Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MassMin 2016
Introduction
Rationale
Tried to replicated Duplancic (2001) model of caving
No direct verification possible
Centrifuge modelling
Why?
Body Forces - gravity
Scale 80g
University of Pretoria
Experiment Design
Two-dimensional
Allows visual observations
Acoustic emission sensors
Vertical stress self weight x 80g
Horizontal stress water filled bladders x 80g
Undercut pistons
Sample
Size
500 x 450 x 50 mm
Mass
21 kg
Weak concrete sample
Brittle
Monitoring
Well instrumented
LVDTs
Measure displacement of pistons
Acoustic emission sensors
On board Cameras
Full visual observation
DSLR: 18 MP at 4s intervals
Web cameras
Other instrumentation
www.acg.uwa.edu.au 10/05/2016 | Sydney 9
Event title
MassMin 2016
Monitoring
Large data files
1.6 GB/min only AE
AE location
2 automatic processing routines tried
Were not well suited to the task
Manual processing using ESGs WaveVis
Few events could be processed
Test 1: 326
Test 2: 525
Could see seismogenic zone
Proof of concept
Not enough for detailed analysis
www.acg.uwa.edu.au 10/05/2016 | Sydney 14
Event title
MassMin 2016
Results
5 successful caving tests
Focus on 2 tests
Test 1
Test 2
PIV results
PIV
Particle Image Velocimetry
Panek (1981)
Conclusions
Centrifuge Testing successfully replicated caving
Valuable data
Visual
Acoustic emission proof of concept
Emergence of a new caving mechanism:
Extensional fractures parallel to cave front
Also appear in literature, field observations
Duplancic model: Need for re-evaluation/extension?
Further research needed