Mining Technology

Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy: Section A

ISSN: 1474-9009 (Print) 1743-2863 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ymnt20

Evaluation of intensive preconditioning in block

and panel caving – Part I, quantifying the effect on
intact rock

Alex Catalan, Italo Onederra & Gideon Chitombo

To cite this article: Alex Catalan, Italo Onederra & Gideon Chitombo (2017): Evaluation of
intensive preconditioning in block and panel caving – Part I, quantifying the effect on intact rock,
Mining Technology, DOI: 10.1080/14749009.2017.1300724

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14749009.2017.1300724

Published online: 15 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ymnt20

Download by: [UQ Library] Date: 15 March 2017, At: 16:57

Mining Technology, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14749009.2017.1300724

Evaluation of intensive preconditioning in block and panel caving – Part I,

quantifying the effect on intact rock
Alex Catalana, Italo Onederrab and Gideon Chitomboc
a
Chuquicamata Underground Project, CODELCO-Chile, Calama, Chile; bSchool of Mechanical and Mining Engineering, The University of
Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; cWH Bryan Mining & Geology Research Centre, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland,
Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

A combination of preconditioning by hydraulic fracturing and confined blasting referred to Received 20 July 2016
as intensive preconditioning has been implemented for the first time at a major panel caving Revised 21 February 2017
operation. The reasoning behind this application was the potential to alter rock mass behaviour Accepted 21 February 2017
in a manner that could improve caving mechanics and overall extraction performance. A KEYWORDS
comprehensive sampling and testing campaign was conducted before and after the application Intensive preconditioning;
of large scale intensive preconditioning. Intact rock data was analysed with the combined hydraulic fracturing;
use of uniaxial compressive strength tests and acoustic emission monitoring. The aim was to preconditioning by blasting;
define damage thresholds of intact rock and study specific boundaries associated with different block and panel caving;
degrees of preconditioning. To evaluate the intact rock failure process, four stages or damage acoustic emission; rock
were studied, they included crack initiation stress, crack damage stress, uniaxial peak strength damage thresholds; blast
and cumulative count of Acoustic Emission (AE) events. Results from this analysis indicated that induced damage
between in situ and post hydraulic fracturing preconditioning, the initiation of damage occurs
almost at the same stress levels, which as expected, demonstrated that hydraulic fracturing
does not affect intact rock strength. However, after preconditioning by confined blasting,
results indicated that the on-set of excessive damage prior to failure was occurring at lower axial
stresses, this confirmed the presence of micro-fractures in the samples which may be attributed
to confined blasting induced stresses.

1. Introduction The intensive preconditioning concept is a combi-

nation of hydraulic fracturing (in down-holes) and
The term preconditioning has since been adopted within
confined blasting (in up-holes). Both preconditioning
the caving mining industry to describe the process of
methods are applied before the initiation of the cave and
‘modifying’ or ‘engineering’ a rock mass to enable bet-
the intent is to ‘modify’ a considerable volume of the
ter control or management of the cave mining process.
mining block. Figure 1 is an illustration of the inten-
These terms are used in this context to mean the process
sive preconditioning concept first reported by Catalan
of artificially inducing changes to the rock mass through
et al. 2012. After approximately three years of data col-
either hydraulic fracturing or large scale confined blast-
lection and analysis, this paper presents the results of a
ing; which involve treating/modifying the condition of
comprehensive evaluation of intensive preconditioning,
the rock mass by fluid injection or the simultaneous
which in this first part, focusses on its impact on intact
detonation of long and fully confined explosive charges
rock. It is envisaged that the knowledge gained can be
(e.g.+100 m long charges).
used in the planning of future block and panel caving
Preconditioning by hydraulic fracturing (i.e.
operations.
hydro-fracturing) is generally expected to affect the
overall rock mass behaviour through the introduction of
additional large scale fractures (treated as an additional
2.  The Cadia East mining complex
joint set or sets). On the other hand, preconditioning
by drilling and blasting (i.e. confined blasting) is likely The Cadia East ore body is located in Cadia Valley
to damage intact rock; as well as extend existing dis- approximately 25 km south east of Orange in New South
continuities and thus have a marked impact on the in Wales, Australia. It is 100% owned by Newcrest Mining
situ mechanical rock material and mass properties (e.g. Ltd. The Cadia East ore body was discovered in 1985
strength and stiffness). and studies into the viability of the Cadia East resource

CONTACT  Italo Onederra  i.onederra@uq.edu.au

© 2017 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining and The AusIMM
Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Institute and The AusIMM
2   A. CATALAN ET AL.
Figure 1. Sequence to Implement Intensive Preconditioning (Catalan et al. 2012).
commenced in the early 1990’s (Malone 2011). The Cadia
East resource, located adjacent to the Cadia Hill open
pit, is a massive low grade gold-copper porphyry deposit
covered by up to 200 m of overburden. The system is up
to 600 m wide and extends to 1.9 km below the surface.
The Cadia East Underground Project is concerned
with the development of the massive Cadia East deposit
into Australia’s first panel cave. The mine will be the
deepest panel cave in the world and Australia’s largest
underground mine. Newcrest’s mining studies identified
panel caving as the method likely to deliver the optimum
technical and economic outcomes from the deposit.
The proposal is to mine the Cadia East mining com-
plex using a series of panel caves and these have been
designated as PC1 and PC2. The first level (PC1) is
located approximately 1,200  m below surface and the
PC2, 1,450 meters also below surface (Figure 2).
2.1.  Intensive preconditioning implementation at
cadia east
Preconditioning by hydraulic fracturing at PC1-S1 was
completed in December 2011. Twenty-one drillholes
were drilled and 1,182 hydraulic fractures were created;
of these, 761 hydraulic fractures were created at 1·5 m
spacing between 350 and 200 m depth below the bore-
hole collar; and 421 hydraulic fractures were created at
2·5 m spacing between 200 and 50 m underneath the
collar.
The preconditioning by blasting program started in
October 2011 and continued until the later part of 2013.
The program primarily focused on the area where the
cave was initiated. After that the program was extended
to the whole footprint area. Figure 3 shows a general
illustration of the intensive preconditioning program
undertaken at Cadia East Lift 1.
3.  Intact rock strength evaluation
The evaluation of the implemented intensive precon-
ditioning program has included analysis that seeks to
understand the effect of different stages of precondi-
tioning on itact rock strength and subsequently on rock
mass strength and overall caving performance. This part
deals with an evaluation of intact rock strength, the pro-
cess was carried out by collecting intact rock samples
before hydraulic fracturing (i.e. in situ condition); after
hydraulic fracturing or before confined blasting; and
after confined blasting (i.e. after intensive precondition-
ing). Figure 4 shows the location of samples taken from
the testing area. The testing program consisted of nine
(HQ – 96 mm) diamond drilling down holes to lengths
of between 325 and 350 m. Diamond core samples of
about 63·6  mm in diameter and lengths of 30–75  cm
were selected. A total of 125 samples were obtained and
analysed. In Figure 4, the block and treatment zones are
shown as shaded areas, the rings illustrate the relative
location of samples with respect to each treatment area.

Figure 2. Section through the Cadia East project (Catalan et. al. 2012).
3.1.  Uniaxial compressive strength evaluation
The uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock is one
of the most common geotechnical tests performed to
determine peak rock strength. The test corresponds to
the axial stress that produces the failure of a cylindrical
intact rock specimen under axisymmetric loading and a
confining stress equal to atmospheric pressure (i.e. with-
out confinement). It is used to determine the uniaxial
or unconfined compressive strength (UCS or σc) and
the elastic constants, Young’s modulus, E, and Poisson’s
ratio, ν, of the rock material (Ulusay & Hudson 2007).
Analysis of UCS data for rock samples collected at
different preconditioning stages are given in Table 1
and Figure 5. The tests were performed by a commercial
laboratory facility and the raw data made available and
analysed by the authors.
Results from this analysis show little to no impact
on intact rock strength measured by UCS through each
preconditioning phase. As shown by the green curve,
the normally distributed data shows a slight difference
in strength (e.g. weakening effect) after the combined
effect of hydraulic fracturing and confined blasting (i.e.
after intensive preconditioning) with a mean of 131 MPa
vs. 138 MPa. However, from a practical perspective the
difference is insignificant. It is fair to say from this set of
UCS data that the description of the rock failure process
using only conventional stress and strain measurements
may not be sufficient in the study of preconditioning.
This is because the crack initiation and crack damage
stages during uniaxial compression can be complex
and difficult to detect. These complex mechanisms are
important in the process of fracture formation, cave
initiation and cave propagation. It was therefore con-
cluded that peak strength in the form of UCS was not an
MINING TECHNOLOGY   3
appropriate indicator to study and quantify the poten-
tial effects of intensive preconditioning. For this reason
Acoustic Emission was favoured and further incorpo-
rated in the analysis process.
3.2.  Intact rock strength analysis using acoustic
emission (AE)
As outlined by Brady and Brown (1993), a result from
a uniaxial compression test on rock generally shows
three phases before the peak strength is reached. The
first phase is a crack closure process, followed by a sec-
ond phase of elastic deformation until an axial stress is
reached (i.e. crack initiation, σci). This is when stable
crack propagation is ongoing (σcd). Subsequently, the
axial stress reaches a point of unstable crack growth
and irrecoverable deformations commence. This pro-
cess continues until the peak or uniaxial compressive
strength is reached (σc).
Acoustic emission (AE) monitoring provides a pow-
erful tool for investigating brittle rock failure, because
the failure process can be associated with acoustic
­emissions (AE). This technique has been widely used
in rock mechanic studies and engineering applications
because the initiation and damage process of a piece
of rock can be identified (Ohnaka 1983; Mansurov
1994; Cai et al. 2004, 2007; Manthei & Eisenblätter
2008; Cheon et al. 2011; Xie et al. 2011). By correlating
AE signals such as a graph of the count of events and
energy rates; or a graph of cumulative count events
and energy with the stress-strain diagram, one is able
to estimate the starting point of micro fractures dur-
ing a uniaxial compression test. Studies have showed
that AE has enough accuracy to monitor the crack
4   A. CATALAN ET AL.
Figure 3. Intensive preconditioning application at the Cadia East Lift 1 panel cave (Catalan et al. 2012).
Note that green circles show the hydraulic fracturing treatment zones.
Figure 4. Location of intact rock samples used for preconditioning assessment.
behaviour and it can be used confidently (Boukharov
et al. 1995; Rudajev et al. 2000; Moradian et al. 2010;
Alker et al. 2014).
Martin (1997) determined three stress levels which
represent important stages for the behaviour of intact
rock strength in the development of the macroscopic
failure process:
• crack initiation (σci);
• initiation of sliding (σcd) or long-term peak
strength; and
• maximum stress which for the unconfined case is
the peak strength (σc).
Laboratory results showed that the initiation of
crack growth occurs between 0·3 and 0·4 times the peak
strength (σc); and the initiation of failure by sliding along
a macro crack typically occurs at stress levels above 0·7
and 0·8 σc.
Cai et al. 2004 proposed stress thresholds for crack
initiation and crack damage of brittle rock which were
obtained from uniaxial and triaxial compression tests
using AE. In uniaxial compression, the crack initiation
stress level for most rocks have been located in the range
of 0·3–0·5 times the peak strength (σc). Subsequently,
a fracture combination commences at stress levels of
approximately 0·7–0·8 σc (i.e. the long-term uniaxial
strength of intact rock). Finally, macro-cracks result
after the peak strength is reached.
Additional work was carried out by Zhao et al. 2013
in order to characterise stress damage through acoustic
 MINING TECHNOLOGY   5

Table 1. Uniaxial compressive strength test results. 3.3.  Evaluation of intact rock damage from
Before hydrau- After hydraulic After confined intensive preconditioning
UCS lic fracturing fracturing blasting
Min (MPa) 96 90 82
As mentioned earlier, intact rock strength and stress
Max (MPa) 187 208 209 thresholds for crack initiation and crack damage of brittle
Average (MPa) 138 144 131 rock were assessed using core samples collected during
Median (MPa) 130 143 128
Stand. Dev. 26 32 33 the intensive preconditioning drilling program, before
Coef. Var. (%) 19% 22% 25% and after all stages of preconditioning. Information such
as crack initiation stress, crack damage stress, uniaxial peak
strength and cumulative count of AE events were obtained
emission. The crack initiation stress (σci) and crack dam-
from laboratory tests. It involved the definition of micro
age stress (i.e. long-term strength σcd) during uniaxial
damage stress thresholds of intact rock from uniaxial com-
compression occurred at an average stress level of 0·5 σc
pression strength and acoustic emission monitoring.
and 0·78 σc respectively.
A detailed analysis of the intact rock failure pro-
Based on the analyses of laboratory tests on intact
cess was conducted, identifying four stages or damage
rocks using AE monitoring data, crack initiation and
thresholds, including:
damage initiation stress thresholds have been proposed
as a way to study and subsequently predict the start of (1)  σid: crack initiation damage stress, that is, the
intact rock damage. Table 2 summarises these findings in stage of elastic deformation until an axial stress
terms of these thresholds for crack initiation and damage is reached and AE events have been initiated,
stress respectively. (2)  σpd: crack propagation damage stress, when
Figure 6 shows the relationship between crack initi- stable crack propagation is initiated and AE
ation, σci, and crack damage, σcd, stress limits, normal- events increase slightly,
ised by uniaxial compressive strength, σc. This type of (3)  σmd: crack massive damage stress, when unsta-
relationship can be used to define an envelope which ble crack growth and AE events are intensified
identifies the onset of failure in a brittle intact rock. This (onset of failure).
approach is explored and discussed in subsequent sec- (4)  σc: peak or uniaxial compressive strength is
tions to evaluate the potential effect of preconditioning reached and characterised by rapidly increas-
and the practical definition of damage thresholds. ing AE events (failure of sample),

Figure 5. Distribution of Uniaxial Compressive Strength results during to intensive preconditioning process.
6   A. CATALAN ET AL.
Figure 7 gives an example of the stress–strain curve
associated with AE event characteristics, showing dif-
ferent deformation stages of the intact core sample
in uniaxial compression, it also shows a relationship
between AE counts and axial stress for identifying
crack initiation, crack propagation and crack massive
damage stresses. Spatial 3D locations of accumulated
AE events were used to visualize the gradual formation
of cracks.
Once all different thresholds were obtained for each
sample, and for each preconditioning stage, box and
whisker plots were collated and trends associated with
25th and 75th percentile were defined to establish dam-
age thresholds.
The idea behind these normalised damage thresholds
was to determine a criterion that defines the degree of
disturbance of a rock material and rock mass, similar to
those proposed in previous studies of confined blasting
(e.g. disturbed zones defined by Onederra et al. 2013).
It is important to note that this is different from the
adjustment of rock mass or intact rock strength (i.e. in
situ condition) to model failure mechanisms. The degree
of disturbance in this case is not only associated with
Table 2. Damage stress thresholds from uniaxial compressive
strength tests.
Crack initiation Crack damage
Reference stress (σci) stress (σcd)
Martin (1997) (0·30–0·40) σc (0·70–0·80) σc
Cai et al. (2004) (0·38–0·50) σc (0·75–0·80) σc
Zhao et al. (2013) (0·45–0·50) σc (0·70–0·80) σc
Figure 6.  Empirical relationship between crack initiation stress (σci), crack propagation damage (σcd) and uniaxial compressive
strength (σc).
macro fracturing, but also with the potential for micro
fractures that initiate through the positive interaction
of blast induced stresses (e.g. preconditioning by con-
fined blasting). The point is that a comparison between
disturbed and undisturbed intact rock cannot be purely
based on statistics associated with peak strength. This
is the reason why the normalised damage thresholds
are used, given that in cave initiation and propagation
mechanisms, we are interested in identifying differences
in the initiation of fracture and the onset of failure. In
this particular investigation, this refers to comparing the
condition of a rock material without preconditioning
and a rock material that has been preconditioned.
3.4.  In situ condition (before hydraulic fracturing
and confined blasting)
Before preconditioning by hydraulic-fracturing, five
drillholes for a total of 73 samples were prepared and
tested, 38 UCS tests with AE events were obtained and
confirmed as reliable. A number of tests were discarded
because their failure initiated through pre-existing
discontinuities. Details on the UCS with AE tests and
estimation of the crack initiation damage stress (σid);
crack propagation damage stress (σpd); crack massive
damage stress (σmd) and peak strength (σc) were ana-
lysed and documented. Figure 8 shows results of the
analysis describing the relationship between the different
σci / σcd damage thresholds defined earlier. The value of σpd/σc at
0·42–0·50
0·52–0·61
0·47 is only slightly greater than σid/σc at 0·42. However
0·60–0·65 the value of σmd/σc is quite close to 1 at 0·92.
 MINING TECHNOLOGY   7

Figure 7. Example stress–strain curve associated with AE hit for a rock sample tested in uniaxial compression and 3D locations of
accumulated AE events.

Figure 9 shows the results of individual tests and the
relationships between the different damage limits which
have been normalised by uniaxial compressive strength
σc. As shown, the results are consistent with the numbers
published by Cai et al. 2004 and Zhao et al. 2013 in terms
of crack initiation and propagation stress thresholds.
These relationships are used later as the base case for
comparing the intact rock strength behaviour and
damage boundaries, after preconditioning by hydraulic
fracturing and confined blasting, in other words, after
intensive preconditioning.
8   A. CATALAN ET AL.

Figure 8. Analysis showing the range of normalised damage thresholds for samples before preconditioning by hydraulic fracturing
(in situ case).

Figure 9. Relationship between normalised damage thresholds for samples before preconditioning by hydraulic fracturing.

3.5.  Results after preconditioning by hydraulic damage stress (σpd); crack massive damage stress (σmd)
fracturing and uniaxial compressive strength (σc) were also ana-
lysed and documented.
After the completion of the hydraulic fracturing tests, a
Figure 10 shows results of analysis describing the rela-
total of 33 samples were taken from the inspection dia-
tionship between the different damage thresholds for
mond drill hole, were prepared and tested. In this case
the condition after preconditioning by hydraulic fractur-
24 UCS tests with AE events were confirmed as reliable.
ing. The relationship between initiation and propagation
Details on the UCS with AE tests and estimation of the
damage shows a relative increase. This increase on the
crack initiation damage stress (σid); crack propagation
 MINING TECHNOLOGY   9

Figure 10. Analysis showing the range of normalised damage thresholds for samples after preconditioning by hydraulic fracturing.

Figure 11. Relationship between normalised damage thresholds for samples after preconditioning by hydraulic fracturing.

σpd/σc ratio may be attributed to an early release of strain
energy during the preconditioning process which may
delay the AE events. Regarding crack massive damage
stress, there is not clear evidence that the intact rock
strength has been reduced and crack massive dam-
age stress is initiated close to the uniaxial compressive
strength, i.e. 0·93 times σc.
Figure 11 shows the distribution of these results
and their relationship between the different normal-
ised damage limits after preconditioning by hydraulic
fracturing. Note that the in situ condition envelopes
defined earlier (base case) are also shown for compar-
ative purposes. As can be seen on this figure, there is a
clear shift in the behaviour of samples under uniaxial
stress. The normalised damage stress threshold bound-
aries between σpd/σc and σid/σc are clearly above the in
situ condition (i.e. blue line). On the other hand, the
normalised damage stress threshold between σmd/σc
and σid/σc is below the in situ condition (i.e. red line).
This gives an indication that the crack initiation and
crack propagation stages during uniaxial compression
has commenced earlier.
10   A. CATALAN ET AL.

Figure 12. Analysis of normalised damage thresholds for samples post preconditioning by confined blasting.

Figure 13. Relationship between normalised damage thresholds for samples after preconditioning by confined blasting.

Even though a difference is identified between pre 3.6.  Results after preconditioning by confined
and post hydraulic fracturing, it is difficult to quantify blasting (i.e. after intensive preconditioning)
with certainty the degree of damage after hydraulic frac-
After the completion of preconditioning by confined
turing. This is not necessarily an unexpected result, as
blasting, three diamond drillholes were sampled with
the hydraulic fracturing process would induce an effect
a total of 61 samples prepared and tested. Through this
at the rock mass scale (i.e. minor and major discontinu-
process, 33 UCS tests with AE events were confirmed
ities) rather than at the intact rock material scale.

Table 3. Summary of damage thresholds for the different
preconditioning stages.
Post hydraulic Post confined
Condition stress In situ fracturing blasting
Initiation (0·32–0·53) σc (0·36–0·52) σc (0·27–0·41) σc
­damage σid
Propagation (0·38–0·57) σc (0·44–0·67) σc (0·38–0·50) σc
damage σpd
Massive (0·87–0·96) σc (0·78–0·96) σc (0·73–0·89) σc
­damage σmd
to be reliable. As with the previous analysis, Figure 12
shows the results of analysis describing the relationship
between the different damage thresholds for the condi-
tion after preconditioning by confined blasting.
The relationship between initiation and propaga-
tion damage shows a relatively insignificant increase.
However, a closer look at the normalised massive dam-
age stress threshold shows evidence that the intact rock
strength has decreased. As shown, the crack massive
damage stress is initiated approximately 0·86 times
below the peak strength, (i.e. 0·86 times σc.). In other
words, the damage threshold prior to failure or before
reaching peak strength is different and lower than the
in situ condition (without preconditioning).
Figure 13 shows the distribution of these results and
their relationships between the different normalised
damage limits after preconditioning by confined blasting.
The relationship between σpd/σc and σid/σc does not
show a significant shift from the in situ condition with
regards to crack initiation and propagation damage
boundaries, however, initiation damage appears to be
showing a convergence to an earlier start. Additionally,
there are marked differences between the damage stress
boundaries for massive and initiation damage (σmd/σc
and σid/σc). The analysis shows that there is a reduction
in the peak strength and it can be hypothesised that
induced micro fractures from blast induced stresses
may have contributed to a change in behaviour which
translated in a reduction of intact rock strength.
4. Conclusions
A comprehensive sampling and testing campaign was
conducted before and after the application of large scale
intensive preconditioning. Intact rock data was analysed
with the combined use of uniaxial compressive strength
tests and acoustic emission monitoring. The aim was to
define damage thresholds of intact rock; and study spe-
cific boundaries associated with different degrees of pre-
conditioning. The assessment process was undertaken
before hydraulic fracturing (i.e. in situ condition); after
hydraulic fracturing or before confined blasting and after
confined blasting (intensive preconditioning. Analysis
showed that between in situ and post hydraulic frac-
turing preconditioning the initiation of damage occurs
almost at the same stress levels. During damage propaga-
tion, the behaviour of samples also remains comparable
MINING TECHNOLOGY   11
and thus implying that preconditioning by hydraulic
fracturing does not affect intact rock strength. This is
not necessarily an unexpected result, as the hydraulic
fracturing process is anticipated to have a more signifi-
cant impact on existing discontinuities or create macro
scale discontinuities, hence its influence is at the rock
mass scale rather than the intact rock material scale.
With regards to preconditioning by confined blasting
(i.e. after intensive preconditioning), results indicated that
the on-set of excessive damage prior to failure was occur-
ring at lower axial stresses, supporting the hypothesis that
this could be caused by the presence of micro-fractures in
the samples, attributed to induced blasting stresses.
From the data available, a summary of all of the calcu-
lated thresholds for the different preconditioning stages
is given in Table 3. These can be used to define envelopes
for the quantification of damage or disturbed zones. It
may also be particularly useful as another way of quan-
tifying blast induced damage in other mining related
applications.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This study formed part of the principal author’s PhD thesis
supported by the WH Bryan Mining and Geology Research
Centre of the Sustainable Minerals Institute at The University
of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; and Newcrest Mining
Limited.
References
Alker E, Kühn D, Vavryčuk V, Soldal M, Oye V 2014.
Experimental investigation of acoustic emissions and their
moment tensors in rock during failure. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci. 70:286–295.
Boukharov GN, Chanda MW, Boukharov NG. 1995. The
three processes of brittle crystalline rock creep. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 32:325–335.
Brady BH, Brown ET. 1993. Rock mechanics for underground
mining. 2nd ed. London: Chapman & Hall, Ltd.
Cai M, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Maejimac T, Morioka H, Minami
M. 2004. Generalized crack initiation and crack damage
stress thresholds of brittle rock masses near underground
excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 41:833–847.
Cai M, Morioka H, Kaiser PK, Tasaka Y, Kurose H, Minami
M, Maejimac T. 2007. Back-analysis of rock mass strength
parameters using AE monitoring data. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci. 44:538–549.
Cheon DS, Jung YB, Park ES, Song WK, Jang HI. 2011.
Evaluation of damage level for rock slopes using acoustic
emission technique with wave guides. Eng Geol. 121:75–
88.
Catalan A, Dunstan G, Morgan M, Green S, Jorquera
S, Thornhill T. 2012. “Intensive” preconditioning
methodology developed for the Cadia East panel cave
project, NSW, Australia. 6th International conference and
exhibition on mass mining, MassMin; Paper No 6819, Jun
10–14; (ON): Sudbury.
12   A. CATALAN ET AL.
Malone E. 2011. The Cadia valley mines. A mining success
story. In: Metallurgy, T. a. I. O. M editor. The Cadia
valley mines. A mining success story. Melbourne: The
Australasian Institute of Mining Metallurgy.
Mansurov V. 1994. Acoustic emission from failing rock
behaviour. Rock Mech Rock Eng 27:173–182.
Manthei G, Eisenblätter J. 2008. Acoustic emission testing. In:
Griosse and Ohtsu editors. Chapter 11: acoustic emission
in study of rock stability. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-
Verlag; p. 239–310.
Martin CD. 1997. Seventeenth Canadian geotechnical
colloquium: the effect of cohesion loss and stress path on
brittle rock strength. Can Geotech J. 34:698–725.
Moradian ZA, Ballivy G, Rivard P, Gravel C, Rousseau B
2010. Evaluating damage during shear tests of rock joints
using acoustic emissions. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
47:590–598.
Rudajev V, Vilhelm J, Lokajicek T. 2000. Laboratory studies
of acoustic emission prior to uniaxial compressive rock
failure. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 37:699–704.
Ohnaka M. 1983. Acoustic emission during creep of brittle rock.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci & Geomech Abstr. 20:121–134.
Onederra I, Catalan A, Chitombo GP. 2013. Modelling
fracturing, disturbed and interaction zones around
fully confined detonating charges. Institute of materials,
minerals and mining and The AusIMM (TIMM A). Min
Technol. 122:20–32.
Ulusay R, Hudson JA. 2007. ISRM blue book. The complete
ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization,
testing and monitoring: 1974–2006. Suggested methods
on site characterization, laboratory testing, field tests
and monitoring. Ankara: International Society Rock
Mechanics. ISRM Turkish National Group
Xie HP, Liu JF, Jub Y, Li J, Xie LZ (2011). Fractal property
of spatial distribution of acoustic emissions during the
failure process of bedded rock salt. Int J Rock Mech Min
Sci. 48:1344–1351.
Zhao XG, Cai M, Wang J, Ma LK. 2013. Damage stress and
acoustic emission characteristics of the Beishan granite.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 64:258–269.