Practice Levels: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Keeping in mind that the goal of the project was to define “best practices” in managing seismic hazard, it is also important to realise that best practice at a mine site i...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Keeping in mind that the goal of the project was to define “best practices” in managing seismic hazard, it is also important to realise that best practice at a mine site is necessarily a function of the intensity of the seismic problem at that site. As such, it is not always necessary nor “best practice” for mines experiencing low seismic hazard to implement extensive and advanced seismological analyses. Hence low, medium and severe seismic hazard will call for different “best practices”. | Keeping in mind that the goal of the project was to define “best practices” in managing seismic hazard, it is also important to realise that best practice at a mine site is necessarily a function of the intensity of the seismic problem at that site. As such, it is not always necessary nor “best practice” for mines experiencing low seismic hazard to implement extensive and advanced seismological analyses. Hence low, medium and severe seismic hazard will call for different “best practices”. | ||
To circumvent this issue, in this benchmarking report, we will refer to | To circumvent this issue, in this benchmarking report, we will refer to standard and advanced practices. Standard practices indicate approaches commonly used at most mine sites. Advanced practices involve techniques that are uncommon due to: | ||
* requiring personnel with a high skill base; and | * requiring personnel with a high skill base; and | ||
* being labour/computing/time intensive. | * being labour/computing/time intensive. | ||
Latest revision as of 14:57, 10 May 2019
Keeping in mind that the goal of the project was to define “best practices” in managing seismic hazard, it is also important to realise that best practice at a mine site is necessarily a function of the intensity of the seismic problem at that site. As such, it is not always necessary nor “best practice” for mines experiencing low seismic hazard to implement extensive and advanced seismological analyses. Hence low, medium and severe seismic hazard will call for different “best practices”.
To circumvent this issue, in this benchmarking report, we will refer to standard and advanced practices. Standard practices indicate approaches commonly used at most mine sites. Advanced practices involve techniques that are uncommon due to:
- requiring personnel with a high skill base; and
- being labour/computing/time intensive.
