Gap851 Final Report Main Body
Canadian rock-related research focus - past and present
Yüklə 2,78 Mb.
|
3.1.2 Canadian rock-related research focus - past and present In the mid-1980s, the Canadian mining industry became a major sponsor of geomechanics research in universities, largely because of rock-related fatalities. Research funding was either provided directly to research groups by individual mining companies, or channelled through specific collaboration programs (e.g., HDRK) or through research broker organizations like the Canadian Mining Industry Research Organization (CAMIRO). Compared to Australia, industry funding channelled through CAMIRO was far less than through AMIRA (Australian Mineral Industries Research Association Ltd) as no levies are imposed. In recent years, few mining geomechanics projects have been sponsored through CAMIRO. From 1985 to 1995, Geomechanics Research in Canada produced significant advances related to health and safety. Past programs include: Rock support for underground excavation with focus on cable bolting and shotcrete and the Canadian Rockburst Program with a focus on burst-resistant rock support, seismic monitoring, and mine design (modelling). More recent, programs focus on safe rapid drifting, spray-on liner support, use of gel-fill to control bursting, etc. In Provinces with significant mining (Alberta (Oil sands), British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec), postgraduate programs with strong mining geomechanics components exist. At Laurentian University, the Geomechanics research Centre (GRC) was specifically established to intensify the rock-related research and to disseminate the findings through postgraduate training, conferences, workshops and short courses aimed at meeting the industry’s needs. The Australian Geomechanics Centre (AGC) now plays a similar role in Australia. 3.1.3 Research facilities Canadian mining rock-related research facilities can a best be described as marginally adequate, with the exception of a few new facilities that have been established in the last two decades. Examples of recently established, major rock-related research facilities in Canada include:
While this list is not complete, it illustrates that Canada makes a small but steady investment in developing new geomechanics research facilities. 3.1.4 Rock-related research capacity As described by T. Brown for Australia, there is no doubt that applied geomechanics research carried out in Canada has also had a major impact on the safe and economic design and operation of underground excavations. This research has greatly enhanced the skills of ground control engineers and thus has provided means for safer design and support selection. Despite the strength implied by the preceding discussion, there is now no major or dominant university group in Canada specialising in mining rock mechanics research, teaching and postgraduate training. The current research strengths provides a good basis for the development of a national research effort in mining geomechanics, but it is unlikely that this will provide a continuing pool of suitably qualified researchers and research leaders. Hence, there will be an acute shortage of qualified geomechanics specialists to address the challenges of safe, deep mining in Canada. 3.1.5 Technology transfer from rock-related research As elsewhere, we use the following means in Canada to transfer research results to the mining industry:
The development of software packages under the leadership of E. Hoek at the University of Toronto (now distributed by RocScience) represents one of the most successful Canadian examples of software development for geomechanics. The creation of ESG (Engineering Seismology Group) provides a good example of a spin-off company that provides a continuous service to the mining industry. It must be noted however, that both groups would not be sustainable if they would not have developed non-mining clientele. Clearly, direct industry or mine-site participation in projects constitutes the most effective means of transferring research results into practice. Because research results were seldom patented, most knowledge has been transferred to potential users and is freely available in the various forms described above. However, much of this knowledge is not necessarily used. The standard means of transferring research results to industry through the employment of MSc or PhD graduates in the industry has slowed as the number of graduates in mining geomechanics is gradually declining. As in Australia, not all efforts to transfer mining geomechanics research results to industry have been successful and insufficient efforts are generally made by either or both of the researchers and industry practitioners. The knowledge and technology transfer process is not well-managed. This deficiency is now recognized and significant funding is earmarked for commercialization both at the Federal and Provincial level (e.g., the province of Ontario plans to spend about $60M on research commercialization over the next five years). However, when reading funding strategy papers and funding guidelines, it is evident that this effort will not focus on the natural resource sector in general and mining or rock-related technology transfer in particular. 4. Assessment of SIMRAC 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, whereas there is no comparable program in Canada. This has several major advantages (e.g., little effort has to be made to find funds to do research; larger and strategic projects can be pursued) and disadvantages (e.g., funds may be more readily allocated to less pressing needs). Nevertheless, this means that South Africa has a unique ability to identify research needs and to develop a national research program under the auspices of SIMRAC. Canadian research organisations and the supporting industry groups typically carry out research needs analyses, then formulate a R&D program and try to obtain funds. This has also several advantages (e.g., sponsors and researchers are jointly developing the research program with in fiscal constraints) and disadvantages (e.g., too much effort is expended to find funds rather than in doing the research; the research projects often have short-term milestones and are frequently not pursued to successful completion). There are several Canadian agencies that focus on H&S issues, e.g., WSIB, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. These agencies define research needs and fund research at Universities and other research institutions. The rock-related component, as indicated above, however is rather small. SIMRAC has commissioned several studies to identify research needs in H&S. A Rock Engineering Steering Committee has also been used by the SIMROSS Programme manager to identify research needs. This approach provides a sound basis for the establishment of detailed research programs. Unfortunately, identifying research needs alone is often not sufficient for a successful research program. First, a need must also become a priority for the industry (needs are often determined without corporate buy-in). The best research will not be useful if there is no commitment to bear the costs of implementing “implementable solutions“. Second, rock-related research will seldom be successful in reducing risks unless acted upon (by introducing regulations or guidelines). Too often, it is assumed that research will produce a simple tool or gadget that will provide a solution and eliminate risk. This is seldom the case. While a centrally funded research program has its advantages (as indicated above), the major deficiency is that needs and implementation priorities (commitments to act and spend the money to succeed) often do not match. Even though representatives of mining companies, labour organisations and the Department of Minerals and Energy make up the committees involved in research planning, it may well be that these committees are not well constituted to determine the research needs of the South African industry and to ensure implementation. Some process of “enforcement” ensuring use and application of new knowledge must be found. International participation in an annual review capacity might help to improve the program planning process but up-front corporate buy-in is clearly the most critical element to ensure success of implementation. The problem of slow or lacking research adoption is not unique to the SIMRAC program but the overall tone of some of the feedback suggests that the value of the research is questioned when it appears that the mode of implementation should be questioned. Research alone cannot reduce fatalities, implementation of new risk control measures can. Particularly in safety related research, much more effort must be expended on implementation than on research and knowledge/technology transfer. Normal means of knowledge dissemination/communication (workshops, publications, etc.) are clearly insufficient to have a major and lasting impact on safety. Guidelines and strict adherence controls do (see summary of interviews). Furthermore, if research is not producing value, our experience suggests that it can be often tracked to a lack of research involvement during the research program design stage. If industry expects wonders and researcher do not know how to deliver, the value of research will be limited. Valuable research programs must be designed together with research delivery groups. Based on the reviewed material, it appears that SIMRAC has succeeded in identifying the main rock-related safety hazards and research needs. The centralised SIMRAC approach to identify research needs is certainly superior to the approach used in Canada (even though the safety problems confronting the Canadian industry today is much less challenging than for South Africa). However, as the results of the interviews suggest the individual research projects may not always produce results that are rated favourably by all stake-holders. As explained above, this is less an issue of research need identification than a matter of research planning, collaboration and “enforcement”. It appears that more could be achieved, if industry was truly committed to improve the up-take of new knowledge. A case in point is the development of the cone bolt that took years if not decades to adoption. It is often easier to criticize than to actively collaborate in projects. Again, this is not a unique SIMRAC problem, but one that can only be overcome by a well-defined, focussed implementation strategy. Some of the interviewee’s comments also suggest that there is a lack of appreciation and respect or understanding of the role of academics, a situation that applies to other parts of the world. Good management must find ways to establish a high level of mutual respect and active collaboration. 4.1.2 Project management Through SIMROSS, SIMRAC seems to have an excellent approach to research project management. In Canada, each research funding organisation or consortium has its own project management system. The SIMRAC process seems superior. Based on Canadian experience, and reflected in some of the reports as well as the interviewee comments, project design may not always be optimal. Two deficiencies seem to stand out (as everywhere else): lack of active collaboration and lack of proper design and buy-in to research plan. This may be areas for future improvement from a project management perspective. A possible solution may involve the addition of industry and academic monitors. The latter of course should not have a conflict of interest and it might be necessary to involve international academic and industrial monitors. Better project management alone will however not resolve the issue of slow take-up. An effective implementation strategy should be developed and properly funded. 4.1.3 Project and program evaluation The SIMRAC program shows several areas of strength as reflected in several reviews reports (e.g., GAP 343, GAP 730 (summary reviewed only), GAP 816a and b (not available), and many others). These review reports highlight research results that could be implemented by industry and areas where more research is required or where research should be terminated. No comparable system of systematic project and program evaluation is known to exist in Canada. While it is suggested in the structured interviews conducted by Dr Ray Durrheim that the system of reviewing progress and final reports of projects could be strengthened, possibly by greater use of international experts, this reviewer is of the opinion that these efforts should be directed to:
Clearly, holistic planning alone does not lead to a much better program. However, the overall SIMRAC program seems to be well managed and it can be assumed that a better planned program would be well executed (see also comments in Section ). Significant restructuring of the SIMRAC council may be necessary to facilitate rapid adoption and implementation of past and future research results. 4.2 Scope and quality of research In the innovation cycle (Fig. 2.1 of main review report), research work is divided into several aspects: basic science, engineering, human factors, and risk management. Most research effort seems to be focussed on the first two (basic science and engineering), less on the third (human factors), and much less on the latter (risk management). It seems that while this distribution is rather typical, in safety research, the latter may well be the most important field. As will be discussed at other locations, research implementation for risk reduction largely depends on how the new knowledge is put to work, clearly a risk management issue (see also comments in Section ). 4.2.1 Scope of the research Major 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 Canada. Almost all research is focussed on deep mines where stress-driven failure processes dominate safety risks. For these reasons, it is not easy to compare the scope of the research carried out in Canada and South Africa. However, the predominant rock-related hazards stem in both jurisdictions from falls of ground and rockbursts. The scope of the SIMRAC rock-related research program seems to meet the research needs of the South African industry in terms of improving safety. Many of the remaining safety issues appear to be non-rock related. The SIMRAC research does not, and is not intended, to address the research needs associated with improving the efficiency and sustainability of the industry. This may pose a major impediment with respect to implementation of results as there is no better motivator than increased productivity, reduced costs of operation, achieving sustainability, and safe operations. As indicated elsewhere, it should be assessed whether some combination of safety and productivity focussed research may provide a more promising scope for SIMRAC (i.e., adjust mandate of SIMRAC). It is also noticed that the program is, in general, developed and executed by relatively few research leaders. This causes two problems: narrow research focus (good depth in certain fields but neglect of other areas) and weak linkage to follow-up sectors (e.g., engineering, mine planning, etc.). In addition, it is noted that the scope in part seems to be defined by areas where expertise exists and not where expertise is needed (e.g., seismology rather than engineering and planning). The scope of a R&D program should also serve as a means to develop R&D skills and expertise that is needed in the future. Hence, the R&D program development should identify areas of lack of critical expertise. Considering the outstanding nature of previous research in the area of hazard detection and assessment, it seems evident that this area has the most potential for safety enhancing impact. Hence, future research should expand and build an effective hazard assessment, hazard prevention and risk control techniques. One “show stopper” in the past was the limitation of data integration. Today, however, sophisticated data integration techniques (VR, earth modelling, etc.) are available and this should assist in translating previous research findings into practice. If linked to the mine planning process, significant improvements can be anticipated in the long run.1
As indicated repeatedly, a marked difference between SIMRAC’s and Canada’s rock-related research lies in the numbers and types of research organisation and research providers involved. In Canada, there is not the same predominance of one single research provider. This is seen as a weakness of the SIMRAC program. While some staff have undertaken PhDs while working on the SIMRAC program, there is little evidence that this is adequate to meet S.A.’s and the mining industry’s future need for highly trained researchers, research leaders and advanced practitioners. While consultants may be cost-effective research providers they tend to retain new knowledge (their business model). This can lead to an effective technology transfer, if the new knowledge can be applied by the consultant as service providers to mines but in general, this prevents rapid dissemination of knowledge htrough staff training. Universities and Colleges are mandated to ensure knowledge transfer and thus are more effective in knowledge dissemination. It seems that partnerships between education and research groups should be encouraged and maybe enforced. At MIRARCO, we have for this reason adopted an approach of mixing engineers and scientists with graduate students. While this imposes a “hidden tax” on projects in terms of R&D productivity (to some extent, quality and time), leading to slower research output at similar costs, it addresses and solves the need for training of HQP for industry. As a matter of fact, there seems to be a growing trend in Canada toward R&D as a rapid training ground for immigrant scientists and engineers. Many outstanding South African rock mechanics research leaders are now approaching retirement and thus the end of their research careers. Unless there are other means to replace these experts, it would seem to be the responsibility of the SIMRAC program to foster the next generation of research leaders. While Canada’s rock-related research has diminished as elsewhere in the world, we have been able to steadily rebuild our research capacity (Diederichs, Martin, Tannant, Hutchinson, Eberhardt, Stead, Hadjigeorgiou, to name only a few). Without such rejuvenation, SIMRAC will experience great difficulty in maintaining the current levels of research excellence. It might be worthwhile considering that while Canada has put people in place to undertake advanced research, due to a lack of rock-related funding, in this reviewer’s opinion, these resources are not optimally used these days. Since S.A. may have a lack of people but a focussed and funded R&D program, there might be opportunity for international collaboration if the currency differentials can be balanced by international collaboration grants.
No effort was made to review or assess the current state of research infrastructure in S.A.. However, due to the rapid change in technology, it is almost certain that the facilities cannot keep up with the state-of-the-art and thus are falling behind. Furthermore, quite different facilities are required for R&D today than decades ago. For example, much more of the research is or should be done in the field, using the mines as a “living laboratory”. This demands the use of sophisticated monitoring, data acquisition and communication, as well as interpretation technology. The Canadian government has recognized this trend several years ago and implemented a research infrastructure renewal program trough the Canada Foundation for Innovation (www.innovation.ca). While this is an excellent program, relatively few major rock-related facilities have been funded (see Section ).
The research outputs of the rock-related SIMRAC program was evaluated by a study of report summaries, project reports and published papers arising from work carried out under the program (as provide in 3 CDs). In addition, through personal geomechanics research, this reviewer has kept abreast of S.A. geomechanics research results published in the international literature. Comments on a few selective reports are included in Section to highlight issues identified in this review report. Results presented in the structured interview reports by Dr. R. Durrheim were also considered (see Section ). Due to the limited scope of this review, only a general overview was obtained and no systematic, in-depth analysis of the quality of individual projects can be provided. Nevertheless, considering that this reviewer has followed much of the rock-related research from South Africa in the past, this approach is adequate to arrive at an overall assessment. As indicated by some of the internal review reports, the quality of the program’s research outputs is highly variable. Much of the research reported is clearly of world class while some outputs are less impressive (only one listed in Section ). Indeed, the writer has difficulty in classifying some of the work reported as being research at all. There seem to be a correlation between the level of research training of the lead researcher and the quality of work, pointing again to the previously identified issue of (lack of) researcher training (as mentioned elsewhere). The well executed projects also seem to be larger in scope and duration but there seems to be a detrimental trend towards shorter and smaller projects (may not be correct assessment; no detailed analysis of duration and effort was made). However, if such a trend is prevailing (presumably due to lack of funding), the program development team should carefully assess whether shorter and smaller projects do in deed produce the desired results. In this reviewer’s opinion, good research takes time and thus larger, well designed and planned projects should form the backbone of future research programs. Some of the smaller projects are more of short-term, problem-solving nature that should be undertaken by consultants and directly funded by industry. In this reviewer’s opinion, SIMRAC funding should be used to approach strategic, long-term and step-function research under the leadership of an experienced researcher with a (young, multi-disciplinary) research team. Rigorous research training and expertise development should be a selection criteria for future projects. For various reasons, it might become increasingly difficult to create such research teams, particularly with practical and academic experience (a worldwide problem). Hence, some form of mutual secondment may be necessary to build good R&D teams. As indicated elsewhere, this is often very difficult to achieve as secondments are rarely career enhancing and thus seldom successful. Corporate commitments to reward secondments will be necessary to ensure success. South African researchers have studied mine seismicity and rock bursts in a scientific and rock engineering manner for the last 50 years or more and have clearly become leaders in this field. Similarly research on rock support has been very fruitful and produced useful products like the conebolt. However, useful and original contributions are also being made elsewhere and this does not seem to be fully recognized and integrated by the researchers and the program designers. Most of the larger research programs might benefit from increased and active collaboration at a national and international level (in both cases with collaboration between disciplines; e.g., geophysics and engineering). Canadian experience suggests that focussed 3 to 5-year programs produce the best results (e.g., Canadian Rockburst Research Program) due to continuity of program and research team strength. There is no question that the SIMRAC-sponsored research program has benefited from particular strengths of South African researchers. An attempt to list them here would likely result in an incomplete listing and unfairly ignore some major contributors. However, the fact that long-term researchers like Spottiswood, Mendecki, Napier, Toper, Ryder, Stacey, Jager and many more stand out, should be of concern. It looks like only few rising stars where nurtured and retained as a result of previous programs. This should be addressed in future program plans. There also seems to be an underlying assumption that research quality could be improved through refereed publications in the open international literature. While it is correct that SIMRAC research is not 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 reviewer is not at all convinced that this is an effective means to improve research quality (particularly not now that, at least in Canada, the “publish or perish” era is being replaced by a “get matching funding or perish” era). If rigorous research skills are not learned, publications will not follow and get accepted. Consequently, research skill development should become a hallmark of future programs. This can be achieved by mentorship programs (involving retiring researchers), by promotion of graduate studies under international and national research leaders, and by active national and international collaboration programs. 4.2.5 Concluding remarks on research Because safety and risk management depends on human as well as technological factors, it is particularly difficult to achieve progress through research alone. Progress can be stalled by a lack of incentive to implement change. As indicated repeatedly, this might be one of the reasons why the impact of research seems to be somewhat limited. If this is the case, ways to create incentives to implement change must be found. One possibility could be that multidisciplinary research projects looking simultaneously at safety, productivity and sustainability should be developed. There is no better incentive to enhance safety than with simultaneous productivity enhancement. Research that focuses on the combined effect might be more promising – higher productivity, better pay, higher skill, more responsibility, less fatalities! Because research often leads to incremental rather than step-function advances, innovation adoption is often slow or non-existent. Hence, it may be necessary to “re-research” previous research topics and to demonstrate that step-function progress has now been made and practice can accommodate findings. One area that stands out is in the field of seismic monitoring. Huge progress has been made in the technological sector (both HW and SW) as well as in understanding the physical process of rockbursting. It is now a matter of integration of these new tools and theories into the daily decision-making and mine planning process (Kaiser et al. 2005; RaSMi6, Perth). Today, mining companies record huge amounts of data (in particular, seismic and micro-seismic data) but there is either insufficient time (staff) or skill to analyse the data effectively, or the data is too complex for the human mind to extract value. Furthermore, real-time data analyses tools do often not exist and results cannot be effectively visualized. The area of seismic hazard assessment by data integration may well provide a major impetus for future research and technology transfer efforts. SIMRAC should seriously consider building an international consortium around the H&S theme. There are many other jurisdictions in the world that have to master, not the same, but similar H&S issues. As indicated earlier, SIMRAC has the mandate to focus on safety while other research programs focus on productivity and sustainability. If progress is too slow because of a lack of incentive to implement change, ways to create incentives to implement change must be found. One possibility could be to develop a research program with projects that look simultaneously at safety, productivity, and sustainability (change SIMRAC mandate). This should be taken into account when developing an H&S consortium.
SIMRAC pays particular attention to the transfer of knowledge and technology and uses a wide range of knowledge and technology transfer (dissemination) techniques, including:
As indicated above, a similar range of knowledge and technology transfer (K&TT) methods is used in Canada. Because of the greater involvement of universities and university-affiliated organisations in rock-related research, there seems to be a greater degree of knowledge transfer through undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in Canada than in South Africa. While these means are effective in disseminating knowledge or research findings, they are not sufficient to achieve the desired effect of safety improvement. Unfortunately, these means of K&TT do not (quickly) reach the decision-makers. They generally reach the technical staff with limited responsibility and authority, and thus often only lead to small scale actions rather than strategic change. “Dissemination” may need to be combined with some kind of “enforcement”. 4.3.2 Implementation by industry A program that aims at the transfer of (condensed) knowledge in a strategic manner to decision-makers should be developed. This may have to include regulations and operation guidelines (“enforcement”). If the corporate culture in not ready to embrace new knowledge, such a program would have to aim at changing the value system. Today, there is no question that there is a serious commitment to enhance safety at senior levels of corporations. However, at the operational level, where production pressures often dominate the decision-making process, there is likely insufficient will or capability to implement change. A program that aims at transferring knowledge to develop safety enhancing bonus systems, operation performance criteria, etc. may be beneficial. Based on personal experience, most researchers around the world make less effort in disseminating research results than those associated with the SIMRAC program. Of course there are always ways to improve the dissemination process (as suggested by interviewees), but the end users and the researchers or research managers must actively collaborate and allocate resources to the K&TT process. SIMRAC may have to devise a program to enhance receiver readiness and to overcome other impediments created by greater staff mobility; e.g., lack of career opportunity in geomechanics, etc. These and other issues may demand structural changes beyond SIMRAC capacity. Another, globally observed, impediment to effective safety related research and the adoption of research findings lies in a lack of “mutual respect”2. Industry representatives are quick in criticizing researchers or the apparent lack of practical value (often for valid reasons) but do little to overcome the problem (even though they have the possibility but not necessarily the will). Researchers are often blamed for not working directly with industry, for lacking industrial experience, etc. It is this reviewer’s experience that researchers would like to collaborate more and directly with industry but that there is little industry readiness (e.g., patience, willingness to find long-term solutions, etc.). This can only be overcome if industry staffs are assigned the responsibility and time to collaborate with researchers. Ideas like industry secondments to research institution are theoretically interesting but fail because such secondments are of little value to an individual that aspires to an industrial career. On the other hand, researcher secondments to mines are also potentially interesting but again fail because there is little reward for such efforts. Hence, it is necessary to place incentives at both ends (industry and research) to stimulate collaboration.
An idea that has not been tested elsewhere, as far as this reviewer knows, is to assign (fund) a mentor team to each research project (of sufficient size). Such a team should consist of an industrial and an academic (researcher) representative. The later has to have no conflict of interest and thus may have to be globally selected. The funding of the mentor or advisory teams should be a percentage of the project and the team’s responsibility would be to guide the project to a successful conclusion or to recommend termination in case of inadequate progress. 4.3.3 Development of Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP) While it is recognized that it is increasingly difficult in attracting students to mining, one major deficiency of the SIMRAC approach seems to be the training of HQP (and the development of future researchers; see earlier). Because most research in Canada is executed at or in close collaboration with Universities, research and development is HQP is closely linked. Also, Canada’s main scientific and engineering research funding source (NSERC) has training of HQP as a major selection criteria. By attracting a number of Rocha medal awards, SIMRAC has demonstrated that its “student researchers” do excellent work and obtain highly valued and practically relevant skills. However, the number of newly trained HQPs that emerge from the SIMRAC programs seems rather small, in large part possibly because much of the research is internalized and not undertaken with (undergraduate and graduate) students. While the research with students tends to be slower and most likely of lower quality than when executed with highly experienced researchers, the SIMRAC approach neglects to maximize the HQP training potential. It must be recognized that a slow but very effective knowledge transfer occurs when students enter the workforce and start to ask questions, apply the knowledge and eventually affect decisions.
The rock-related research program (with respect to health and safety) carried out by or through SIMRAC since 1991 is assessed in this report. The rock-related research was generally properly focussed on relevant topics and the quality of research, while not perfect as elsewhere, was generally very good to outstanding when compared to global best practices. In this reviewer’s opinion, the SIMRAC program did:
but it did not fully succeed in:
Hence, if there was “little improvement in injury and fatality rates, ...”
As with most R&D programs, it seems that most effort is expended to acquire new knowledge and to develop new tools, but insufficient time is allowed and funding allocated for this knowledge to penetrate the industry. Efforts are made to disseminate but not to adopt solutions. It is often observed that it takes more than ten years for knowledge to penetrate the market. Unfortunately, much knowledge is lost on this path and
Clearly, it was expected that the SIMRAC research program would have a positive effect on safety risk. It would be wrong if the research program was terminated or even reduced for lack of effect. The research is of high quality. However, more effective means to apply the knowledge must be found. For every Rand spent on research at least an equivalent amount must be spent for training (preferably at all levels from worker to manager, at colleges and universities) and even more for the development of means to affect safety risk (communication, guidelines, regulations and enforcement of same, etc.).
In response to the question whether the research program was well structured and focussed on the mandate, it can be concluded that the program was superior in its extent to activities elsewhere and that the research was generally of high standard. SIMRAC’s rock-related research effort in the next decade should
This reviewer cannot give an inclusive list of priority projects based on the available information but the fatality statistics clearly indicate that research to reduce rockburst and rockfall risks must be intensified (increasing depth, remnant mining, etc.). It is also suggested by interviewees and in various reports that more research on in situ rockmass characterization was of utmost importance. This may be correct but only if the research is tied to and integrated into an implementable solution of hazard assessment and intervention plan.
As indicated throughout this report, there is no doubt in this reviewers mind that the SIMRAC program did significantly improve our understanding of rock-related issues, specifically, our understanding “of significant rock-related occupational H&S risks”. The question “by how much?”, can only indirectly be answered. The total expended effort was greater that elsewhere and the research quality at least equivalent. Hence, the SIMRAC program must have made a very significant contribution to the improvement of our understanding. 5.2 Transformation of research into solutions Through out this report, this reviewer has focused on issues related to the adoption of research and tried to address the earlier posed questions:
5.3 Industry up-take As indicated in the previous section, in this reviewer’s opinion, industry up-take is slow, as elsewhere. Hence, the response to the related, earlier posed questions is generally negative.
Appendix - Reflections on interviews Research and education needs This is not a comprehensive summary but some of the most frequent issues raised are listed below (R = Research; E = Education and training; TT – technology transfer):
Quality of research – SIMRAC General assessment is that research quality was highly variable from both extremes but
Obviously, there is always room for improvement. Value and need for research Overall consensus is that research did lead to safety improvements (possibly not as much as it could have) and that research is needed in the future (only few reviewers do not see need for more research). Several areas are clearly recognized for significant progress, e.g., seismic monitoring and data interpretation, rockburst potential assessment and control, and more. Opinions vary on where more research is required and what the focus should be. While only slightly more than half the interviewees seem to be in favour of more research, it is not evident that those suggesting that no further research is required, truly understand the full impact of their recommendation (e.g., training of HQP, national expertise, etc.). There seems to be little support for an expansion of the research program but it is realized that cuts beyond current levels would be highly counterproductive (e.g., from a skill retention and development perspective). Experiences from other parts of the world, including Canada, and other sectors show that it is much harder to rebuild than to maintain research excellence. There is clear support for increased investments in ways to better use past research results and in implementing effective means to enhance safety. Here it must be understood that proper education, training, tool development, implementation, etc., is at least as expensive as the original research. Hence, there seems to be consensus that more funds are required to reap the benefits of past research. Ranges of fund allocation splits range from 1/1/1 for fundamental research/applied research/implementation to 1/1/8.
It is also implied that the current skills of the “research teams” is not necessarily appropriate to focus on implementation; ideas like industry secondments are raised as possible solutions. Our experience on this aspect is that this does not work well because there is little career development incentive for those that wish to advance in the industrial setting. As a consequence, secondment of “researchers” to a mine seems to be more realistic than visa versa but true buy-in from the mine and formal allocation of mine staff time to the project is crucial. There is also a reoccurring sense that international participation in both research and implementation efforts would benefit the cause, i.e., assist in improving safety more rapidly. Location of research is also discussed with some suggesting a shift away from CSIR Miningtek’s domination as research supplier. Based on personal experiences in Canada and matters discussed in the main report (need for HQP), this reviewer favours
Critiques of SIMRAC The following areas were consistently critiqued:
These criticisms should obviously be seriously addressed but it is this reviewer’s opinion that removing these critiques will not have a drastic impact on rock-related safety issues. In an ideal word, it would be nice to overcome these deficiencies but the source of the problem is elsewhere. Potential elements for improved mode of operation in future
Outstanding visions of interviewees In this reviewer’s opinion, the following interviews seem to be of greatest value and importance for future planning. The interview with J. Klokow clearly reflects sound knowledge of the issues and a forward looking, balanced perspective that must be seriously considered. Ignoring his advice would seem to be a serious mistake. The following issues addressed by J. Klokow are strongly supports by this reviewer:
D. Minney stresses another very important point:
Furthermore, he suggests ...
D. Stacey reinforces the view that ...
7. Appendix - Example reports - reviewer notes and comments A large number of report summaries and many full reports were reviewed. It is not within the scope of this report to comment on specific projects and to address the value of each contribution. However, a few examples are chosen to either indicated how a contribution to safety improvement was made, what the value of the adopted approach was, where opportunities to build on are, and what is required to reap the benefits of the research. By the following examples it is illustrated that useful techniques, tools and guidelines have been developed that can be used to enhance safety in mines. One of the most important factors though in achieving adoption of these findings is that the skills and expertise exists at the mines to reap the benefit from this work (this supports the need identified in this report for strong linkage of research and education; i.e., linkage of research and training of HQP).
“The new standards of seismic data acquisition, seismological processing and interpretation have been defined and technology transferred to the mining industry. It is currently applied on 20 S.A. gold mines on a routine basis. Fifteen mine seismologists have already been specifically trained for this purpose and are employed in the S.A. gold mining industry, while several more are in training.” Authors’ suggest ... “that more SIMRAC research is needed on seismic risk and hazard assessment. Prediction research per se should be relegated to a lesser role and should include further thoughts on those mining conditions in which predictions are more likely to occur and on more careful statistical analysis of the accuracy or reliability of any predictions.“ „The reservations expressed above must not be taken to mean that no success has been achieved to date. The reviewer is quite prepared to believe that there have been some successful predictions made. It is nevertheless true that useful routine prediction of rockbursts is still a long way off. However, the success that has been achieved in GAP 017 is sufficient to justify the continuation of effort, indeed at an increased level of intensity, towards developing a useful system of prediction.” Further research and implementation efforts in this field are clearly required. GAP 303 Mine layout, geological features and seismic hazard Used sound hypotheses and rational approach to identify seismic hazard and produced means to establish hazard maps (ppv and stress). “Seismic hazard derived from the size distribution of seismic events may not be adequate to quantify and to manage the exposure to seismicity … Seismic safety exposure can be estimated by the product of the average frequency of potentially damaging events and the average number of people exposed at that time. … The highest threat to safety and mine infrastructure however comes from strong ground motion caused by the largest seismic events, the frequency and the location of which can not be determined by statistics. …” “A procedure has been developed to produce iso-surfaces of the maximum near and intermediate field ground velocities from large seismic events … 3D ground motion hazard map (iso-surfaces of different values of PPV) combined with modelled stress values. …” “A number of useful procedures, e.g., an algorithm to discriminate seismicity associated with production blasts and to calculate the daily blast ratios, were produced.” “Approach was successfully tested on several “experiments” and case studies.” “This provides the basis for an improved mine layout design methodology revolving around the evaluation of the mining induced seismic response associated with mine layouts utilising commercially available modelling tools. In order to implement the method, the designer must follow established procedures that demand a fairly sophisticated level of seismological and numerical modelling skills and expertise.” Further research and implementation efforts in this field are clearly required/justified. GAP 314 Reliable practical technique for in-situ stress measurement Apparently successful technique was developed and tested (see also other reports). GAP 335 Strata control in tunnelling … to improve effectiveness of support, stability and safety of tunnels Uses a systematic approach, building on previous research incl. international work and numerical modelling tools, to arrive at guidelines and recommendations for support design. In order to implement the method, the designer must follow procedures that demand a fairly sophisticated level of numerical modelling skills and rock characterization expertise. Implementation efforts in this field are clearly required/justified.
Not accessible but would seem highly relevant; report should be completed and (I guess) considered for integrated into a training program. GAP 420 VR simulators for rock engineering training Being involved in VR research, this reviewer is generally positively inclined to VR applications in mining. However, the study does not seem to be conclusive enough to justify progressing with the recommendations. Other aspects of VR use, e.g., for hazard identification via real-time hazard map visualization, and mine site decision-making, might be far more promising for strategic safety enhancement (e.g., work force allocation planning; e.g., Kaiser et al. 2005 Rockburst and Mine Seismicity Symposium).
While the project identified a mayor problem of rock engineering, i.e., variability in input parameters, that deserves further study, this project did not advance the state-of-the-art and the guidelines are of little practical value. Such a project, executed with in a student thesis framework with in-situ data collection and analysis would most likely have been far more fruitful. This critique is not intended to criticise the delivery company but rather to highlight a deficiency in the program delivery agent selection process. While there are R&D projects that should be executed by consulting or other services companies, the selection of program delivery agencies should be made based on skill/expertise requirements and training value. In this case, the level of expertise required, in this reviewer’s opinion, did not justify the involvement of an experienced consulting company.
Software on PC platform displaying the probability of occurrence of future seismic events in space and time on the mine plan and apparently was developed. Appendices were not available for review (1998 – no summary) thus cannot be assessed but seems relevant. GAP 709a and b The meaningful use of peak particle velocities at excavation surfaces for the optimisation of the rockburst criteria for tunnels and stopes Project produces new and unique information about near-field ground motion at walls of underground excavations, information that is highly critical for improved support design. The report as others is heavily focussed on seismological data collection and interpretation. Much remains to be done to translate the described guidelines for support selection into practice. Follow-up projects by engineering research teams that can translate these results into practice are required.
Another well executed theoretical and fundamental research project that is of high practical value but falls short in terms of immediate use for practical support design and selection. Follow-up projects by engineering research teams that can translate these results into practice are required.
“This study showed that the implementation of a real-time mine-wide closure system, unfortunately, would represent a major challenge. Cabling … in the stope environment is not seen as a viable option. … While the necessary technology is being developed, … a guide for the use of continuous closure data was developed.” This project identifies a typical deficiency of R&D programs, i.e., technology developments, in particular implementation facilitating technology R&D (HW, SW, communication, etc.), must go hand-in-hand with fundamental rock-related research. In summary, as indicated above, the purpose of the comments on these projects is not to criticize the projects nor their executers, it serves to support a few points made in the main body of this review report. In addition to the issues related to the linkage of research and training of HQP, these examples identify two other deficiencies: (1) lack of multi-disciplinary nature of research, and (2) lack of comprehensive program design. While lead research groups have expertise in the primary field of the proposed research, they tend to be weak or bring less expertise in the follow-up fields (e.g., engineering of support systems, development of practical guidelines, etc.). Hence, results are not translated into practice. Showstoppers, like technology gaps, are not identified early enough in the program and this slows adoption or makes adoption impractical. Most of these points are reflected somewhere in previous SIMRAC review reports, e.g., in GAP730. The effectiveness and profile of the SIMRAC research effort in improving safety in gold and platinum sectors, where it is stated: “With the SIMRAC model in essence sound, the key question arises as to how to provide more value to the industry. Recommendations to address this aspect include:
These points are reflected in other reports and reviews and should be addressed when designing future programs. In addition, greater efforts have to be made in designing holistic R&D programs that are designed with implementation in mind (from hypothesis to solution to training to guidelines and implementation tools/technologies). Yüklə 2,78 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|