètres de conception de base (p. ex. la forme de l’excavation, sa taille et la
méthode d’excavation) doivent être modifiés et adaptés aux conditions prévues afin de minimiser le risque d’éclatement de la
roche. Ensuite, des méthodes de préconditionnement (p. ex. des tirs de relaxation) peuvent être utilisées sur le terrain pour
réduire la capacité des masses rocheuses à emmagasiner de l’énergie. Enfin, des dispositifs spéciaux de soutien et de consolida-
tion de la roche (c.-à-d. des structures élastiques) doivent être mis en place après le creusement de l’excavation pour garantir que
l’ouverture de cette dernière est complètement stable. Dans le présent article, on s’intéresse aux facteurs géologiques et
géomécaniques qui provoquent les éclatements de roche ou influent sur ceux-ci dans les masses rocheuses soumises à des
contraintes excessives ainsi qu’aux mesures permettant de prévenir ces éclatements. [Traduit par la Rédaction]

Mots-clés : éclatement de la roche, contraintes in situ, contraintes induites, tirs de relaxation, dispositif de soutien élastique.

Introduction
A rockburst is one of the most hazardous problems encoun-
tered during underground excavations. This phenomenon always
involves a violent energy release with large rock deformation and
rock ejection that can cause severe damage to openings, equip-
ment, and facilities and may result in fatalities. Rockbursts are an
inherent problem found in overstressed rocks. The stress redistri-
bution caused by excavation works induces high stress concentra-
tions around the openings that can trigger rockbursts. At great
depth, this induced stress is added to the high natural stress of the
rock mass, which increases even more the formation of unfavour-
able stress concentrations.
Rockbursts have been a well-known problem in hard rock min-
ing for a long time; however, they did not become a serious prob-
lem in civil engineering projects until the last few decades when
excavations became deeper. The depletion of shallow resources
and the availability of new technologies have led to a remarkable
increase in the depth of underground projects. Nowadays, many
mines are developed at more than 2000 m under the surface, and
some civil tunnels have even reached this depth (Zhang et al.
2012b). For this reason, intense rockbursts have become a signifi-
cant challenge that engineers have to face more and more often
around the world.
The first reports of rockbursts were made at the end of the 19th
century and early 20th century in mines in different countries,
such as India, South Africa, Russia, Eastern Europe, the United
States, and China (Tang 2000; Kaiser and Cai 2012). Over the last
few decades there have been important rockburst events in mines

Received 26 August 2014. Accepted 25 March 2015.

A. Mazaira and P. Konicek. Institute of Geonics, Institute of Clean Technologies, Academy of Science of the Czech Republic, Studentska 1768, 708 00,
Ostrava-Poruba, Czech Republic.
Corresponding author: A. Mazaira (e-mail: alejandro.mazaira@gmail.com).
1This paper is part of the “Recent developments in geomechanics and geophysics” Special Issue, which is based on presentations from the 5th International

Colloquium on Geomechanics and Geophysics held in Karolinka, Czech Republic, 25–27 June 2014.

Can. Geotech. J. 52: 1426–1439 (2015) dx.doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0359 Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cgj on 21 April 2015.
 Mazaira and Konicek
in Canada, South Africa, Chile, Australia, Scandinavia, and China,
as well as in civil tunnels in China, Peru, and Switzerland (Cai and
Champaigne 2012). In spite of the major safety risk that rockburst
have represented in mining activity for decades, no analytical
investigations were made to understand this phenomenon until
the middle of the 20th century. In 1946 Gane et al. (1946) published
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
an investigation about seismicity induced by a rockburst in South
Africa. During the 1960s, the theoretical and experimental basis of
rockburst mechanisms was established by South African authors
(Cook 1963, 1965; Diest 1965; Cook et al. 1966). Since then, the
persistence and increase of incidents caused by rockbursts have
resulted in an international effort to understand the processes of
violent rock failures and to find effective prevention methods
(Tang 2000; Kaiser and Cai 2012). Important improvements have
been developed in this field over the years and new technologies
and methods have allowed safer underground works. For instance,
significant advances in computer science have facilitated numer-
ical methods to be a fundamental tool for predicting rockbursts
and improving excavation designs. The development of pre-
conditioning methods such as destress blasting and advanced
support systems has also led to a reduction in the risk of violent
failures in the mining industry (Konicek et al. 2011, 2013b; Kaiser and
Cai 2012). However, rockbursts keep occurring in mines and civil
projects and still represent a significant problem that engineers and
workers the world over have to face every day.
The first aim of this paper is to review current knowledge about
the rockburst phenomena in deep underground construction,
starting with the geological and geomechanical factors that influ-
ence rock failure in overstressed rock masses, then reviewing
For personal use only.
failure mechanisms that trigger rockbursts and seismic events,
explaining the influence of excavation methods on burst-prone
grounds, and finishing with a broad overview of the most impor-
tant engineering measures encompassed in rockburst prediction
and prevention, including project design optimization, rock mass
pre-conditioning methods, special rockburst support systems,
and numerical modelling. The second aim of the paper is to pres-
ent selected rockburst prevention methods (prognosis and proac-
tive measures) used in the underground mining industry, as an
inspiration for their use in underground construction at great
depths and under high horizontal stresses.
In situ stress field
At shallow depths, the in situ stress state in a rock mass repre-
sents a minor issue in terms of the stability of the rock surround-
ing an excavation. However, the stress field becomes a fundamental
factor influencing the geomechanical behaviour of the rock mass
when the excavation depth is increased.
In general, the estimation of the stress field in a rock mass is
one of the most difficult parameters that have to be measured for
an underground project design (Hoek and Marinos 2010). Vertical
stress (SV) is mainly affected by gravitational stress produced by
the overlying rock mass weight (Pan et al. 1994). Horizontal
stresses (SH and Sh) are more difficult to calculate because they are
influenced by both gravitational and tectonic stresses and by
other complex factors such as geological features and topography
(Zhang et al. 2012a).
It has been demonstrated that the existence of a complicated
topography with high mountains and steep valleys has an impor-
tant influence on distribution of the stress field in the underlying
rock mass (Pan et al. 1994, 1995; Zhang et al. 2012a). Under such
conditions, significant variations of stress magnitudes and orien-
tations can be found in relatively small areas. Stress relaxation
zones and stress concentration zones can be encountered to-
gether at the bottom of deep valleys and sides of mountains
(Savage 1993; Zhang et al. 2012a).
It has been shown that at great depth the orientation of princi-
pal stresses S1, S2, and S3 usually coincides with that of the vertical
1427
and horizontal stresses (SV, SH, and Sh) (Zoback and Zoback 2002;
Zoback et al. 2003). However, the orientation of principal stresses
may also appear rotated when measured close to the ground sur-
face in a nonhorizontal topography or close to an unsupported
excavation surface. In such cases, the principal stresses are paral-
lel and perpendicular to the topography or the excavation surface,
independent of the general stress orientation within the rock
mass (Pan et al. 1994; Hudson et al. 2003). Important geological
features (e.g., faults, dyke contacts, and shear zones) and planes of
weakness (e.g., joints and bedding planes) can also have a strong
influence on the in situ stress orientation (Amadei and Stephansson
1997).
The stress magnitude around an opening usually rises with in-
creased depth and due to the influence of other factors, such as
geological features, topographic variations, and stress redistribu-
tion as a result of engineering activities (Pan et al. 1994; Konicek
et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2012a; Waclawik et al. 2013). When the
value of maximum boundary stress around the opening (␴max) is
close to the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock (␴c), the
rock is overstressed (Hoek and Marinos 2010). Overstressed rocks
always tend to fail unless special measures are taken. For this
reason, a good understanding of the stress state (natural or in-
duced) influencing the rock mass of an underground excavation is
necessary.
Induced stress
Induced stress can be defined as the variation of the natural
stress field of a rock mass owing to changes in its physical state.
Mining and tunnelling activities disturb the rock mass properties,
inducing redistribution of the rock stress state (Li et al. 2013). The
disturbance level depends on different parameters, such as exca-
vation size, mining extraction ratio, tunnel advance speed, and
excavation method (i.e., tunnel boring machine, roadheader or
drilling and blasting) (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Gong et al. 2012;
Zhang et al. 2012b). The increase of stress magnitude around an
opening caused by stress redistribution (induced stress) is one of
the principal factors producing rock failure in underground exca-
vations, e.g., explosive rockbursts. Some authors refer to the con-
cept of “rock unloading” as an important factor inducing rock
failures due to rapid changes of in situ stress on excavation bound-
aries (Li et al. 2013). Mining activity usually induces greater stress
changes, as it normally involves larger spatial extensions and lon-
ger activity time. Indeed, large mines can significantly influence
the regional stress field of their area (Ortlepp 2001).
In situ stress analysis
The in situ stress field must be appropriately measured and
analysed to understand the rock mass behaviour around the ex-
cavation and to recognize overstressed zones prone to rockbursts.
As a first approach to the regional, large-scale stress state of the
Earth’s crust, the World Stress Map project (Zoback 1992) can
provide a general, preliminary estimation of the main tectonic
stress directions. However, engineering projects usually need
more detailed knowledge of the local in situ stress (Hoek and
Marinos 2010). There are a number of methods for small-scale in
situ stress determination. According to Ljunggren et al. (2003),
these methods can be divided into two main categories, called
“direct” and “indirect” methods. Direct methods measure the
rock stress state directly by disturbing the in situ conditions of the
rock mass, e.g., hydraulic fracturing (HF), hydraulic tests on pre-
existing fractures (HTPF), overcoring, and borehole slotting.
Indirect methods measure the rock stress state by observing
the natural rock response to in situ stress and by testing rock
samples, e.g., core disking, borehole breakouts, acoustic methods
based on the Kaiser effect, back-analysis based on monitoring
results, strain recovery methods from drilled cores, and geologi-
cal observational methods (Fig. 1).
Published by NRC Research Press
 1428
Fig. 1. Common indirect methods of stress state measurement.
Determination of direction of maximum principal stress by (a) core
disking (Hoek 2007) and (b) borehole breakout (Hoek et al. 1998).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
For personal use only.
In addition, there are other less widespread methods of stress
determination that have been tested lately with positive results,
e.g., electrical imaging combined with HF and HTPF, spalling
veins as a stress tensor indicator, porothermoelastic borehole
stress analysis, and geophysical methods such as seismic com-
puted tomography and analysis of the excavation damaged zone
(EDZ) around a tunnel using ultrasonic waves.
Among these methods, the most widely used and best known
are HF, HTPF, and overcoring. These three methods have been
discussed extensively in the literature and there also exist Inter-
national Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) suggested methods
for stress estimation, which are especially focused on them
(Christiansson and Hudson 2003; Haimson and Cornet 2003;
Hudson et al. 2003; Sjöberg et al. 2003). All the methods listed
above are generally reliable; however, their results can be ineffec-
tive or unrealistic when they are used in highly stressed environ-
ments. For instance, overcoring methods may present problems
caused by a core disking effect due to high stress levels (Zhang
et al. 2012a). Actually, direct methods may provide unreliable data
when used in inhomogeneous rock masses or areas greatly af-
fected by mining works (Takla et al. 2005). Nevertheless, there are
other ways to estimate the stress state under adverse stress con-
ditions. Methods based on numerical analysis can provide reliable
stress estimations when used correctly. In fact, a combination of
different methods is generally the best solution when the estima-
tion of stress values is complicated. A good example of this is the
case of the Jinping II Hydropower Station tunnels in China, where
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
the stress determination proved to be extremely difficult. The
solution carried out for the stress calculation in those tunnels is
briefly detailed below.
Zhang et al. (2012a) proposed an integrated method that com-
bined numerical analysis with direct and indirect methods to de-
termine the in situ stress along several deep tunnels excavated at
up to 2525 m depth and 16 km long. The great depth of these
excavations made the determination of in situ stress difficult.
Hence, at points of the tunnels located at more than 1900 m depth,
the stress state was estimated by numerical extrapolation of the
stress measurements made at shallower points. In fact, even some
of the measurements made at depths less than 1900 m did not fit
the general stress state of the area, owing to the great influence of
the high stress. They also used numerical analysis to interpret the
in situ stress by means of the brittle failures that occurred in hard
rock along the tunnels, as well as the plastic deformation of soft
rocks. Zhang et al. (2012b) also carried out several numerical anal-
yses of stress concentration to assess the risk of rockbursts along
the tunnels. They used the magnitudes of in situ stress (estimated
by the previously mentioned integrated analysis method), the
geomechanical parameters of the rock mass (obtained by back-
analysis of field monitoring data), and the following numerical
evaluation indexes: (i) failure approach index (FAI), which evalu-
ates stress concentrations in the rock mass by using the yield
approach index (YAI) (which in turn evaluates the stress concen-
tration in the principal stress space) and the failure degree (FD)
(which evaluates the degree of damage accumulation during de-
formation and fracturing of the rock mass) (Fig. 2) (Zhang et al.
2011); (ii) energy release rate (ERR), which evaluates how prone the
intact rock mass is to burst from the sum of the strain energy
stored in the rock volume to be excavated and the kinetic energy
induced by the instantaneous removal of all the rock volume
(Cook et al. 1966); (iii) excess shear stress (ESS), which evaluates
how prone a rock mass with discontinuities is to suffer fault-slip
bursts, expressed as the difference between the shear stress on the
discontinuity before slip and its dynamic shear strength (Ryder
1988).
Rock mass failure in deep excavations
At shallow depths, rock failures are mainly controlled by the
relationship between gravity and the physical joint condition, i.e.,
weathering state, infill material, opening width, and water flow,
resulting in wedges falling from the excavation roof or sidewalls
(Monsees and Choi 2009). However, as depth increases, the in situ
stress state becomes a key factor in controlling rock failures, al-
though gravity falls may still occur.
High stress levels may induce different failure mechanisms de-
pending on the state of the rock mass. Rock masses with discon-
tinuities, e.g., joints, dykes, bedding planes, and shear zones, may
fail when the shear stress overcomes the shear strength of the
discontinuities (Ryder 1988). In contrast, massive brittle rocks may
fail when the stress levels reach high magnitudes compared with
the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the intact rock (Martin
et al. 1999; Hoek and Marinos 2010; Kaiser and Cai 2012). Thus,
stability in overstressed rock masses with weak planes is largely
determined by the relationship between the stress states and the
physical characteristics of discontinuities, while stability in over-
stressed massive rock masses is primarily controlled by the rela-
tionship between stress states, the UCS of the intact rock and its
mechanical properties, i.e., elastic modulus, Poisson’s ratio, cohe-
sion, etc.
In massive hard rock, an excess of stress induces brittle failure.
High stress levels affecting hard rock produce tensional fractures
close to the excavation surface owing to stress concentration.
These fractures propagate parallel to the maximum principal
stress and the free surfaces of the opening (Ortlepp 2001; Hoek
and Marinos 2010; Gong et al. 2012). Massive hard rock does not
Published by NRC Research Press
 Mazaira and Konicek
Fig. 2. Determination of direction of maximum principal stress by
numerical modelling of the failure approach index (FAI) (modified
after Zhang et al. 2012a).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
necessarily have to be overstressed to start failing. Authors have
reported that cracks and microcracks can initiate early when
stress magnitudes on excavation boundaries reach only 35% to
For personal use only.
50% of the UCS of the intact rock (Cai et al. 2004; Hoek and
Marinos 2010; Li et al. 2012a). On a small scale, these tensile cracks
produce the well-known borehole breakout process. As the stress
magnitude rises, cracks propagate and coalesce, producing thin
rock slabs on the excavation surface. This phenomenon is known
as “slabbing” or “spalling”. These rock slabs can be a minor risk
when falling by gravity or they can be a major risk when they are
ejected in an explosive form and involve a large amount of rock,
which is known as “rockburst”. This phenomenon is termed “pop-
ping rock” — when the rock slabs are ejected with an intermedi-
ate level of energy (Monsees and Choi 2009; Hoek and Marinos
2010; Gong et al. 2012). Slabbing or spalling processes are usually
located at points of maximum tangential stress concentration and
produce a typical v-shaped notch at the opening surfaces (Cai et al.
2004).
Crack initiation and rock failure within brittle rocks can be
studied from an energy balance approach. Griffith (1920) was the
first to establish that a rock-joint system keeps the principle of
conservation of energy so the energies implied in the system al-
ways tend to reach a balance. According to Mitri et al. (1999), the
energy system of an underground excavation performed in rocks
with elastic behavior is given by the relation between the avail-
able energy caused by the rock removal (W + Um) and the dissi-
pated energy (Uc + Ws) according to
(1) W ⫹ U m ⬎ U c ⫹ Ws
where W is the work done by the shifting of external and gravita-
tional forces working on the convergence and deformation of the
rock mass, Um is the stored strain energy in the mined rock, Uc is
the increase of the strain energy stored in the rock mass surround-
ing the excavation, and Ws is the increase of the work done by the
support elements. As the available energy in the system is higher
than the dissipated energy, there is an excess of energy — or
released energy, Wr — which may produce a wave of kinetic en-
ergy, Wk, that propagates from the opening limits through the
rock mass. This kinetic energy is dissipated by dumping process
due to small flaws in the rock mass and can induce rock failures.
1429
The intensity of a rock failure rises with the increase of released
energy; therefore, high amounts of released energy can trigger
explosive rockbursts. Thus, the concepts of energy release rate
(ERR) (Cook et al. 1966) and energy storage rate (ESR) have been
widely used since the 1960s to measure the energy balance of hard
rock underground excavations to evaluate the rock failure risk.
In weak rock masses, an excess of stress may result in a large
plastic or elastoplastic deformation, which is called “squeezing
ground”. This behaviour can reduce the modulus of elasticity and
loading capacity of the rock mass to as low as one-half, but in
many cases the rock is still able to support the loads without
collapse (Monsees and Choi 2009). This type of deformation is
generally time-dependent, therefore the failure process is very
slow but very time-persistent, even after final support installation
(Ortlepp 2001). The squeezing process may produce very large
ground displacements and major support problems (Dwivedi et al.
2013); however, it normally does not represent a significant risk to
workers and equipment.
In jointed rocks, laminated rocks, and rock masses with other
weak geological planes or structures, an excess of stress may in-
duce rock failures that are controlled by these planes of weakness,
as mentioned above. In laminated, anisotropic rocks, high stress
may induce the process termed “buckling”, which produces de-
formation of rock layers or slabs inwards from the opening. When
this kind of deformation releases high amounts of strain energy it
can produce violent ejection of particles (Ortlepp and Stacey
1994). Reactivation of fault planes or shear displacement along
fracture planes due to stress concentration may also lead to a
rockburst (Kaiser and Cai 2012; Zhang et al. 2012b).
Another stress-driven failure that can occur in overstressed
rock masses is the “face overbreak”. This is especially common
when using mechanical excavation methods such as tunnel-
boring machines (in hard or weak rocks) and roadheaders (in
weak rocks) (Gong et al. 2012).
Rockburst failure mechanism
Many authors define rockburst as a sudden, rapid rupture of the
rock mass with a violent, explosive release of elastic energy from
the surface of an excavation, which is generally associated with a
seismic event and produces rock particle ejections (Linkov 1996;
Gong et al. 2012; Kaiser and Cai 2012; Li et al. 2012a; Cai 2013).
According to Ortlepp and Stacey (1994), it is important to differ-
entiate the “rockburst source” and the “rockburst damage”, as they
are often not the same mechanism and may be located far from
each other. The rockburst source is the mechanism that triggers
or induces the damage mechanism visible on the excavation sur-
face. The rockburst source is generally associated with a seismic
event that can be performed at a wide range of local magnitudes
(ML), normally ranging from undetectable up to 5 (Ortlepp and
Stacey 1994). Indeed, mining-induced seismicity can reach moder-
ate values of ground velocity and acceleration, and in some cases
its effects on the surface can be compared with low-intensity
earthquakes (Zembaty 2004; Cai 2013). The mechanism that pro-
duces the seismic event is a sudden release of the strain energy
that has been stored above a critical level within the rock mass.
Part of this energy is consumed by fracture formation, and the
remaining energy is transformed into kinetic energy (Wang and
Park 2001; Li et al. 2012a). When the source is located close to the
excavation surface, this kinetic energy causes the rock fragments
to be ejected. When the source is located in a plane of weakness
within the rock mass, the released energy induces shear displace-
ments along the plane, which in turn produce vibrations that
induce rock ejections when they reach the excavation boundaries
(Ortlepp and Stacey 1994).
Tarasov and Randolph (2008) have explained a number of spe-
cial and paradoxical behaviours of hard rock at great depth that
are directly related to rock failure mechanisms in deep excava-
tions. They pointed out that shearing processes with unusually
Published by NRC Research Press
 1430 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Table 1. Simplified classification of seismic event types (modified from Ortlepp 2001).
Richter
First motion from seismic magnitude
Seismic event Postulated source mechanism records (ML)
Strain-burst Superficial spalling with violent Usually undetected, could −0.2–0
ejection of fragments be implosive
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15

Buckling Outward expulsion of large Implosive 0–1.5

slabs pre-existing parallel to
surface of opening
Face crush – pillar Violent expulsion of rock from Mostly implosive, complex 1.0–2.5
burst stope face or pillar sides
Shear rupture Violent propagation of shear Double-couple shear 2.0–3.5
fracture through intact rock
mass
Fault-slip Sudden, renewed movement on Double-couple 2.5–5.0
existing fault or dyke contact
shear

low friction are the main cause of the high-energy release of rock- Fig. 3. Strainburst mechanism in hard brittle rock (modified after
bursts. According to their frictionless mechanism, hard rock con- Ortlepp and Stacey 1994).
fined under high stress levels may increase its brittleness, instead
of the expected increase of ductility, and may also increase the
violence of the fracture process.
Generally, the harder and stiffer a rock is, the more strain en-
ergy it can store and consequently the more prone to violent
rockburst it is. However, rockbursts do not only occur in hard
brittle rocks, even though it is much more common in that kind of
rock (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994). In coal mining, for instance, high
For personal use only.

stress levels can also affect the coal seams, inducing the so-called
“coal bump”, which is an explosive failure of the coal mineral
(Díaz-Aguado and González 2009; Konicek et al. 2011).
According to Li et al. (2012a) and to the processes mentioned
above, the principal steps of rockburst formation and evolution
are shown in temporal order as follows:
1. stress adjustment (caused by in situ stress changes induced by
excavation works);
2. strain energy accumulation (in excavation boundaries or
planes of weakness);
3. extensional cleavage cracks initiation, propagation, and co-
alescence (parallel to the maximum principal stress);
4. rupture of rock slabs (in massive rock masses, close to excava-
tion limits); and
5. collapse and ejection of rock blocks due to sudden release of
energy at the excavation boundaries.

Source mechanisms
Some research studies consider rockbursts as always being in-
duced by seismic events (far from or close to the excavation limits)
(Ortlepp and Stacey 1994). However, other studies distinguish be-
tween two different sources: remote seismic events and stress
changes close to the excavation limits (Cai 2013). In any case, these
mechanisms always induce critical stress concentrations at the
excavation boundaries, which is the main precursor of the final
rock failure.
Ortlepp and Stacey (1994) and Ortlepp (2001) divided rockbursts
into five types depending on their source mechanism (Table 1):
(i) strainburst (Fig. 3); (ii) buckling burst (Fig. 4); (iii) face crash or
pillar burst; (iv) shear rupture; and (v) fault-slip burst (Fig. 5). Other
authors prefer to simplify this division, considering buckling
burst as a type of strainburst and shear rupture as a type of fault-
slip burst (Hedley 1992; Kaiser and Cai 2012), giving a more general
classification as follows: (i) strainburst; (ii) pillar burst; and
(iii) fault-slip burst. Tang (2000) also proposed a rockburst that
combines both strain and fault-slip.
In strain, buckling, and pillar–face bursts, the source and dam-
age mechanisms are generally located in the same place. This
means that the rock involved in the source mechanism is the
same as that which then collapses during the rockburst. Con-
versely, in shear rupture and fault-slip bursts the source mecha-
nism is located in planes of weakness and fractures that extend a
long distance (even hundreds of metres) from the rock involved in
the rockburst on the excavation limits (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994;
Kaiser and Cai 2012; Cai 2013).
Strainburst is the most frequent rockburst type in underground
excavations within massive hard rock masses, especially in civil
engineering projects (Zhang et al. 2012b; Cai 2013). It is normally
preceded by nonviolent slabbing or spalling. Actually, strainburst
can be considered as a violent or extreme form of slabbing or
spalling (Gong et al. 2012). In comparison with the other types of
mechanisms, this is the one that releases the least energy.
Buckling burst is likely to occur in laminated or transversely
anisotropic rock masses. Rock layers or slabs can store strain en-
ergy due to an increase of stress that makes them prone to buck-
ling in a violent way (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994).
Pillar–face burst is caused by stress accumulation in mining
pillars or in stope faces. It normally implies a large volume of rock
and a high amount of released energy (Kaiser and Cai 2012).

Published by NRC Research Press

 Mazaira and Konicek
Fig. 4. Buckling burst mechanism in a laminated or stratified rock
mass (modified after Ortlepp and Stacey 1994).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
Fault-slip and shear rupture are basically the same rockburst
For personal use only.
source. In both cases, there is a shear failure along a plane within
the rock mass. The main difference between them is that fault-slip
is caused by reactivation of pre-existing faults, dyke contacts or
shear zones, while shear rupture is caused by generation of new
fractures, normally in intact rock mass (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994;
Kaiser and Cai 2012). In comparison with the other mechanisms,
this is the one that releases the most energy.
Damage mechanisms
The most common types of excavation damage induced by rock-
bursts are (i) rock fracture followed by violent ejection of rock
fragments (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Kaiser et al. 1996; Cai 2013);
(ii) rock deformation of laminated rock by a buckling mechanism
(Ortlepp and Stacey 1994); (iii) large convergence of excavation due
to roof and sidewall buckling and floor heave after a rockburst
(Kaiser et al. 1996; Cai 2013); (iv) shear displacements of rock due to
the activation of large faults (Ortlepp 2001; Cai 2013); and (v) grav-
itational arch collapse induced by kinematic movement of well-
defined geological structures, e.g., a fall of previously stable
wedges caused by movements from a rockburst or seismic event
(Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Kaiser et al. 1996). Different rockburst
sources can produce similar rock damage on the excavation sur-
faces.
Amongst the mentioned damage types, rock ejection is the
most common and can be induced by all types of rockburst
sources. For instance, strainbursts usually produce an ejection of
thin, shaped rock slabs that can vary greatly in size. The location
of the rock damage induced by strainburst always depends on the
stress field orientation and can also produce a typical “dog-earing”
tunnel shape when the excavation diameter is small (similar to
breakout failure in boreholes) (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Ortlepp
2001). In jointed rock masses, ejection of fracture-defined rock
blocks is seen (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994). In such a case, a fault-slip
event can be the source mechanism that induces damage (Cai
2013). Remote fault-slip or shear rupture may also induce a sudden
ejection of previously intact rock in massive rock masses (Ortlepp
2000). Pillar–face bursts usually involve a large amount of rock
and may produce ejection of fractured rock as well (Kaiser and Cai
2012). Ejected rocks from a rockburst can acquire velocities of
1431
more than 10 m/s, sufficient to cause human fatalities and damage
equipment and the excavation (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Linkov
1996).
Buckling damage can be a self-induced mechanism produced by
strain energy stored in the rock layers or rock slabs forming the
rock mass or it can be influenced by remote seismic events. A
buckling burst can damage an excavation by large and violent
deformation of the rock inwards from the opening. As mentioned
above, it can also be accompanied by ejection of rock particles
(Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Cai 2013).
As a result of rock ejection, notches of variable depth and ex-
tension are produced on the excavation limits. Rockburst damage
severity is often classified by the depth of rockburst notches, vol-
ume of rock failed, and seismic energy released (Ortlepp and
Stacey 1994; Zhang et al. 2012b; Cai 2013; Konicek et al. 2013b).
Rockbursts in mining and civil engineering works
There are two principal factors that cause rock failure mecha-
nisms in mining and civil underground works to differ from each
other. The first is the in situ stress magnitudes. As the depth
increases, the magnitude of in situ stress increases as well. There-
fore, mining tunnels are often excavated in rocks with higher in
situ stress than civil tunnels, as mining projects usually reach
much greater depths (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994). The second factor
is the stress disturbance produced by excavation. Stress changes
induced in the rock mass by mining works are always much more
significant and complex than in civil works. Mining activity usu-
ally implies excavation of large areas over many years, which can
produce large-scale effects on the regional stress. For instance,
important seismic events can be induced owing to reactivation of
regional faults (Ortlepp 2001). In contrast, this cannot occur in
civil tunnelling, where the excavation area is much smaller, as is
the disturbance of the surrounding rock mass (Zhang et al. 2012b).
Thus, because of the higher stress magnitudes and greater dis-
turbance of the stress field, underground mining works are much
more prone to intense rockbursts, including those that cause high
seismic energy to be triggered. Consequently, rockbursts induced
by shear rupture and fault-slip (high energy) are found almost
exclusively in mining works (Ortlepp 2001; Kaiser and Cai 2012;
Zhang et al. 2012b). Pillar–face burst, buckling burst, and strain-
burst are found in both mining and civil excavations, although
strainburst is by far the most frequent rockburst in civil tunnels
(Ortlepp and Stacey 1994).
Three mines from the Legnica-Głogów Copper District (LGCD) in
Poland are good examples to show the enormous hazard level that
rockbursts and induced seismicity can reach in mining projects.
These mines exploit a copper-ore seam located at a depth ranging
from 600 to 1000 m, which is immediately overlaid by a 100 m
thick bed of compact, rigid dolomite. These hard strata over the
ore body lead to strain energy accumulation during the extraction
works that can be suddenly released, inducing very high seis-
micity (Orzepowski and Butra 2008). The local seismic net-
works record several thousand seismic events every year, of
which between 400 and 700 are strong seismic events (≥105 J)
(Ortlepp 2005). Strong seismic events are sometimes accompanied
by intense rock failure and 61 rockbursts have occurred over the
last 20 years, this being the major hazard encountered in these
mines (Ortlepp 2005). Zembaty (2004) noted that the typical en-
ergy of the strongest rockbursts in the Rudna mine (one of the
LGCD mines) is remarkably high, with values ranging from 106 to
109 J. The strongest rockburst registered in that mine released an
enormous energy of 1.5 × 109 J. This seismic event provoked panic
among the residents of the area and important material damage,
such as cracks in buildings and falling furniture. A similar situa-
tion exists in the hardcoal mining industry in the Upper Silesian
Coal Basin (USCB), where rockburst risk is closely connected with
existence of competent rock layers between thick coal seams (e.g.,
Kwaśniewski et al. 1994; Takla et al. 2005; Konicek et al. 2011,
Published by NRC Research Press
 1432
Fig. 5. Fault-slip burst mechanism induced by both a remote seismic event and a shear displacement of discontinuities (modified after
Ortlepp and Stacey 1994).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
2013b). Proactive rockburst prevention measures are focused on
For personal use only.
these competent layers (Konicek et al. 2011).
Excavation method influencing rockburst
Tunnel excavation methods can be divided into two general
types: the mechanical method and the drill and blast (D&B)
method. The mechanical method includes the use of tunnel bor-
ing machines (TBM), roadheaders, and impact hammers. One of
the most important differences between the mechanical and D&B
methods is how they disturb the rock around the opening. Thus,
machine excavation produces minimal ground disturbance, whilst
D&B can produce substantial damage to the rock mass (Ocak and
Bilgin 2010). At shallow depth, the small rock disturbance pro-
duced by mechanical methods is considered a positive effect for
rock stability. However, it can turn into a negative effect when
working at great depth in highly stressed rock masses. In such a
case, low rock disturbance allows a dangerous stress concentra-
tion on the excavation boundaries, especially in hard rock; there-
fore, significant rock failures such as spalling and even rockburst
can be produced under these conditions (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994).
In contrast, D&B excavation in a high stress environment induces
greater rock disturbance, which produces a larger fractured zone
surrounding the excavation. This allows migration of high stress
concentrations farther into the rock mass, decreasing the risk of
rockburst (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Zhang et al. 2012b).
The rock mass affected by excavation processes around an open-
ing is termed the excavation damaged zone (EDZ). Measurements
of the EDZ have been done by some authors to determine, for
instance, the in situ stress orientation (Li et al. 2012b; Zhang et al.
2012a) and the radiation permeability of the rock mass in deep
disposal of nuclear waste (Maxwell et al. 1998).
TBM method
TBM excavation has clear advantages when used in rock masses
with good stability, e.g., high mechanization, rapid excavation,
and a safe environment. However, it has many limitations when
used in overstressed rocks. With the increasing depth of civil
tunnels, there have been an increasing number of problems in
TBM excavations due to rock failures associated with high stress
(Hoek and Marinos 2010).
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
The TBM method is much more prone to setbacks related to
rock failures and geological issues than other mechanical excava-
tions (Delisio et al. 2013). The main limitation of TBM excavation is
its lack of flexibility to react to adverse situations. When using a
TBM it is not possible to retreat or let other machinery act in case
of emergency, nor to take special measures to control and prevent
rock failures (i.e., immediate support installation and pre-
conditioning methods such as destress blasting). In addition,
TBM equipment has low resistance to rockburst impacts (Zhang
et al. 2012b).
In weak rock, tunnel convergence by squeezing is an important
problem that must be overcome for correct operation of the TBM
(Hasanpour et al. 2014). Ramoni and Anagnostou (2010) gave a
complete list of case histories of TBM problems in squeezing con-
ditions. In tunnels carried out in hard brittle rock, rockburst is the
main problem affecting TBM operation. Zhang et al. (2012b) and
Gong et al. (2012) have shown the challenging works performed in
the Jinping II Hydropower Station project in China, where seven
deep tunnels have been excavated in overstressed brittle marbles.
In this project, continuous intense rockbursts have affected the
works in all tunnels, especially the two tunnels excavated by TBM.
After several shutdowns, one TBM was totally trapped under an
extremely intense rockburst.
In overstressed hard rocks, violent rock failures such as rock-
burst have very negative effects on TBM advance. These phenom-
ena produce anomalies in the work of fundamental TBM parts,
i.e., abnormal cutter wear, cutter ring failure, cutterhead cracks,
cutterhead jams, and gripper instability (Gong et al. 2012; Delisio
et al. 2013). In addition, gripper loads may even induce more spal-
ling and rockbursts due to adverse stress redistribution (Gong
et al. 2012). In the end, these problems result in a decrease of
advance rates and huge economic and time losses, which may
threaten the whole project. Nevertheless, investigations have re-
ported that nonviolent spalling or slabbing under high stress con-
ditions could actually be a great advantage of TBM excavation
(Fig. 6). These mechanisms can form additional fractures ahead of
the tunnel face, thus obtaining higher advance rates (Myrvang
et al. 1998; Gong et al. 2012).
Published by NRC Research Press
 Mazaira and Konicek
Fig. 6. Rock fragmentation by TBM cutters in (a) low-stress hard rock and (b) overstressed hard rock with nonviolent spalling (modified after
Gong et al. 2012).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
Drill and blast method
At shallow depth, drill and blast excavation can produce unde-
sirable problems that must be dealt with, e.g., blast vibration on
For personal use only.
the ground surface, overexcavation, and large rock mass damage
(Haibo et al. 2011). However, these negative effects can actually be
an advantage when the excavation is performed in overstressed
hard rocks and at great depth. In such a case, the rock damage
caused by blasting forms a protected area surrounding the exca-
vation. Fractures formed in that area induce migration of possible
stress concentration far from the opening, thus dissipating the
risk of rockburst (Zhang et al. 2012b). This destress effect of blast-
ing works has been used as a prevention method against rock-
bursts for a long time, especially in mines (Tang 2000; Konicek
et al. 2011, 2013b). Nonetheless, it is important to note that a too
high amount of rock disturbance by blasting can always have
negative consequences on the excavation, e.g., face overbreak and
rock falls due to excessive rock damage, therefore blasting works
must always be designed carefully.
The level of rock mass disturbance produced by blasting de-
pends on the properties and condition of the rock and on the
quality of the blasting. As a result, Hoek and Brown (1988) updated
their Hoek–Brown failure criterion and introduced the concept of
disturbed rock mass as the effect of blasting, excavation, and
stress relaxation. After this, Hoek et al. (2002) introduced the blast
damage factor D, which takes into account the disturbance level
of the rock mass surrounding an excavation performed by blast-
ing.
Protection against and prevention of rockburst
As Hoek and Marinos (2010) pointed out, it is almost impossible
to avoid failure initiation of overstressed rock. However, there are
a number of measures that can be taken to control rock failures
and avoid or minimize the impact of rockbursts. These measures
need to be applied in two different stages: (i) prediction and
(ii) prevention. It is important that these stages keep a temporal
order, as the absence of prediction results in a dangerous lack of
anticipation in the application of preventive measures.
Rockburst prediction
First, it is necessary to predict, as far as possible, the zones that
will be prone to suffering rockbursts. Lithology and the in situ
stress state must be determined to locate zones where rock mass
1433
can achieve critical stress levels, i.e., massive hard rock capable of
storing great levels of strain energy. Thus, a comprehensive geo-
logical model is always needed in the early project stages (Hoek
and Marinos 2010), as well as continuous evaluation and monitor-
ing of in situ stress (Stas et al. 2011). Under a stress state approach,
there are numerical indexes that allow the evaluation and predic-
tion of rockburst risk, e.g., failure approach index (FAI) and excess
shear stress (ESS) (see section titled “In situ stress field”). Under an
energy-balance approach (see section titled “Rock mass failure in
deep excavations”), the methods to predict rockburst risk are based
on energy indexes such as energy release rate (ERR) (Cook et al. 1966;
Linkov 1996; Zhang et al. 2012b), energy storage rate (ESR), strain
energy storage index (WET) (Kidybiński 1981; Wattimena et al. 2012),
potential energy of elastic strain (PES) or strain energy density (SED)
(i.e., the elastic strain energy in a unit volume of the rock mass,
which is calculated by the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock
and its unloading tangential modulus; Kwaśniewski et al. 1994;
Wang and Park 2001), and burst potential index (BPI) (Mitri et al.
1999). Rockburst risk can be also predicted by using the rock brittle-
ness index B (i.e., the ratio of uniaxial compressive strength to tensile
strength of rock; Wang and Park 2001).
Correct prediction of rockburst-prone zones results in much
safer work environments. In addition, accurate prediction allows
engineers to apply special support systems only where needed,
saving on final costs (Cai 2013). Costs are also reduced by avoiding
reinstallation of damaged supports and facilities caused by rock-
bursts.
Rockburst prevention
Once the rockburst-prone zones have been located, prevention
measures can be carried out. According to research studies, there
are three different approaches or steps to rockburst prevention:
(i) optimization of the project layout scheme; (ii) pre-conditioning
of the rock mass; and (iii) rock mass reinforcement and support
(Salamon 1984; Kaiser and Cai 2012; Zhang et al. 2012b). These
approaches are suitable for both mining and civil works even
though there are important differences in their application to
these fields. For instance, Mitri (2000) established the same pre-
vention approaches but specifically focusing on mining excava-
tions (Fig. 7). Numerical modelling is currently a fundamental tool
for the evaluation of rockburst prevention measures in these
Published by NRC Research Press
 1434 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

Fig. 7. Methods to reduce damaging effects of excessive stress in underground mining (modified from Mitri 2000).
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15

Fig. 8. Tunnel section divided into multiple drifts to decrease the risk of rock failure, including rockburst. Sequential excavation of smaller
areas leads to better stress redistribution and prevents stress concentrations around the opening (modified from Gall and Zeidler 2009).
For personal use only.

three approaches, especially in support design and project layout
optimization.
Optimization of project layout scheme
A project layout scheme can be optimized to avoid or minimize
the risk of rockbursts. This can be achieved by modifying primary
parameters that have a strong influence on the excavation stabil-
ity. For instance, the excavation method has a great influence on
the behaviour of the rock mass. As stated in section titled “Exca-
vation method influencing rockburst”, the drill and blast method
allows for safer environments than mechanical methods when
the works are carried out in highly stressed hard rock, because
dangerous stress concentrations can be dissipated by the destress
effect. According to the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (in civil
projects), the division of excavation phases into multiple drifts
also has a great influence onexcavation stability (Fig. 8) (Gall and
Zeidler 2009). More drifts mean smaller excavation sections and
more favourable redistribution of in situ stress. The dimensions
and shape of the excavation can be modified as well. Excavations
of large diameter always present more problems related to stabil-
ity and can be more prone to rockburst. Round-shaped excavation
sections tend to redistribute stress more homogeneously than
other shapes, which can prevent unfavourable stress concentra-
tions (Gall and Zeidler 2009; Kaiser and Cai 2012). Excavation se-
quences also affect the opening stability depending on the direction
of geological structures (Cai 2013).
Rock mass pre-conditioning
The pre-conditioning approach prevents rockburst by changing
the properties of the rock mass before it is excavated. One of the
most widespread pre-conditioning methods in mining is destress
blasting, which has been used effectively since the 1950s (Tang

Published by NRC Research Press

 Mazaira and Konicek 1435

2000; Saharan and Mitri 2011; Zhang et al. 2012b). This method Fig. 9. Migration of stress concentrations by destress effect of
uses confined explosive charges, i.e., with no free faces, to reduce blasting (modified from Roux et al. 1957).
the stress level of an area designated for excavation (Andrieux and
Hadjigeorgiou 2008). Destress blasting softens the rock mass by
fracturing the intact rock, decreasing the effective modulus of
elasticity of the rock mass and its ability to carry high stress. Then,
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15

stress concentrations migrate far away to other zones of the rock

mass, decreasing the risk of rockburst (Fig. 9) (Tang 2000; Saharan
and Mitri 2011; Konicek et al. 2013b).
Despite the extended use of destress blasting in many mines
around the world, there are no well-established engineering pro-
cedures or methodology for this practice. In many cases, this
method is still a trial and error procedure based on the previous
experience of engineers (Andrieux and Hadjigeorgiou 2008). How-
ever, some attempts at establishing a scientific basis for destress
blasting have been carried out successfully. Different approaches
can be followed to evaluate the effectiveness of destress blasting
(before and after it is performed). For instance, Andrieux and
Hadjigeorgiou (2008) have developed an empirical method to as-
sess in advance the effectiveness of large-scale destress blasting in
a deep underground mine pillar, which was investigated in Can-
ada. This method evaluates nine different parameters of the rock
mass and blasting by using the “rock engineering system” (RES)
Other pre-conditioning methods are hydraulic fracturing (Huang
(Hudson 1992) and the “destressability index”. Thereby, the over-
et al. 2011) and destress boreholes (Zhu et al. 2009). These methods
all destress blasting behaviour is calculated in the same manner as
are based on the same fundamentals as destress blasting, although in
in the rock mass classification systems, assigning values to each
these cases the rock fracturing is induced by high-pressure fluid and
parameter and obtaining a final normalized score ranging from 0 borehole drilling, respectively. Hydraulic fracturing can also be used
to 1, which indicates the destress capacity of the blasting (i.e., low, together with blasting to make fracture and crack generation more
For personal use only.

medium, good or excellent). Blasting parameters, e.g., blasthole
diameter, spacing, and explosive charge, can be assessed in ad-
vance by this method to adjust them to obtain the maximum
destress capacity. The nine parameters assessed by this method
are as follows:
• stiffness of the rock mass,
• brittleness of the rock mass,
•
degree of fracturing of the rock mass,
•
proximity to failure of the rock mass,
•
orientation of the destress blast,
• width of the destress blast,
• unit explosive energy,
• confinement of the explosive charges, and
• result of the destress blast.
The evaluation of destress blasting effectiveness can also be
done by measurement of some rock mass parameters after the
blast has been fired, such as changes in stress magnitudes, changes
in modulus parameters, seismic effect, rock deformation, and
changes of geophysical properties (Andrieux and Hadjigeorgiou
2008; Konicek et al. 2011). For instance, Konicek et al. (2013a, 2013b)
have shown satisfactory results for assessment of destress blasting
in hard coal mines of the Czech Republic by monitoring the
changes of stress magnitudes near destress blastings and calculat-
ing the seismic effect from the available seismic monitoring data
and weight of explosive.
Another prevention method that uses the fundamentals of the
destress effect of blasting is excavation using pilot tunnels (Zhang
et al. 2012b). This method is mainly applied in civil tunnels and is
especially recommended to prevent rockburst in tunnels with a
large diameter excavated by TBM. In this case, a tunnel with a
smaller section than the final TBM tunnel is excavated by the drill
and blast method. The destress effect of blasting and the installa-
tion of support (temporal or definitive) make the final TBM exca-
vation much safer. Moreover, a pilot tunnel permits application of
other safety measures, such as inspection drillings ahead of the
tunnel that give important geological and geotechnical informa-
tion in advance (Zhang et al. 2012b).
effective (Fan et al. 2012).
In the coal mines of Central Europe, different pre-conditioning
methods (e.g., destress drilling, destress blasting performed in
coal seams and competent rock layers, and water infusion of coal
seams) are used to minimize the risk of violent release of energy
(Holub et al. 2011; Konicek et al. 2011). Among the active methods,
destress blasting has become one of the most popular procedures
due to its excellent results, especially in the Czech and Polish
collieries (Konicek et al. 2011). This method has been performed
satisfactorily in the Czech part of the USCB from 1990 and more
than 2000 destress blastings have been carried out with good
results between 1990 and 2010 (Konicek et al. 2013b).
Support in rockburst-prone excavations
The terms “excavation support” and “rock reinforcement” can
be considered as two different approaches to excavation stability.
Historically, excavation support consists of heavy elements placed
on the opening surface to keep the excavation shape by applica-
tion of a reactive force that supports the fractured rock (Brady and
Brown 2004). The main elements of excavation support are steel
ribs, filling, and lagging. This approach is mainly applied in min-
ing excavation. On the other hand, rock reinforcement is based on
conservation or improvement of the rock mass properties by
forming a self-supporting rock arch around the opening (Brady
and Brown 2004; Monsees and Choi 2009). Common elements
forming rock reinforcement are rock bolts and dowels, cable
bolts, rock anchors, shotcrete, wire mesh, and steel straps. The
rock reinforcement approach is currently widely applied in civil
projects and also in mining works (Monsees and Choi 2009). In
this paper, the general term “support” is used to refer to both
excavation support and rock reinforcement.
Rockburst support and conventional support are significantly
different. Conventional support is mainly designed to deal with
gravity-induced rock block falls and superficial unravelling
(Monsees and Choi 2009). However, support of burst-prone
grounds also needs to resist the impact of high dynamic loads
caused by violent ejection of rock fragments, as well as large
bulking (i.e., an increase of rock volume due to the fractures and
ejections) (Cai and Champaigne 2012; Kaiser and Cai 2012). Under

Published by NRC Research Press

 1436 Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015

high stress conditions, the elements form a support system that is Fig. 10. Difference between (a) stiff and (b) yielding bolting systems.
needed to have great energy dissipation and deformation ca- Yielding rockbolts permit large rock displacements, which means
pacity. more energy dissipation and less deformation gradient in
In burst-prone zones, flexibility is preferred to strength and supporting elements (modified after Cai 2013).
stiffness. Thus, “yielding support” is a fundamental approach for
achieving effective rockburst support, especially where high-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15

energy rockbursts can occur, i.e., shear rupture and fault-slip

burst. However, the energy absorption capacity of a support sys-
tem is limited, even for the most optimal design (Zhang et al.
2012b; Cai 2013). Rockbursts release energy in the form of dynamic
loads, which can be much higher than the bearing capacity of the
support system (Ortlepp and Stacey 1994; Zhang et al. 2012b).
Under high dynamic loads, stiff support elements such as fully
grouted rebars or tendons can fail prematurely (Ortlepp 2001).
These support elements are destroyed when their bearing capac-
ity is overcome by the induced loads. At that point, the support
system collapses and no action occurs to hold the fractured rock.
Conversely, yielding support elements are not destroyed when
the induced loads are higher than their bearing capacity (Ortlepp
2001; Cai 2013). In such a case, support elements are firstly de-
formed to their maximum strain capacity and, from that point,
they yield and consume energy by friction while displacing (e.g.,
friction-anchored bolts) (Fig. 10). Although the bearing capacity of
yielding elements is usually small, their large sliding capacity is
able to keep the integrity of the excavation even under extreme
rockburst conditions. It is important to remember that a yield-
ing support system is not always formed exclusively by yielding
elements. Cai (2013) highlighted that the combination of stiff
elements — such as grouted rebars with yielding bolts, straps, and
For personal use only.

shotcrete — can provide a double-defence support system, which

will behave as a static–stiff support or as a flexible–yielding sup-
port, depending on the circumstances.
Ortlepp and Stacey (1994) have pointed out that in the case of
low-energy rockbursts (i.e., strainburst) support design must be
more focused on increasing the critical buckling stress of the rock
at the excavation boundaries. Critical buckling stress can be in-
creased in two forms. First, minimizing exposed rock spans by
decreasing spacing between bolts and using large face plates; and
second, increasing the thickness of rock fragments by application
of reinforced shotcrete.
According to Kaiser et al. (1996), rock support presents three
different key functions: (i) reinforcement of the rock mass to
strengthen it and control bulking; (ii) retention of broken rock to
prevent block failure and unravelling; and (iii) holding blocks and
tying back the retaining elements. The reinforce and hold func-
tions of a yielding support system are usually provided by high-
friction bolts, e.g., conebolts (Cai and Champaigne 2012). As
mentioned above, these bolts permit large rock displacements
without self-destructing, allowing high energy dissipation. Rock
bolts installed in rockburst-prone zones must not be pre-tensioned
(Stillborg 1994), as this could further increase the stress state of
the rock mass, inducing a rockburst or other rock failure.
In high stress environments, the rock between bolts is espe-
cially prone to burst. Retaining elements must be used to avoid
that problem. Shotcrete is a fundamental tool to prevent rock fall
and ejection between bolts, particularly when it is reinforced with
steel or plastic fibres that increase the tensile strength and tough-
ness of the shotcrete (Ortlepp 2001; Kaiser and Cai 2012; Cai 2013).
Wire mesh and steel straps are widely used as retaining elements,
especially in mines. Steel mesh can be used as reinforcement of
shotcrete too. In burst-prone zones, shotcrete can be part of the
particles ejected by a rockburst. This may occur when the layer of
shotcrete is too thick, such that it behaves rigidly and cannot
deform with the rock (Kaiser and Cai 2012). In other cases, the
shotcrete is just not able to absorb the dynamic loads of a rock-
burst and becomes part of it. The use of mesh-reinforced shotcrete
and the installation of mesh or straps over the shotcrete layer are
reliable measures to avoid this problem (Cai 2013).
The elements of a rock support system do not work individu-
ally. Under unfavourable stress conditions, rock bolts can rarely
be effective in terms of holding failed rocks without the addi-
tional support provided by shotcrete, straps or wire mesh. All
these elements must be well connected, forming the whole sup-
port system. The overall capacity of a support system is always
defined by its weakest element. Special attention must be paid
during support installation to the linkage between retaining and
reinforcement elements, as this is usually the weakest part of the
support system (Kaiser and Cai 2012; Cai 2013). An accurate over-
lap between wire mesh, straps, and bolt face plates is very impor-
tant to prevent rapid support failure.
Cai, Champaigne, and Kaiser (Kaiser and Cai 2012; Cai 2013; Cai
and Champaigne 2009) have established seven simple principles
that summarize the basic fundamentals of support design in
burst-prone grounds and also summarize the main ideas ex-
pressed in this section. These principles are presented below.
• Avoid rockburst — If rockburst risk is avoided, no special support
is needed. It was previously commented that there are two
approaches to minimize rockburst risk. The first is optimiza-
tion of the project layout by changing design parameters, such
as excavation location, sequence, size, shape, and method. The
second is rock mass pre-conditioning to decrease rockburst risk
by using destress blasting, hydraulic fracturing, and destress
guide boreholes. In mining works, backfilling of mined-out
stopes can be considered too.
• Use yielding support — Conventional support is not able to adapt
to large rock deformation, nor is it able to absorb the dynamic
energy released by a rockburst; therefore, a flexible, yielding
support must be installed in burst-prone grounds.
• Address the weakest link — A support system is as weak as its
weakest element, which is usually the linkage between rein-
forcing elements (e.g., rock bolts) and retaining elements (e.g.,
wire mesh and straps). Special care must be taken with the
correct installation of those elements.
• Use an integrated system — There is no single support element
that is capable on its own of resisting the impact of a rockburst,

Published by NRC Research Press

 Mazaira and Konicek
to hold the fractured rock and keep the integrity of the excava-
tion. Different support elements with different functions must
be installed together, depending on the rock conditions and
stress state to achieve the maximum support effectiveness. This
also means that yielding supports can be formed by a combina-
tion of yielding elements and nonyielding elements such as
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
stiff grouted rebars.
• Simplicity — Support elements need to be easy to manufacture,
install, and maintain.
• Cost-effectiveness — Rockburst support is more expensive than
conventional support. However, the cost of damage caused by a
rockburst can be huge. The consequences of an extreme rock-
burst can be damage at the opening, damage to equipment, loss
of production, loss of ore bodies, and worker injuries or fatali-
ties. If the extra cost of a rockburst support is compared with
the total cost arising from an intense rockburst event, it is clear
that special support costs are well spent.
• Anticipate and be adaptable — The conditions of burst-prone
grounds change easily; therefore, it is necessary to have sup-
port designs that are capable of adapting quickly to new cir-
cumstances. Readiness to face any adverse situation rapidly
and effectively is one of the most important requirements for
rockburst support.
Numerical modelling
Numerical methods are an important part of rockburst assess-
ment during the prediction and prevention stages. Some examples
of the application of numerical modelling to problems related to
rock failure and rockburst are presented below.
For personal use only.
As mentioned previously, for an accurate prediction of the
rockburst-prone zones in underground excavations it is always
necessary to estimate the in situ stress state of the rock mass and
the mining-induced stress changes. Numerical modelling (alone
or in combination with other physical methods) can be used for
the estimation of both in situ stress and induced stress, what in
consequence leads to the prediction of failure-prone areas. For
instance, Islam et al. (2009) presented numerical models of the
stress redistribution caused by extraction operations in coal min-
ing. They used the finite elements method (FEM) and boundary
element method (BEM) to calculate the mining-induced stress lev-
els in advance and to predict the failure-prone zones of the mine.
Other studies, such as Wang and Park (2001) and Sirait et al.
(2013), have been carried out by numerical modelling to predict
rockburst phenomena in deep, hard rock mines. In these cases
they used a combination of experimental results and numerical
calculation to determine the strain energy stored in the rock and
to assess rockburst occurrence by using evaluation indexes, e.g.,
energy release rate (ERR), energy storage rate (ESR), burst poten-
tial index (BPI), and potential energy of elastic strain (PES).
Numerical methods have even more importance during the
rockburst prevention stages. The behaviour of different layout
schemes of the same project can be tested prior to excavation
using numerical modelling to select the one with the best re-
sponse to the rock mass characteristics and with the least rock-
burst risk. A good example of this is the numerical modelling
performed by Zhang et al. (2012b) to evaluate the pilot tunnel
investigation cited in the section titled “Rock mas pre-
conditioning”.
Different rock mass pre-conditioning methods can also be
tested by numerical modelling before they are applied. This
allows engineers to adjust the layout of pre-conditioning mea-
sures to the exact conditions of the excavation to maximize its
preventive action and to increase safety. For instance, Zhu et al.
(2009) tested different layouts of guide (destress) holes under dif-
ferent in situ stress conditions to decrease the rockburst risk in
underground excavations. They used the FEM to create different
models, varying several parameters of the holes, i.e., number of
1437
rows and position around the opening, under different in situ
stress levels.
Finally, numerical modelling of rock support systems is proba-
bly one of the most important and most extended applications of
numerical methods to underground excavations, and its impor-
tance is even greater when designing support in rockburst-prone
grounds. For instance, numerical analyses have been carried out
to test the behaviour of different types of rockbolts under dy-
namic loads, i.e., the load produced during rockbursts (Mortazavi
and Alavi 2013; Nie et al. 2014).
Conclusion
Rockburst events produce fatal injuries to workers, loss of facil-
ities, damage to equipment, and production stoppages. Worse
still, this is a growing problem in both the mining industry and
civil engineering projects. Therefore, some important steps must
be followed in the design and execution of underground excava-
tions that are likely to be affected by violent rock failures such as
rockbursts. These steps are (i) early prediction, (ii) design modifi-
cation, (ii) in situ prevention, and (iv) final retention.
• Early prediction — First of all, it is necessary to determine how
prone the rock mass is to rockbursts. An exhaustive geological
study must be carried out before starting the works to define
the lithology and the geomechanical and geotechnical proper-
ties of the rock mass. Determination of the in situ stress mag-
nitude and orientation is also fundamental for assessing the
failure risk, as well as the continuous monitoring of the stress
state in working areas. Determination of the rock stress state
can be performed in situ or in the laboratory by direct and
indirect methods, and by numerical analysis using stress eval-
uation indexes. Knowing this information, special attention
must be paid to overstressed competent hard rock, as it is the
type of rock most prone to rockbursts.
• Design modification — It is possible to avoid or minimize rock-
burst risk by modifying primary parameters of the project lay-
out scheme that have a strong influence on excavation stability,
i.e., location, shape, size, sequence, excavation method, and divi-
sion of excavation into drifts.
• In situ prevention — When the rockburst risk cannot be minimized
by design modification, pre-conditioning methods can be applied
to prevent rockbursts by changing the properties of the rock mass
before it is excavated. The most commonly used pre-conditioning
method is destress blasting, especially in mining works. Other
methods are hydraulic fracturing, destress boreholes, and pilot
tunnels. The aim of these methods is the same: softening the rock
mass surrounding the excavation by fracturing it, decreasing its
effective modulus of elasticity, and producing migration of high
stress concentration deeper into the rock mass.
• Final retention — If the rockburst risk is still high when the rock is
already being excavated, the final measure to protect the opening
stability and safety of workers and equipment is the installation of
special rock support and reinforcement systems. In this case, the
aim of the support system is to conserve or improve the rock mass
properties by forming a self-supporting rock arch around the
opening or by application of a reactive force that holds the dead
weight of the fractured rock. In rockburst-prone environments it
is of crucial importance to design yielding support systems that
are able to resist the impact of the high dynamic loads caused by
violent ejection of rock fragments and large deformations. Yield-
ing support elements do not become destroyed when the induced
loads are higher than their bearing capacity. During a rockburst,
these elements are deformed to their maximum strain capacity
and then, from that point, they yield and consume energy by
friction while displacing.
Published by NRC Research Press
 1438
Acknowledgements
This article has been written in connection with the Project
Institute of Clean Technologies for Mining and Utilization of Raw
Materials for Energy Use – Sustainability, reg. No. MSMT LO1406,
which is supported by the Research and Development for Innova-
tions Operational Programme financed by the Structural Funds of
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
the European Union and the Czech Republic.
References
Amadei, B., and Stephansson, O. 1997. Rock stress and its measurement. Chap-
man & Hall, London.
Andrieux, P., and Hadjigeorgiou, J. 2008. The destressability index methodology
for the assessment of the likelihood of success of a large-scale confined
destress blast in an underground mine pillar. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 45(3): 407–421. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.07.
006.
Brady, B.H.G., and Brown, E.T. 2004. Rock mechanics for underground mining.
Kluwer Academy Publishers, Dordrecht.
Cai, M. 2013. Principles of rock support in burst-prone ground. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 36: 46–56. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2013.02.003.
Cai, M., and Champaigne, D. 2009. The art of rock support in burst-prone
ground. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Rockburst
and Seismicity in Mines, RaSiM 7: Controlling Seismic Hazard and Sustain-
able Development of Deep Mines, Dalian, China, 21–23 August 2009. Rinton
Press. pp. 33–46.
Cai, M., and Champaigne, D. 2012. Influence of bolt-grout bonding on MCB
conebolt performance. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences, 49: 165–175. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.11.006.
Cai, M., Kaiser, P.K., Tasaka, Y., Maejima, T., Morioka, H, and Minami, M. 2004.
Generalized crack initiation and crack damage stress thresholds of brittle
rock masses near underground excavations. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(5): 833–847. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.02.
001.
For personal use only.
Christiansson, R., and Hudson, J.A. 2003. ISRM suggested methods for rock stress
estimation – Part 4: Quality control of rock stress estimation. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40(7–8): 1021–1025. doi:10.
1016/j.ijrmms.2003.07.004.
Cook, N.G.W. 1963. The basic mechanics of rockburst. Journal of South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 64: 71–81.
Cook, N.G.W. 1965. The failure of rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 2: 389–403. doi:10.1016/0148-
9062(65)90004-5.
Cook, N.G.W., Hoek, E., Pretorius, J.P.G., Ortlepp, W.D., and Salamon, M.D.G.
1966. Rock mechanics applied to the study of rockbursts. Journal of the South
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 66: 435–528.
Delisio, A., Zhao, J., and Einstein, H.H. 2013. Analysis and prediction of TBM
performance in blocky rock conditions at the Lötschberg Base Tunnel. Tun-
nelling and Underground Space Technology, 33: 131–142. doi:10.1016/j.tust.
2012.06.015.
Díaz-Aguado, M.B., and González, C. 2009. Influence of the stress state in a coal
bump-prone deep coalbed: a case study. International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences, 46(2): 333–345. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2008.07.
005.
Diest, F.H. 1965. A non-linear continuum approach to the problem of fracture
zones and rockburst. Journal of South the African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 65: 502–522.
Dwivedi, R.D., Singh, M., Viladkar, M.N., and Goel, R.K. 2013. Prediction of tunnel
deformation in squeezing grounds. Engineering Geology, 161: 55–64. doi:10.
1016/j.enggeo.2013.04.005.
Fan, J., Dou, L., He, H., Du, T., Zhang, S., Gui, B., and Sun, X. 2012. Directional
hydraulic fracturing to control hard-roof rockburst in coal mines. Interna-
tional Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 22(2): 177–181. doi:10.1016/
j.ijmst.2011.08.007.
Gall, V., and Zeidler, K. 2009. Sequential excavation method. In Technical Man-
ual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil Elements. Report No.
FHWA-NHI-10-034. U. S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway
Administration, National Highway Institute, AASHTO.
Gane, P.G., Hales, A.L., and Oliver, H.A. 1946. A seismic investigation of Witwa-
tersrand earth tremors. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 36:
49–80.
Gong, Q.M., Yin, L.J., Wu, S.Y., Zhao, J., and Ting, Y. 2012. Rock burst and slabbing
failure and its influence on TBM excavation at headrace tunnels in Jinping II
hydropower station. Engineering Geology, 124(1): 98–108. doi:10.1016/j.
enggeo.2011.10.007.
Griffith, A.A. 1920. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 221(A): 163–198. doi:10.1098/rsta.
1921.0006.
Haibo, L., Xiang, X., Jianchun, L., Jian, Z., Bo, L., and Yaqun, L. 2011. Rock damage
control in bedrock blasting excavation for a nuclear power plant. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48(2): 210–218. doi:10.
1016/j.ijrmms.2010.11.016.
Can. Geotech. J. Vol. 52, 2015
Haimson, B.C., and Cornet, F.H. 2003. ISRM suggested methods for rock stress
estimation – Part 3: Hydraulic fracturing (HF) and/or hydraulic testing of
pre-existing fractures (HTPF). International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 40(7–8): 1011–1020. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.08.002.
Hasanpour, R., Rostami, J., and Ünver, B. 2014. 3D finite difference model for
simulation of double shield TBM tunneling in squeezing grounds. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology, 40: 109–126. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2013.09.
012.
Hedley, D.G.F. 1992. Rockburst handbook for Ontario hardrock mines. CANMET
Special Report SP92-1E. Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada Center for
Mineral and Energy Technology, Toronto, Ont.
Hoek, E. 2007. Practical rock engineering. Available from http://www.
rockscience.com/hoek/corner/Practical_Rock_Engineering.pdf [accessed 20 Feb-
ruary 2014].
Hoek, E., and Brown, E.T. 1988. The Hoek-Brown failure criterion – a 1988 update.
In Proceedings of the 15th Canadian Rock Mechechanics Symposium, Univer-
sity of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. pp. 31–38.
Hoek, E., and Marinos, P.G. 2010. Tunnelling in overstressed rock. In Proceedings
of the Regional Symposium of the International Society for Rock Mechanics,
EUROCK 2009: Rock Engineering in Difficult Ground Conditions – Soft Rocks
and Karst, Dubrovnik, Cavtat, 29–31 October 2009. Taylor & Francis Group,
London. pp. 49–60.
Hoek, E., Kaiser, P.K., and Bawden, W.F. 1998. Support of underground excava-
tions in hard rock. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., and Corkum, B. 2002. Hoek-Brown criterion – 2002
edition. In Proceedings of the 5th North American Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium and the 17th Tunelling Association of Canada, NARMS-TAC 2002, To-
ronto, 7–10 July 2002. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont. pp. 267–273.
Holub, K., Rušajová, J., and Holečko, J. 2011. Particle velocity generated by rock-
burst during exploitation of the longwall and its impact on the workings.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48(6): 942–
949. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.05.004.
Huang, B., Liu, C., Fu, J., and Guan, H. 2011. Hydraulic fracturing after water
pressure control blasting for increased fracturing. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48(6): 976–983. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.
2011.06.004.
Hudson, J.A. 1992. Rock engineering systems: theory and practice. Ellis Horwood
Limited, Chichester.
Hudson, J.A., Cornet, F.H., and Christiansson, R. 2003. ISRM Suggested Methods
for rock stress estimation – Part 1: Strategy for rock stress estimation. Inter-
national Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40(7–8): 991–998.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.07.011.
Islam, M.R., Hayashi, D., and Kamruzzaman, A.B.M. 2009. Finite element mod-
eling of stress distributions and problems for multi-slice longwall mining in
Bangladesh, with special reference to the Barapukuria coal mine. Interna-
tional Journal of Coal Geology, 78(2): 91–109. doi:10.1016/j.coal.2008.10.006.
Kaiser, P.K., and Cai, M. 2012. Design of rock support system under rockburst
condition. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 2012(3):
215–227. doi:10.3724/SP.J.1235.2012.00215.
Kaiser, P.K., Tannant, D.D., and McCreath, D.R. 1996. Canadian rockburst sup-
port handbook. Geomechanics Research Centre, Laurentian University, Sud-
bury, Ont.
Kidybiński, A. 1981. Bursting liability indices of coal. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 18(4): 295–
304. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(81)91194-3.
Konicek, P., Saharan, M.R., and Mitri, H. 2011. Destress blasting in coal mining -
State-of-the-art review. Procedia Engineering, 26: 179–194. doi:10.1016/j.
proeng.2011.11.2157.
Konicek, P., Soucek, K., Stas, L., and Przeczek, A. 2013a. Rockbursts provoked by
destress blasting in hard coal longwall mining. In Proceedings of the 10th Inter-
national Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, FRAGBLAST 10, New
Delhi, 24–25 November 2012. Taylor & Francis group, London. pp. 193–202.
Konicek, P., Soucek, K., Stas, L., and Singh, R. 2013b. Long-hole destress blasting
for rockburst control during deep underground coal mining. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 61: 141–153. doi:10.1016/j.
ijrmms.2013.02.001.
Kwaśniewski, M., Szutkowski, I., and Wang, J.A. 1994. Study of ability of coal
from seam 510 for storing elastic energy in the aspect of assessment of hazard
in Porabka-Klimontow Colliery. Sci. Rept. Silesian Technical University, Gli-
wice.
Li, J., Fan, P., and Wang, M. 2013. Failure behavior of highly stressed rocks under
quasi-static and intensive unloading conditions. Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, 5(4): 287–293. doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2013.03.004.
Li, S., Feng, X.T., Li, Z., Chen, B., Zhang, C., and Zhou, H. 2012a. In situ monitoring
of rockburst nucleation and evolution in the deeply buried tunnels of Jinping
II hydropower station. Engineering Geology, 137–138: 85–96. doi:10.1016/j.
enggeo.2012.03.010.
Li, S., Feng, X.T., Li, Z., Zhang, C., and Chen, B. 2012b. Evolution of fractures in the
excavation damaged zone of a deeply buried tunnel during TBM construc-
tion. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 55: 125–
138. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.07.004.
Linkov, A.M. 1996. Rockbursts and the instability of rock masses. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
33(7): 727–732. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(96)00021-6.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Mazaira and Konicek
Ljunggren, C., Chang, Y., Janson, T., and Christiansson, R. 2003. An overview of
rock stress measurement methods. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences, 40(7–8): 975–989. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.07.003.
Martin, C.D., Kaiser, P.K., and McCreath, D.R. 1999. Hoek–Brown parameters for
predicting the depth of brittle failure around tunnels. Canadian Geotechni-
cal Journal, 36(1): 136–151. doi:10.1139/t98-072.
Maxwell, S.C., Young, R.P., and Read, R.S. 1998. A micro-velocity tool to assess the
excavation damaged zone. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Min-
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by DIRECTORATE OF COLDWATER FISHERIES RES on 10/01/15
ing Sciences, 35(2): 235–247. doi:10.1016/S0148-9062(97)00328-8.
Mitri, H.S. 2000. Practitioner’s guide to destress blasting in hard rock mines.
Technical report. McGill University, Montréal, Que.
Mitri, H.S., Tang, B., and Simon, R. 1999. FE modelling of mining-induced energy
release and storage rates. The South African Institute of Mining and Metal-
lurgy, 99(2): 103–110.
Monsees, J., and Choi, S. 2009. Rock tunnelling. In Technical manual for design
and construction of road tunnels – civil elements. Report No. FHWA-NHI-10-
034. U.S. Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration,
National Highway Institute, AASHTO.
Mortazavi, A., and Alavi, F.T. 2013. A numerical study of the behavior of fully
grouted rockbolts under dynamic loading. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 54: 66–72. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.08.003.
Myrvang, A., Blindheim, O.T., and Johansen, E.D. 1998. Rock stress problems in
bored tunnels. Norwegian Soil and Rock Engineering Association, 11: 56–62.
Nie, W., Zhao, Z.Y., Ning, Y.J., and Guo, W. 2014. Numerical studies on rockbolts
mechanism using 2D discontinuous deformation analysis. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, 41: 223–233. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2014.01.001.
Ocak, I., and Bilgin, N. 2010. Comparative studies on the performance of a
roadheader, impact hammer and drilling and blasting method in the exca-
vation of metro station tunnels in Istanbul. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 25(2): 181–187. doi:10.1016/j.tust.2009.11.002.
Ortlepp, W.D. 2000. Observation of mining-induced faults in an intact rock mass
at depth. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37(1–
2): 423–436. doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(99)00117-3.
Ortlepp, W.D. 2001. The behaviour of tunnels at great depth under large static
and dynamic pressures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
16(1): 41–48. doi:10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00029-3.
For personal use only.
Ortlepp, W.D. 2005. RaSiM comes of age – a review of the contribution to the
understanding and control of mine rockbursts. In Proceedings of the 6th
International Symposium on Rockburst and Seismicity in Mines (RaSiM 6),
Perth, Australia, March 2005. Edited by Y. Potvin and M. Hudyma. Australian
Centre for Geomechanics, Perth. pp. 3–20.
Ortlepp, W.D., and Stacey, T.R. 1994. Rockburst mechanisms in tunnels and
shafts. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 9(1): 59–65. doi:10.
1016/0886-7798(94)90010-8.
Orzepowski, S., and Butra, J. 2008. Evaluation of rock-mass state in Polish copper
mines through monitoring the borehole deformations. Tectonophysics,
456(1–2): 52–61. doi:10.1016/j.tecto.2007.06.013.
Pan, E., Amadei, B., and Savage, W.Z. 1994. Gravitational stresses in long sym-
metric ridges and valleys in anisotropic rock. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 31(4): 293–312.
doi:10.1016/0148-9062(94)90899-0.
Pan, E., Amadei, B., and Savage, W.Z. 1995. Gravitational and tectonic stresses in
anisotropic rock with irregular topography. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 32(3): 201–214.
doi:10.1016/0148-9062(94)00046-6.
Ramoni, M., and Anagnostou, G. 2010. Tunnel boring machines under squeezing
conditions. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 25(2): 139–157.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2009.10.003.
Roux, A.J.A., Leeman, E.R., and Denkhaus, H.G. 1957. Destressing: a means of
ameliorating rockburst conditions. Part 1: The concept of destressing and
results obtained from its application. South Africa Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 58: 101–119.
Ryder, J.A. 1988. Excess shear stress in the assessment of geologically hazardous
situations. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
88(1): 27–39.
Saharan, M.R., and Mitri, H. 2011. Destress blasting as a mines safety tool. Some
fundamental challenges for successful applications. Procedia Engineering,
26: 37–47. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2137.
View publication stats
1439
Salamon, M.G.D. 1984. Energy considerations in rock mechanics: fundamental
results. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
84(8): 233–246.
Savage, W.Z. 1993. Gravity-induced stresses near a vertical cliff. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts,
30(4): 325–330. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(93)91716-V.
Sirait, B., Wattimena, R.K., and Widodo, N.P. 2013. Rockburst prediction of a cut
and fill mine by using energy balance and induced stress. Procedia Earth and
Planetary Science, 6: 426–434. doi:10.1016/j.proeps.2013.01.056.
Sjöberg, J., Christiansson, R., and Hudson, J.A. 2003. ISRM suggested methods for
rock stress estimation – Part 2: Overcoring methods. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40(7–8): 999–1010. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.
2003.07.012.
Stas, L., Knejzlik, J., Palla, L., Soucek, K., and Waclawik, P. 2011. Measurement of
stress changes using a compact conical-ended borehole monitoring. Geotech-
nical Testing Journal, 34(6): 685–693. doi:10.1520/GTJ102794.
Stillborg, B. 1994. Professional users handbook for rock bolting. Series on Rock
and Soil Mechanics, 18. Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Ger-
many.
Takla, G., Ptacek, J., Holecko, J., and Konicek, P. 2005. Stress state determination
and prediction in rock mass with rockburst risk in Ostrava-Karvina coal
basin. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of the International
Society for Rock Mechanics, EUROCK 2005: Impact of Human Activity on the
Geological Environment, Brno, 18–20 May 2005. pp. 625–628.
Tang, B.Y. 2000. Rockburst control using distress blasting. Ph.D. thesis, McGill
University, Montreal, Que.
Tarasov, B.G., and Randolph, M.F. 2008. Frictionless shear at great depth and
other paradoxes of hard rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 45(3): 316–328. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2007.06.001.
Waclawik, P., Ptáček, J., and Grygar, R. 2013. Structural and stress analysis in
mining practice. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, 10(2): 255–265.
Wang, J.A., and Park, H.D. 2001. Comprehensive prediction of rockburst based
on analysis of strain energy in rocks. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 16(1): 49–57. doi:10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00030-X.
Wattimena, R.K., Sirait, B., Widodo, N.P., and Matsui, K. 2012. Evaluation of
rockburst potential in a cut-and-fill mine using energy balance. International
Journal of the Japanese Committee for Rock Mechanics, 8(1): 19–23.
Zembaty, Z. 2004. Rockburst induced ground motion - a comparative study. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 24(1): 11–23. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.
2003.10.001.
Zhang, C., Zhou, H., and Feng, X.T. 2011. An index for estimating the stability of
brittle surrounding rock mass: FAI and its engineering application. Rock
Mechecanics and Rock Engineering, 44(4): 401–414. doi:10.1007/s00603-011-
0150-9.
Zhang, C., Feng, X.T., and Zhou, H. 2012a. Estimation of in situ stress along deep
tunnels buried in complex geological conditions. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 52: 139–162. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2012.
03.016.
Zhang, C., Feng, X., Zhou, H., Qiu, S., and Wu, W. 2012b. A top pilot tunnel
preconditioning method for the prevention of extremely intense rockbursts
in deep tunnels excavated by TBMs. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering,
45(3): 289–309. doi:10.1007/s00603-011-0199-5.
Zhu, Q.H., Lu, W.B., Sun, J.S., Luo, Y., and Chen, M. 2009. Prevention of rockburst
by guide holes based on numerical simulations. Mining Science and Technol-
ogy, 19(3): 346–351. doi:10.1016/S1674-5264(09)60065-X.
Zoback, M.L. 1992. First- and second-order patterns of tectonic stress: The World
Stress Map Project. Journal of Geophysics Research, 97(B8): 11703–11728. doi:
10.1029/92JB00132.
Zoback, M.D., and Zoback, M.L. 2002. State of stress in the Earth’s lithosphere. In
International Geophysics series, 81: International Handbook of Earthquake
and Engineering Seismology, Part A. Edited by W.H.K. Lee. Academic Press,
London. pp. 559–568.
Zoback, M.D., Barton, C.A., Brudy, M., Castillo, D.A., Finkbeiner, T.,
Grollimund, B.R., Moos, D.B., Peska, P., Ward, C.D., and Wiprut, D.J. 2003.
Determination of stress orientation and magnitude in deep wells. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 40(7–8): 1049–1076.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2003.07.001.
Published by NRC Research Press