Gap851 Final Report Main Body
Yüklə 2,78 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- 3.2.4 Transfer of research results to industry
- 4. Comparison of SIMRAC and Australian mining rock-related research 4.1 Research management processes 4.1.1 Identification of research needs
- 4.1.2 Project management
- 4.1.3 Project and program evaluation
- 4.2. Scope and quality of research 4.2.1 Scope of the research
- 4.2.2 Research providers and personnel
- 4.3 Transfer and application of knowledge 4.3.1 Knowledge and technology transfer
- 4.3.2 Implementation by industry
- GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
- ORGANISATIONAL UNIT PARENT ORGANISATION CITY AND STATE
Major research topics The major topics of current and recent mining rock-related research carried out in Australian universities and Government research organisations are summarised in Table 1. It will be noted that, while there are some similarities with the topics pursued under the SIMRAC program, because of the different types of orebodies being mined and the mining methods being used, and because of the differing purposes of the programs, there are also some significant differences. Currently, Australia is considered to have particular strengths in the following areas of mining rock-related research:
This represents a significant and wide-ranging list of current research strengths. It possibly cannot be matched by any other country in the world, although both Canada and South Africa have strengths which are considered to be in advance of those in Australia in particular areas. It should be noted that, in addition to the university and CSIRO-based research groups referred to above, important contributions to a number of the research programs listed have been made by consultants and industry personnel. Research papers on a number of the topics listed above and in Table 1 were included in a Special Issue of the International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences on Australian Rock Mechanics edited by the writer and published in July 2002 (Adhikary et al 2002, Beck & Brady 2002, Indraratna et al 2002, Kelly et al 2002, Trueman et al 2002, Villaescusa et al 2002, Wines & Lilly 2002). Some other examples of recent quality publications are given in Table 1. Research quality Despite the strength suggested by the preceding discussion, it is probably the case that there is not now in Australia a major or dominant (in terms of both size and quality) university group specialising in mining rock mechanics research, teaching and postgraduate training as there have been from time to time elsewhere in the world (Hood & Brown 1999). Nevertheless, it is considered that the School of Mining Engineering, University of New South Wales, is pre-eminent not only on a national but also on a world scale, in many aspects of underground coal mining geomechanics research. The work carried out on longwall coal mining geomechanics by CSIRO Exploration and Mining and consulting organisations is also considered to be among the best of its type in the world. It is also apparent that Australia, through the JKMRC, has emerging strengths on an international scale in research into the rock-related aspects of large-scale underground metalliferous mining or mass mining (Brown 2004a). For reasons given elsewhere (Brown 2004b), the writer considers that the dynamic support and reinforcement test facility developed recently at WASM (Player et al 2004, Thompson et al 2004) represents a significant advance on the dynamic testing methods used elsewhere, including those used in Canada and in the SIMRAC program (Ortlepp et al 2001, Stacey & Ortlepp 1999, 2001). The current research strengths outlined in this section would appear to provide a good basis for the further development of a national research effort in mining geomechanics. However, it is considered likely that difficulties may exist in providing a continuing pool of suitably qualified researchers and research leaders, and in ensuring that research groups work together effectively in the common interest (Brown 2004a, Golder Associates 2001, 2002). These, of course, are world-wide problems.
Although much of the very best research is carried out in a true spirit of enquiry without any immediate application in prospect, mining geomechanics research is usually carried out to provide understanding of, and solutions to, current or anticipated mining problems. All of the research outlined in Section 3.2.2 falls into this category of applicable research. It follows, therefore, that if the research is to be of value, some of the research results must be transferred to, and applied by, the industry. (The reasons for it being unreasonable to expect that all of the results of research will be implemented by industry will be discussed in Section 4.3.2 below). The writer has argued elsewhere that applied geomechanics research carried out in Australia and elsewhere has had a major impact on the safe and economic application in Australia of coal and metalliferous open pit, coal longwall, and cut-and-fill, open and sublevel stoping, bench-and-fill and caving methods of underground metalliferous mining (Brady & Brown 2004, Brown 1991, 1992, 2004a, Golder Associates 2001, 2002). In the writer’s 2001 evaluation of ACARP’s underground coal mining geomechanics research (Golder Associates 2001), it was found that the following means were used by ACARP research providers to transfer their research results to the Australian coal mining industry:
The writer’s knowledge and recent experience of other mining rock-related research projects such as the ICS suggests that a similar range of methods are used to communicate and transfer research results to industry. The provision of software packages is an additional technique that had not been found to apply to the ACARP program. In the case of the ACARP program, direct industry or mine-site participation in projects was found to be the most effective means of transferring research results to the industry. However, given the nature of ACARP funding, it was also found that this had the sometimes undesirable effect of restricting technology transfer to the mine or company associated with the particular piece of research. The involvement of consultants in the research program, although perceived as having some other disadvantages, also made significant contributions to the successful industrial application of research results (Golder Associates 2001). A standard means of transferring research results to industry, the employment of PhD graduates in the industry, was absent from the list of techniques associated with ACARP coal mining geomechanics research. This has long been recognised as a major means of transferring to industry the results of the mineral processing research carried out at the JKMRC, for example. The very small numbers of mining geomechanics PhD graduates produced was seen as one of the weaknesses of the ACARP program (Golder Associates 2001). As was noted in Section 3.1.7, the ACG has been particularly active and successful in technology transfer through conferences, workshops and short-courses. In recent years, these offerings have addressed a wide range of mining geomechanics topics, including open pit slope stability and slope modelling, blasting for stable slopes, underground mining methods, rock mechanics practice for underground mines, rockfall management, rock support and reinforcement, sprayed liners, deep and high stress mining, applied numerical modelling, geomechanics risks and risk management, and filling with hydraulic fills, paste and thickened tailings. It is noteworthy that these are not all topics on which the Centre has carried out definitive research. Excellent examples of recent ACG publications are the Handbook on Mine Fill (Potvin et al 2005) and the book Surface Support in Mining (Potvin et al 2004) which provides a state-of-the-art of its subject and reproduces several papers presented a series of collaborative international workshops held in Perth, Johannesburg and Quebec in 2001, 2002 and 2003. The Centre has also been active in compiling training materials for mine operators and in offering training courses, for example on rock bolting practice. Despite these positive elements, it must be said that not all efforts to transfer mining geomechanics research results to industry have been successful and that, in some cases, adequate efforts to do so have not been made by either or both of the researchers and industry practitioners. It is probably the case that in Australia, the total knowledge and technology transfer process is not the well-managed process outlined by Willis and Ashworth (2002). It is strong on information dissemination but the operation of a successful transfer mechanism is often a matter of the existence of favourable circumstances or chance. 4. Comparison of SIMRAC and Australian mining rock-related research 4.1 Research management processes 4.1.1 Identification of research needs The SIMRAC program is centrally funded (by levies on the mines) and administered. There is no comparable central or national program in Australia, other than in the coal sector through ACARP. This means that, in Australia, there is not the same opportunity to identify national research needs and to develop a national research program as there is under the auspices of SIMRAC in South Africa, again with the exception of the coal sector. In the metalliferous sector, each Australian research organisation and the industry groups that support them, carry out their own research needs analyses (where any are carried out at all). As noted in Section 3.1.3 of the main report, SIMRAC has commissioned several studies to develop research needs in the areas with which it is concerned. Although criticisms may be advanced of some of the resulting reports, this approach provides a sound basis on which to develop the detailed research program. It is also noted in Section 3.1.3 of the main report that the Rock Engineering Steering Committee and the SIMPROSS Programme manager have used a variety of research management tools to identify areas of research focus. The fact that representatives of the mining companies, labour organisations and the Department of Minerals and Energy are members of the committees involved should, in principle, add to the strength and effectiveness of the SIMRAC system. However, reports received suggest that some committee members may not be as well informed or as diligent in their attendance at meetings as the importance of their task requires. It may well be that these committees are not best constituted to determine either the basic or the applicable research needs of the South African industry. The conclusion reached in the main report that SIMRAC has succeeded in identifying the main rock-related safety hazards and research needs is endorsed. Overall, it is considered that, with some exceptions, the centralised SIMRAC system of identifying research needs is superior to the diversity of approaches used in Australia. The strength of the ACARP system has been referred to previously. Recently, considerable advances have been made in identifying the causes and the required remedial measures for the rock fall hazard in Australia’s underground metalliferous mines (Lang & Stubley 2004, Potvin & Nedin 2004). It must be acknowledged, however, that for both technical and human reasons, the problem confronting the Australian industry in this regard is on a different scale and is not as challenging as that existing in South Africa. Despite the general conclusion that SIMRAC has succeeded in identifying the main rock-related safety hazards and research needs, the results of the structured interviews suggest that the identification of individual research projects may not always produce results that are viewed favourably by all stake-holders. Although some stake-holders have suggested that more problem solving research should be carried out on mine sites, it is important that attention be paid to the more basic research which provides the bases for more directly applicable research and the training for future researchers and practitioners. Of course, the common tendency of research organisations to seek to use programs like SIMRAC’s as a source of funding for the maintenance of existing staff establishments should be resisted except where such an outcome is manifestly in the nation’s or the industry’s best interests. There is also a suggestion that, whether through the auspices of SIMRAC or not, South African rock-related research should also address efficiency and sustainability or productivity issues. This view is endorsed in the light of the range of problems and the international competition facing the industry. 4.1.2 Project management It appears from the materials available to the writer that SIMRAC has an excellent approach to project management in place through SIMPROSS. As indicated in the Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee Research Report 2002/2003, “SIMPROSS expedites the approved annual programme, monitors the financial status, including levy payments, and reports on relevant administrative matters. Projects are clustered into nine thrust areas managed by the programme managers. Programme managers monitor progress, assess contractual performance and recommend payments to contractors.” While it appears that this system works well, the possibility exists that some programme managers will have large work-loads and be in danger of being “spread too thin”. The report of Project Number GAP 730 (see Section 3.1.3) included a number of positive references to the performance of SIMPROSS staff. In Australia, ACARP operates what appears to be a similar project management system. The ACARP system has the additional valuable feature that each project has associated with it an industry monitor, and depending on the nature and scale of the project, sometimes two. The potential value of industry monitors as part of the SIMRAC project management process was referred to by Triebel and van Niekerk (2001) in their GAP 730 report. The other research funding organisations and consortia operating in Australia, have their own project management systems in place. However, in general terms, the SIMRAC process is considered to compare at least favourably with them and is probably superior to most. It does appear, however, that the SIMRAC project management system is quite costly. Through the structured interviews conducted by Dr Durrheim, industry stake-holders have also raised a number of other criticisms of the system including the criticism that the system is unnecessarily bureaucratic. Because of his lack of detailed knowledge, the writer is unable to comment on such criticisms (nor is it his current role to do so). However, it is considered that these comments, some of which come from highly experienced and respected industry figures, should not be ignored. They should be evaluated objectively and, if considered necessary, acted on. 4.1.3 Project and program evaluation A particular strength of the SIMRAC program is considered to be the reviews that have been commissioned of completed projects and groups of projects. Of course, the present assessment is part of this overall process. During the course of contributing to this assessment, the writer read the following review reports: GAP 343: Review of completed SIMRAC projects at CSIR Division of Mining Technology 1993-1995. GAP 730: The effectiveness and profile of the SIMRAC research effort in improving safety in gold and platinum sectors. GAP 816a: Review of past research areas – stope and gully support. GAP 816b: Review of past research areas – seismology and mine layout design. With the exception of the first, these reports were written in a robust, constructively critical manner, demonstrating the value of independent review. Although different overall approaches were taken in each case, these reviews generally attempted to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the project reports evaluated, the outputs which had been, or could be, implemented by the industry, those areas on which more work were considered to be required, and those research areas or approaches that were considered likely to be unproductive and should be discontinued. Again with the possible exception of the ACARP system, no comparable system of systematic project and program evaluation is known to exist in Australia. There are suggestions in the reports of the structured interviews conducted by Dr Durrheim that the system of reviewing progress and final reports of projects could be strengthened. In particular, it has been suggested that because of the relatively small pool of senior independent experts available in South Africa (and, it must be said, in almost any other country in the world), greater use could be made of international experts in the review process. Of course, the current assessment represents a case in which this is being done. One of the advantages of this approach is that, in general, international reviewers are not likely to be subject to the same set of pressures associated with local competitive, networking and political relationships as are local reviewers. However, they can also suffer from the disadvantage, as in the writer’s case, of the reviewer not being fully up-to-date with South African mining industry practices and needs.
As has been noted previously, a difference exists between the nature and scope of the mining rock-related research carried out in South Africa under the SIMRAC program and that carried out in Australia through a disparate number of funding and management mechanisms. This can be attributed in large part, but not entirely, to the different types of orebodies mined and the different mining methods used in the two countries. South Africa’s mining industry has long been dominated, at least in popular perception, by the deep level gold mines which mine relatively flat dipping and narrow tabular orebodies. The other major industry sectors are platinum, coal and diamond mining. Other commodities are mined including the steel alloy metals and copper, most notably at Palabora, initially by open pit and now by block caving. The perceived relative importance of the various sectors of the South African mining industry is reflected in the early classification of SIMRAC projects as being either coal, gold and platinum, or other. The major types of mining carried out in South Africa, in particular, deep level gold mining, the shallower platinum mining and, to a lesser extent now than previously, kimberlite diamond mining, involve particular types of rock-related problems that are not represented in exactly the same ways in Australia’s large and disparate mining industry. The emphases on different mining methods in the coal mining industries also produce differences in the nature and emphases of the coal mining geomechanics research carried out in the two countries. For these various reasons, it is not easy to compare the scope of the mining rock-related research carried out in Australia and in South Africa. Although there are some common areas of interest, particularly at the more basic end of the research spectrum, mining geomechanics research in Australia is probably concerned with a wider range of orebodies, mining methods and rock engineering problems than that in South Africa. In general terms, the scope of the SIMRAC rock-related research program is considered to meet the research needs of the South African industry in terms of improving safety. Many of the remaining safety issues appear to be related to human behaviour and are not amenable to solution by rock-related or mining geomechanics research as it is generally known. The SIMRAC research does not, and is not intended to, address those research needs associated with improving the efficiency and sustainability of the industry, although there are elements of this category of research in the overall program. It is considered that greater emphasis should be placed on this aspect of South African mining rock-related research in the future. 4.2.2 Research providers and personnel A marked difference exists between SIMRAC research in South Africa and Australian mining rock–related research in terms of the numbers and types of research organisation and research providers involved. In South Africa, CSIR Mining Technology (Miningtek) is the predominant provider for the SIMRAC-sponsored rock-related research. CSIR Miningtek authors have been responsible for about 55% of the reports listed in Appendix A of the main report. It is suspected that this may have contributed to the alignment in some people’s minds of the SIMRAC program with this research provider as discussed in the GAP 730 report. The other major research providers are consultants (with two or three companies predominating) and two universities. Very few SIMRAC projects have been carried out by other Government agencies or by overseas research providers. In Australia, there is not the same dominance of one research provider. A wider range of research providers, but not necessarily greater numbers of researchers, appear to be involved in the mining rock-related research effort, at least in terms of the universities and university-related organisations. In fact, the relatively limited involvement of other than senior University staff (some of whom were noted to have provided their services in other than their University capacities) in the SIMRAC research program is seen to be one of its weaknesses compared to Australian research in the area. It has long been the writer’s view that a formal training through PhD level research into an industry-related problem provides an excellent preparation for mining geomechanics engineers, particularly those who are going to occupy future leadership positions in the discipline (e.g. Brown 2004a, Golder Associates 2001, 2002). While it is known that some CSIR Miningtek staff have undertaken PhDs while working on the SIMRAC program, the current assessment provided little evidence of PhD level research training that could be considered adequate to meet SIMRAC’s, Miningtek’s and the industry’s future needs for highly trained researchers, research leaders and advanced practitioners. While the Australian ACARP system is regarded as being excellent in most respects, it suffers from the disadvantage that project time-lines are usually such that projects cannot reasonably support PhD students. With the general, but not total, exception of the CSIRO, the other Australian mining geomechanics research groups all train PhD students. Throughout the history of modern mining rock mechanics, South Africa has had a number of world class researchers and research leaders (Hood & Brown 1999). A group of researchers who were trained or influenced by the best known of these South African rock mechanics research leaders are now approaching the ends of their research careers. While many of these highly performed researchers still have some association with, and presumably some influence on, the SIMRAC program, there must be some concern, as there is elsewhere in the world, about the progress of the re-generation of the cadre of outstanding researchers and research leaders that South Africa has benefited from since the 1960s. It is the writer’s view that part of the responsibility for this re-generation lies with the current SIMRAC program. Of course, this issue is intimately related to the issue of the research training given to PhD students discussed in the previous paragraph. Although many of those now carrying out rock-related SIMRAC research are not known to the writer personally, he is aware of the presence of a small number of highly promising younger researchers in the South African system, including those who have been awarded the International Society for Rock Mechanics’ Manuel Rocha Medal in recent years. Nevertheless, the overall impression remains, as it does in Australia, that difficulty is being experienced in maintaining the previous levels of research excellence and the required numbers of highly trained and talented researchers.
The research outputs of the rock-related components of the SIMRAC program have been evaluated in broad terms, by a study of project report abstracts, project reports, textbooks, guideline handbooks and published papers arising from work carried out under the program. In the process, the writer read or scanned most of the available project abstracts, 10 full reports and about 20 papers published in the open South African and international literature. Those papers are included in the list of references to this report. Cognisance was also taken of comments made in the structured interviews conducted by Dr Durrheim as part of the overall assessment. Obviously, this approach can be only impressionistic and cannot provide a systematic, in-depth assessment of the quality of the program’s research outputs. The overall impression gained from this process is that the quality of the program’s research outputs is highly variable. Some of the research reported is clearly of world class with some of it leading the world. Some of the other outputs are of less impressive research quality. Indeed, the writer has difficulty in classifying some of the work reported as being research at all. This could arise from the need to solve particular site-specific problems. However, it could also probably reflect the less than rigorous research training and experience of some of the researchers. Because of the differences in the research problems addressed, it is difficult to compare SIMRAC and Australian mining geomechanics research outputs. Although there are a number of areas of common interest, particularly at generic and fundamental levels (e.g. rock falls, mine seismicity and rockbursts), the essential problems addressed by the SIMRAC program are different in detail from those being addressed by mining geomechanics research programs in Australia and elsewhere. In the area of coal mining where an approximate, but far from complete, correspondence exists, recent Australian research on both longwall geomechanics and coal pillar design is considered to be generally ahead of that carried out under the SIMRAC program. South African researchers have studied mine seismicity and the rock burst hazard in the scientific and rock mechanics senses for the last 50 years or more. Mining-induced seismicity and rock bursts are now commonly met in a wider range of mining environments than those encountered in South Africa, and a number of other countries, including Australia and Canada, are conducting valuable research in the area. It is the writer’s observation that, in general, these other countries are learning from and following, rather than leading, the South African research effort. This does not mean to say that useful, original contributions are not being made elsewhere. Indeed, there are several outstanding examples of the development of mining designs and of dynamically capable support and reinforcement systems to combat the rock burst hazard in these other countries (e.g. Bawden & Jones 2002, Li et al 2004, Simser et al 2002). However, it is considered that, in order to develop a more complete method of analysis for dynamically loaded rock-support systems around underground excavations, more basic research such as that reported by Cichowicz et al (2000), Milev et al (2003) and Simser and Falmagne (2004), is required into the seismic source parameters and waveforms associated with mining-induced seismic events (Brown 2004b). Some particular strengths of the results of SIMRAC-sponsored research are considered to be (in no particular order):
A common means of assessing research quality is through refereed publications in the open international literature. Perhaps understandably, SIMRAC research is not especially well represented in the international rock mechanics and rock engineering literature, other than in the Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. This could be one of the reasons why some of the mid-career and younger South African researchers and their work are probably not as well known internationally as they could be. 4.3 Transfer and application of knowledge 4.3.1 Knowledge and technology transfer It is clear that SIMRAC pays particular attention to the transfer of knowledge and technology into the South African mining industry. The evidence available indicates that it uses a wide range of knowledge and technology transfer techniques, including:
As indicated in Section 3.2.4 above, a similar range of knowledge and technology transfer methods is used in Australia. However, it is doubtful that, even in what are probably Australia’s best exemplars, ACARP and the ACG, the overall effort matches that of the SIMRAC program. Because of the greater involvement of universities and university-affiliated organisations in the Australian rock-related research effort, there may well be a greater degree of knowledge transfer through undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in Australia than there is in South Africa. Despite this apparently positive assessment of the SIMRAC knowledge and technology program, it is clear from the series of structured interviews carried out by Dr Durrheim, that there is some dissatisfaction with this aspect of the program within the South African industry. From afar, and on the basis of his knowledge of similar activities in other parts of the world, the writer’s view is that those associated with the program could hardly have been expected to have done more in terms of the dissemination, as opposed to the transfer, of research outcomes to industry. As Willis and Ashworth (2002) indicate, knowledge and technology transfer is more than an exchange of information and should not be viewed as a linear process. Knowledge and technology transfer is a managed, multi-staged, two-way process in which there is interaction and mutual dependency of the researcher and the end user. The end user as well as the researcher or research manager must put effort and resources into the exercise. From the information and views available, it appears that the SIMRAC program should consider the further development of this managed interaction approach in its future technology transfer activities. However, there is also a suggestion that some industry attitudes and practices are less than ideal in this regard. As the old adage has it, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
The very nature of research means that it cannot be expected that all research projects, including SIMRAC projects, will produce outcomes that can or should be implemented directly by industry. Some projects may test ideas or hypotheses which may be shown not to work or to require modification and further development before they can be expected to produce industrially applicable results. It must also be acknowledged that some research is not of a quality that merits implementation. Other projects may seek to produce new knowledge or improved understandings of complex and challenging issues. Yet others may be reviews of one type or another which, by their very nature, are not intended for implementation by industry. Finally, some projects (but no SIMRAC projects that came to the writer’s attention in the course of the present review) may be carried out essentially to contribute to the maintenance or building of research or engineering capability. Together, these “non-implementable” projects could easily constitute a majority of the total number of projects commissioned in a given program. Implementation of research outcomes, be they knowledge, processes or hardware or software products, follows from the knowledge and technology transfer process. It is clear that implementation of outcomes by the industry is a primary objective of the SIMRAC programme and its managers. As was noted in Section 4.1.3 above, the reviews commissioned of SIMRAC projects and completed projects, consider which outputs have been, or could be, implemented by industry and those on which more work is required. The report by Handley (2002) is an excellent case in point. However, as with the knowledge and transfer process, but to an even greater extent in this case, the implementation of research outcomes is also a clear responsibility of the industry itself. In some but not all cases, the researchers and research managers have a responsibility to consider implementation issues in their research programs, and particularly in the presentation of the results. As has been noted, it is unrealistic to expect that all research will be directly implementable. Against this background and his interpretation and experience of the research process, the writer has formed the view that the implementation of the results of SIMRAC-sponsored research could be improved, but that most of that improvement must be expected to come from within the industry. 5. Conclusions The following are the key conclusions reached as a result of this comparison of Australian and SIMRAC mining rock-related research: Partly because of the more diverse nature of its’ mining industry, Australian mining rock-related research has a broader scope than the SIMRAC research program. The numbers of personnel involved and the total annual expenditures on mining rock-related research in Australia and South Africa are of comparable magnitudes, although the Australian totals are now higher. Irrespective of whether or not it should be the responsibility of SIMRAC as presently structured, there is a need for more South African mining rock-related research to be oriented towards efficiency and sustainability or productivity. Except perhaps for the system used by ACARP in the coal sector, there is no centrally funded and administered system in Australia that is able to identify national research needs and to develop a national research program in the way that the SIMRAC system does. SIMRAC processes appear to have identified the main rock-related safety hazards and research needs in South Africa. Again with the possible exception of ACARP, the SIMRAC project management systems appear to be more detailed than those operating in Australia. Nevertheless, criticisms of the SIMRAC system made by stake-holders should be taken seriously. Some aspects of the ACARP system, most notably the use of industry monitors for each project, could be adapted to the SIMRAC system. The tripartite nature of the SIMRAC committee structure may not be well-designed for the effective and efficient identification of rock-related research needs and the development, monitoring and evaluation of research programs and projects. Greater use could be made of international experts in reviewing and evaluating SIMRAC research programs and projects. SIMRAC rock-related research is dominated by one research provider, CSIR Miningtek. University rock-related research is much less well developed in South Africa than it is in Australia. These two factors have resulted in there being much less emphasis on PhD level research training in South Africa than is considered to be required in order to maintain and expand South Africa’s cadre of researchers, teachers and advanced practitioners in rock mechanics and rock engineering. The quality of some SIMRAC research, especially in the area of seismicity, is high by international standards. However, some of the recent and current research does not approach those high standards, nor is it of the standard of some recent Australian research (e.g. in coal mining geomechanics). Unfortunately, with the movement of several highly talented and experienced researchers and research leaders out of the system, difficulty is being experienced in maintaining the past high standards of South African rock-related research and the required numbers of highly trained and talented researchers in the area. Despite the high standard of some of the work, South African and SIMRAC rock-related research and researchers are not as well represented in the international literature as they merit. The SIMRAC program uses a wide range of knowledge and technology transfer techniques. That these techniques are not always successful, and are not seen by some stake-holders as being adequate, is not entirely the fault of the researchers and those responsible for the management of the SIMRAC program.
E T Brown AC FREng FTSE Senior Consultant
Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE), 2004. Australian Mineral Statistics March Quarter 2004. ABARE: Canberra. Adhikary, D P, Shen, B and Duncan Fama, M E, 2002. A study of highwall mining panel stability. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(5): 643-659. Alehossein, H and Hood, M, 1999. An application of linearised dimensional analysis to rock cutting. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 36(5): 701-709. Bawden, W F and Jones, S, 2002. Ground support design and performance under strong rockburst conditions. Mining and Tunnelling Innovation and Opportunity, Proceedings, 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference, Toronto, R Hammah, W Bawden, J Curran, and M Telesnicki (eds), 1: 923-931. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. Beck, D A and Brady, B H G, 2002. Evaluation and application of controlling parameters for seismic events in hard-rock mines. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(5): 633-642. Brady, B H G and Brown, E T, 2004. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, 3rd edition. Kluwer: Dordrecht. Brown, E T, 1991. Australian advances in geomechanics. Proceedings, 7th International Conference on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, Cairns, G Beer, J R Booker and J P Carter (eds), 1: 15-29. Balkema: Rotterdam. Brown, E T, 1992. Australian mining geomechanics – development, achievements, challenges. Proceedings, Western Australian Conference on Mining Geomechanics, Kalgoorlie, 1-13. WASM: Kalgoorlie. Brown, E T, 1999. Rock mechanics and the Snowy Mountains Scheme. The Spirit of the Snowy Fifty Years On, Proceedings, 1999 Invitation Symposium, Cooma, 89-101. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering: Melbourne. Brown, E T, 2002. Rock mechanics in Australia. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(5): 529-538. Brown, E T, 2003. Block Caving Geomechanics. JKMRC: Brisbane. Brown, E T, 2004a. Geomechanics: the critical discipline for mass mining. Proceedings, MassMin 2004, Santiago, A Karzulovic and M Alfaro (eds), 21-36. Chilean Engineering Institute: Santiago. Brown, E T, 2004b. The dynamic environment of ground support and reinforcement. Ground Support 2004, Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Perth, E Villaescusa and Y Potvin (eds), 3-16. Balkema: Lisse. Canublat, I and Dlokweni, T, 2003. Evaluation of roof rating systems being used in South Africa. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 1: 175-183. South African Institute of Mining & Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Cichowicz, A, Milev, A M and Durrheim, R J, 2000. Rock mass behaviour under seismic loading in a deep mine environment: implications for stope support. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 100(2): 121-128. Coaldrake, O P and Stedman, L, 1998. On the Brink: Australia’s Universities Confronting their Future. University of Queensland Press: Brisbane. Daehnke, A, van Zyl, M and Roberts, M K C, 2001. Review and application of stope support design criteria. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 101(3): 135-164. Durrheim, R J and Diering, D H, 2002. The transfer of knowledge produced by the DEEPMINE Research Programme: a critical evaluation. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 102(5): 261-267. Fowler, J C W, Hebblewhite, B K and Sharma, P, 2003. Managing the hazard of wind blast / air blast in caving operations in underground mines. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 1: 329-334. South African Institute of Mining & Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Galvin, J M, 1999. ACARP: a maturing concept. Australia’s Mining Monthly, November, 98. Galvin, J M, Hebblewhite, B K and Salamon, M D G, 1999. University of New South Wales pillar strength determinations for Australian and South African conditions. Information Circular 9448, Proceedings, Second International Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics, Vail, C Mark, K A Heasley, A T Iannacchione and R J Tuchman (eds), 63-71. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Pittsburgh. Golder Associates, 2001. Review of ACARP’s Underground Coal Geomechanics Research. Report on ACARP Project No C1101. ACARP: Brisbane. Golder Associates, 2002. Mining Geomechanics Research in Australia. Report to Minerals Tertiary Education Council. Güler, G, Quaye, G B, Jager, A J, Reddy, N, Schweitzer, Malan, D F and Milev, A, 2000. Rock mass behaviour in ultra-deep South African gold mines and its impact on the behaviour of stope support. Proceedings GeoEng 2000, Melbourne. Haile, A T and Le Bron, K, 2001. Simulated rockburst experiment – evaluation of rock bolt reinforcement performance. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 101(5): 247-251. Handley, M F, 2002. Review of past research areas – seismology and mine layout design. Final Project Report, SIMRAC Project GAP 816b. Heal, D, Hudyma, M and Potvin, Y, 2004. Assessing the in-situ performance of ground support systems subjected to dynamic loading. Ground Support 2004, Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Perth, E Villaescusa and Y Potvin (eds), 319-326. Balkema: Lisse. Hebblewhite, B K and Lu, T, 2004. Geomechanical behaviour of laminated, weak coal mine roof strata and the implications for a ground reinforcement strategy. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 41(1): 147-157. Hood, M and Brown, E T, 1999. Mining rock mechanics: yesterday, today and tomorrow. Proceedings, 9th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Paris, G Vouille and P Berest (eds), 3: 1551-1576. Balkema: Rotterdam. Indraratna, B, Price, J, Ranjith, P and Gale, W, 2002. Some aspects of unsaturated flow in jointed rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(5): 555-568. Jeffrey, R G, Settari, A, Mills, K W, Zhang, X and Detourney, E, 2001. Hydraulic fracturing to induce caving: fracture model development and comparison to field data. Rock Mechanics in the National Interest, Proceedings, 38th U S Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Washington DC, D Elsworth, J P Tinnuci, and K A Heasley (eds), 251-259. Balkema: Lisse. Kelly, M, Luo, X and Craig, S, 2002. Integrating tools for longwall geomechanics assessment. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(5): 661-676. Lang, A M and Stubley, C D, 2004. Rockfalls in Western Australian underground metalliferous mines. Ground Support 2004, Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Perth, E Villaescusa and Y Potvin (eds), 375-386. Balkema: Lisse. Li, T, Brown, E T, Coxon, J and Singh, U, 2004. Dynamic capable ground support development and application. Ground Support 2004, Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Perth, E Villaescusa and Y Potvin (eds), 281-288. Balkema: Lisse. Malan, D F, Napier, J A L and Grave, M, 2003. Experiments on stope closure as a diagnostic measure of rock behaviour. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 2: 795-801. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Milev, A M, Spottiswoode, S M, Murphy, S K and Geyser, D, 2003. Strong ground motion and site response of mine-induced seismic events. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 2: 817-822. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Milev, A M, Spottiswoode, S M and Stewart, R D, 1999. Dynamic response of the rock surrounding deep level mining excavations. Proceedings, 9th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Paris, G Vouille and P Berest (eds), 2: 1109-1114. Balkema: Rotterdam. Mills, K W and Jeffrey, R G, 2004. Remote high resolution stress change monitoring of hydraulic fractures. Proceedings, MassMin 2004, Santiago, A Karzulovic and M Alfaro (eds), 547-555. Chilean Engineering Institute: Santiago. Minerals Council of Australia, 2002. Safety and Health Performance Report of the Australian Minerals Industry 2001-2002. Minerals Council of Australia: Canberra. Minerals Council of Australia, 2003. Safety and Health Performance Report of the Australian Minerals Industry 2002-2003. Minerals Council of Australia: Canberra. Napier, J A L, 2003. New directions for the effective analysis of stress and strain induced by tabular mining. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 2: 863-869. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Ortlepp, W D, Wesseloo, J and Stacey, T R, 2001. A facility for testing support under realistic “rockburst” conditions. Dynamic Rock Mass Response to Mining, Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Johannesburg, G van Aswegen, R J Durrheim and W D Ortlepp (eds), 197-204. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Player, J R, Villaescusa, E and Thompson, A G, 2004. Dynamic testing of rock reinforcement using the momentum transfer concept. Ground Support 2004, Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Perth, E Villaescusa and Y Potvin (eds), 327-339. Balkema: Lisse Potvin, Y and Nedin, P, 2004. Controlling rockfall risks in Australian underground metal mines. Ground Support 2004, Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Perth, E Villaescusa and Y Potvin (eds), 359-366. Balkema: Lisse. Potvin, Y, Stacey, T R and Hadjigeorgiou, J (eds), 2004. Surface Support in Mining. Australian Centre for Geomechanics: Perth. Potvin, Y, Thomas, E and Fourie, A (eds), 2005. Handbook on Mine Fill. Australian Centre for Geomechanics: Perth. Rangasamy, T, Leach, A R and Cook, A P, 2001. The Hydraulic Design of Coal Barrier Pillars. SIMRAC: Johannesburg. Ryder, J A and Jager, A J, 2002. A Textbook on Rock Mechanics for Tabular Hard Rock Mines. SIMRAC: Johannesburg. Simser, B, Andrieux, P and Gaudreau. D, 2002. Rockburst support at Noranda’s Brunswick Mine, Bathurst, New Brunswick. Mining and Tunnelling Innovation and Opportunity, Proceedings, 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference, Toronto, R Hammah, W Bawden, J Curran, and M Telesnicki (eds), 1: 805-813. University of Toronto Press: Toronto. Simser, B and Falmagne, V, 2004. Seismic source parameters used to monitor rockmass response at Brunswick mine. CIM Bulletin, 97(1080): 58-63. Spottiswoode, S M, 2005. Mine layout design and medium-term prediction of seismicity. Controlling Seismic Risk, Proceedings, 6th International Symposium on Rockburst and Seismicity in Mines, Perth, Y Potvin and M Hudyma (eds), 211-217, Australian Centre for Geomechanics: Perth. Spottiswoode, S M and Linzer, L M, 2003. Improved seismic event locations. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 2: 1141-1146. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Stacey, T R and Ortlepp, W D, 1999. Retainment support for dynamic events in mines. Rock Support and Reinforcement Practice in Mining, Proceedings, International Symposium on Ground Support, Kalgoorlie, E Villaescusa, C R Windsor and A G Thompson (eds), 329-333. Balkema: Rotterdam. Stacey, T R and Ortlepp, W D, 2001. Tunnel surface support – capacities of various types of wire mesh and shotcrete under dynamic loading. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 101(7): 337-342. Thompson, A G, Player, J R and Villaescusa, E, 2004. Simulation and analysis of dynamically loaded reinforcement systems. Ground Support 2004, Proceedings, 5th International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Perth, E Villaescusa and Y Potvin (eds), 341-355. Balkema: Lisse. Toper, A Z, Stewart, R D, Kullman, D H, Grodner, M, Lightfoot, N, Janse van Rensberg, A L and Longmore, P J, 1998. Develop and implement preconditioning techniques to control face ejection rockbursts for safer mining in seismically active areas. Final Project Report, SIMRAC Project GAP 336. Toper, A Z, Janse van Rensberg, A L, Milev, A M, Grodner, M W and Noble, B R, 2003. Criteria for preconditioning at varying stoping widths in different geotechnical areas. Final Project Report, SIMRAC Project GAP 811. Triebel, R and van Niekerk, S, 2001. The effectiveness and profile of the SIMRAC research effort in improving safety in gold and platinum sectors. Final Project Report, SIMRAC Project GAP730. Trueman, R and Mawdesley, C, 2003. Predicting cave initiation and propagation. CIM Bulletin, 96(1071): 54-59. Trueman, R, Pierce, M and Wattimena, R, 2002. Quantifying stresses and support requirements in the undercut and production level drifts of block and panel caving mines. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(5): 617-632. van Aswegen, G, 2003. Applications of seismic hazard assessment methods in mines. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 2: 1261-1268. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg. van der Merwe, J N, Canbault, I and Roberts, D P, 2003. Coal pillar loading systems. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 2: 1269-1274. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Vieira, F M C C and Budavari, S, 2003. Evaluation of four layouts for gold mining at a depth-range of 3500 and 5000 m. Technology Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings, 10th Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Johannesburg, 2: 1299-1310. South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg. Vieira, F M C C, Diering, D H and Durrheim, R J, 2001. Methods to mine the ultra-deep tabular gold-bearing reefs of the Witwatersrand Basin, South Africa. Underground Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Histories, W A Hustrulid and R L Bullock (eds), 691-704. SME: Littleton, CO. Villaescusa, E, 2004. Quantifying open stope performance. Proceedings, MassMin 2004, Santiago, A Karzulovic and M Alfaro (eds), 96-104. Villaescusa, E, Seto, M and Baird, G, 2002. Stress measurements from oriented core. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(5): 603-615. Willis, R P H and Ashworth, S G E, 2002. Technology and knowledge transfer – good practice guidelines. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 102(5): 269-273. Willis, R P H and Rupprecht, S, 2002. The challenges of rapid access development in South African deep level mines. Mining and Tunnelling Innovation and Opportunity, Proceedings, 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference, Toronto, R Hammah, W Bawden, J Curran and M Telesnicki (eds), 1: 119-128. Wines, D R and Lilly, P A, 2002. Measurement and analysis of rock mass discontinuity spacing and frequency in part of the Fimiston Open Pit operation in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia: a case study. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 39(5): 589-602. TABLE 1: CURRENT AND RECENT MINING GEOMECHANICS RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES AND GOVERNMENT RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS
Yüklə 2,78 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|