2003 SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 24-26, Cincinnati, Ohio

Preprint 03-106

IMPORTANCE OF GEOTECHNICAL FIELD MAPPING IN ASSESSING

THE STABILITY OF UNDERGROUND EXCAVATIONS

A. Adu-Acheampong
Agapito Assocs., Inc.
Grand Junction, CO

ABSTRACT scanlines were set out in the hanging wall drives and the crosscuts
where access was obtained into stopes. About 627 dip and dip
Stope instability at Ashanti Goldfields Company Ltd. (AGC) is a direction measurements were taken. In addition, the following were
major concern. Using information from field mapping, major noted for each measurement: (1) discontinuity type (joint, shear,
discontinuity sets were defined, Rock Quality Designation (RQD) was foliation, etc.), (2) persistence, (3) infilling and form (solid, crushed, or
determined. The stability of wedges in the stope walls was assessed soft), (4) roughness (rough, slightly rough, or smooth), (5) aperture
using the commercially available computer program UNWEDGE (thickness of infilling or separation), (6) rock type, and (7) ground
(Rock Science, 1992). Analytical results indicate that the presence of water condition.
graphite infilling in joints contributes to instability, while steeply dipping Block 2, where the data was collected, was completely dry. The
joints control wedge slabbing and wedge toppling in the hanging wall. azimuth of the drift axes of the hanging wall drives and the crosscuts
Stable stope widths and dimensions were determined to range from were also noted to be in the ranges 29 ± 1° and 115 ± 5°, respectively.
8.1 to 30 meters (m).
Graphical Presentation of the Structural Geological Data
INTRODUCTION
The discontinuities, together with the planes of excavation, can
One of the most serious problems in underground opening form a block which may be unstable and fall or slide into an opening.
construction are accidents caused by falling rock blocks, which are In order to determine the major discontinuity sets, the structural
the result of mined openings and existing discontinuities in the rock geology data collected at the sites were presented on a stereonet by
mass. Detailed field mapping can be a potential input parameter for means of the commercially available computer program DIPS (Rock
engineering decisions. When assessing the stability of underground Science, 1989). Three major discontinuity sets were identified using
excavations empirically or with computer programs, it is helpful to DIPS. Set J1 had a dip of 48° and a dip direction of 318°. Set J2 had
identify the major discontinuity sets. Joint spacing from field mapping a dip of 78° and a dip direction of 221°. Set J3 had a dip of 83° and a
can also be used to estimate the RQD where rock cores are not dip direction of 298°. The joints were continuous, based on similar
available. The effect of water pressure on the major discontinuity sets joints that were observed at the levels that were mapped. It would
in wedge stability analysis may provide a better understanding of the have been desirable to perform the analysis for the ore zone, hanging
response to changes in the ground water conditions. wall, footwall, and hanging wall drives separately, but due to the
In this study, detailed field mapping was conducted at the AGC, extent of the crosscut and the number of features available at the
Obuasi (underground) Operations in Ghana. The objectives of this various locations, it was not possible. The major planes for the
paper are: combination J1, J2 and J3, with a drift axis of 28°, are shown in Figure
• Determine the major discontinuity planes. 1.
• Assess the effect of the graphite on the stability of the stope
using the commercially available software UNWEDGE (Rock Structurally Controlled Instability in Excavations
Science, 1992).
• Classify the rock mass using the Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and The most common types of failure in tunnels excavated in jointed
the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) Tunneling Quality Index. rock masses are wedges falling either from the roof or sliding out of
• Determine the maximum possible unsupported spans from the the sidewalls of the opening. These wedges are formed by the
rock mass classification. intersection of structural features, such as bedding planes and joints,
which separate the rock mass into discrete but interlocked pieces.
GEOLOGICAL DATA COLLECTION When a free face is created by excavating an opening, the restraint
from the surrounding rock is removed. Unless steps are taken to
Scanlines were established on the rock face in the hanging wall support these wedges, the stability of the back and walls of the
and crosscuts where structural measurements were made. All opening may deteriorate rapidly. Each wedge which is allowed to fall
significant features which crossed these lines were recorded. The or slide will cause a reduction in the restraint and the interlocking of

1 Copyright © 2003 by SME

 2003 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-26, Cincinnati, Ohio

Figure 2. Wedges Generated from the J1, J2 and J3 Combination

with a Drift Axis of 28 ° at Zero Water Pressure for the 50-m-high
by 20-m-wide Stope
Figure 1. Major Planes for the Combination of J1, J2 and J3, with
a Drift Axis of 28°

the rock mass and this, in turn, may allow other wedges to fall. Steps combination J1, J2 and J3 were greater than one and in most cases
required to deal with this problem include: very high (for a drift axis of 115°). Therefore, wedge failure can only
• Determination of average dip and dip direction of significant occur if other destabilizing factors are present. The presence of the
discontinuity sets. graphite as a major plane led to a reduction in safety factors, as
• Identification of potential wedges which can slide or fall from the shown in Table I. The F.S. is defined as the ratio of all the forces
back or walls. resisting motion to the driving force. The only driving force in the
• Calculation of the factor of safety (F.S.) of the wedges, system is the weight of the wedge. For sliding failure, the driving force
depending upon the mode of failure. is the component of the weight tangential to the sliding plane or
• Calculation of the amount of reinforcement needed to increase wedge. In the case of a falling wedge, the driving force is the total
the F.S. of individual wedges to an acceptable level. weight of the wedge. There were cases where failure mode was
sliding, but the gravitational vector through the centroid of the wedge
The size and shape of potential wedges in the rock mass falls outside the contact base. This scenario was reported as
surrounding an opening depends upon the size, shape, and rotational failure (Rock Science, 1992). Equations 1 and 2 were used
orientation of the opening and also upon the orientation of the in the safety factor calculations for sliding on one and two planes,
significant discontinuity sets. The commercially available computer respectively. Wedge failure was not possible (as shown in Table I) for
program UNWEDGE (Rock Science, 1992), Version 2.0, developed at all combinations with zero water pressure with drift axes of 28° and
the University of Toronto, is designed to be a quick, interactive, and 115° for a 4-m by 4-m drift. However, there were wedge failures for
easy to use analysis tool for design. The effect of friable graphite wedges #3 and #6, with the same parameters as in Table I (Column
shears (having a cohesion value near zero and dipping at about 65°, A) for combination J1, J2 and J3, but with a water pressure of 0.002
with dip direction of 033°) on stability at the site was also investigated. MPa. Wedge #1, with the parameters just described above, began to
The three major discontinuity sets defined above and the fail at a water pressure of 0.00327 MPa. The possible failure modes
azimuths of the tunnel axes (28° and 115°) were used as the input were sliding, rotation, and gravity fall (simulated by the program
parameters for the wedge analysis. Triaxial tests performed UNWEDGE). Gravity fall was only possible for wedges #3, #6, and #1
established a cohesion of 0.61 MPa and internal friction angle of at water pressures of 0.002, 0.002, and 0.00327 MPa, respectively.
35.27° for the intact rock (the lowest estimated). Joint spacing of 0.50
and 0.20 m, respectively, was used for the rock mass and the
graphite, with a rock unit weight of 0.027 MN/m3. Direct shear tests F.S. = Nitanφi + Aici (1)
performed on the graphite also established cohesion and internal Si
friction angle values of 0.028 MPa and 23°, respectively. The major
discontinuity sets and the strength parameters were used in the F.S. = Nitanφi + Njtanφj + Aici + Ajcj (2)
analysis with the drift axes. The analysis was based on the Sij
assumption that wedges are defined by three intersecting
discontinuities that are subjected to gravitational loading. UNWEDGE where:
does not take the stress field in the rock mass into consideration, thus Ni, Nj are the proportion of the weight (W) normal to planes i and j less
it is suitable in situations where in situ stresses are low and where the water pressure, times the area of planes i and j, respectively
their influences can be neglected (Hoek et al., 1995). Table I gives the (Aiand Aj)
F.S. generated by UNWEDGE for a 4-m by 4-m drift. The F.S. for the Si is the proportion of the wedge weight (W) tangential to plane i and

2 Copyright © 2003 by SME

 2003 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-26, Cincinnati, Ohio

Table I. Safety Factor Results for a 4-m by 4-m Drift

Combinations
J1, J2 and J3 G, J2 and J3 G, J1 and J2 G, J1 and J3
Wedge # A B A B A B A B
1 66.78 16.71 4.92 38.55 47.18 34.57 27.79 4.68
2 N N N N N N N N
3 111.64 N 103.72 N N N N N
4 S S S S S S S S
5 N N N N N N N N
6 509.29 N 45.10 N N N N N
A = Drift axis 115°; B = Drift axis 28°; N = No wedge formed; S = Stable (had safety factor of infinity)

Table II. Safety Factor Results for a 50-m-high and 20-m-wide Stope at a Dip of 65° to the Horizontal
Combinations
J1, J2 and J3 G, J2 and J3 G, J1 and J2 G, J1 and J3
Wedge # A B A B A B A B
1 13.5 4.60 7.55 25.07 10.60 3.83 18.65 0.84
2 5.62 0.00 N 0.00 N N N 0.49
3 N N 34.52 N 11.02 N N N
4 S S S S S S S S
5 23.09 6.89 N S N N N 1.74
6 N N 3.10 N 5.41 N N N
A = Drift axis 115°; B = Drift axis 28°; N = No wedge formed; S = Stable (had safety factor of infinity)

Table III. Summary of RQD Calculation at 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 2) either to topple or slab.
Threshold
Threshold RQD Range (%) Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
Block 2
t0.1 97.55 – 98.41 RQD, which is an important input parameter to the rock mass
t0.3 83.79 – 88.80 classification schemes, was determined from the spacing between
t0.5 66.38 – 75.44 consecutive discontinuities (Priest, 1993). According to Priest (1993),
adopting the conventional threshold level of 0.1 m gives an RQD that
t1.0 30.99 – 43.42
is sensitive to mean spacing up to approximately 0.3 m, and that RQD
increases by only 5 percent in response to an increase in mean
in the direction of sliding spacing beyond this value. An improved sensitivity of RQD to higher
Sij is the component of the weight (W) in the direction of the edge values of mean spacing was thus achieved by increasing the
defined by planes i and j threshold level. This approach is appropriate when designing larger
φ is the angle of friction of planes i and j excavations in rock. Threshold levels of 0.1 and 1.0 m had been
ci and cj are the cohesion of planes i and j, respectively considered in this analysis. The RQD was calculated using the
Ai and Aj are area of contact of planes i and j, respectively relation:

The effect of the friable graphite shear (G), with a dip of 65° and RQD = 100e–λt (1 + λt) (3)
a dip direction of 033°, on the stability with zero water pressure was
also assessed in combination with joints J1, J2 and J3. The where:
combinations G, J1 and J3 and G, J2 and J3 did reduce the safety t is the threshold
factor for wedge #1 when considering the two drift axes, but the F.S. λ is the discontinuity frequency along the scanline
were greater than one in each case, indicating stability.
The stability of 50-m-high by 20-m-wide open stopes was The discontinuity frequency λ, which is the inverse of the mean of
assessed using combinations of discontinuities and graphitic contact the discontinuities, was calculated using the relation:
planes that were similar to those used in evaluation of a 4-m by 4-m
drift. As shown in Table II, failure was possible for wedges #1 and #2 λ=N/L (4)
at zero water pressure for combinations J1, J2 and J3; G, J2 and J3;
and G, J1 and J3 with the 28° drift axis. The failures possible for the where:
combinations J1, J2 and J3; G, J2 and J3; and G, J1 and J3 were N is the number of the discontinuities that intersect the scanline
gravity and rotational failure, respectively, for wedge #2. Figure 2 L is the length of the sampling line
gives the wedges generated by UNWEDGE for the combinations J1,
J2 and J3 (drift axis of 28°) at zero water pressure. Wedge fall was A summary of the calculated RQD values is given in Table III. It
possible for wedge #2. As shown in Figure 1, a vertical line through should be noted that even though RQD was very high for a threshold
the apex of the wedge falls outside the base of the wedge, yet a fall of 0.1 m, some of the areas mapped had an RQD of zero for about 12
was possible for the combination J1, J2 and J3 as shown in Figure 2. m along the scanline. Such areas need to be considered separately
It appears that the steepness of J3, whose major plane is somewhat and supported accordingly.
parallel to the drift axis (Figure 1), caused wedge #2 (shown in Figure Using a threshold value of 1.0 m instead of the traditional 0.1 m

3 Copyright © 2003 by SME

 2003 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-26, Cincinnati, Ohio

Table IV. Summary of the Maximum Unsupported Spans in the Stopes at the Various Q-Rating Corresponding to RQD Threshold
Values of 0.1 and 1.0 m
RQD Threshold Maximum Unsupported Span
(t) Q Q-Rating De ESR (m)
1.0 m 1.64 Poor 2.7 3 5 8.10 13.50
5.13 Fair 4.2 3 5 12.60 21.00
0.1 m 3.29 Poor 3.5 3 5 10.50 17.50
13.01 Good 6.0 3 5 18.00 30.00

Tunneling Quality Index

The NGI Tunneling Quality Index calculated for the areas mapped
lay within the ranges 3.29 to 13.01 and 1.64 to 5.13 for RQD
thresholds of 0.1 and 1.0 m, respectively. This was calculated using
the relation:

Q = RQD Jr Jw (5)
X X
Jn Ja SRF

where:
RQD is the Rock Quality Designation
Jn is the joint set number
Jr is the joint roughness number
Ja is the joint alteration number
Jw is the joint water reduction
Figure 3. Relationship Between the Equivalent Dimension De of SRF is the stress reduction factor
an Unsupported Underground Excavation and the NGI Tunneling
Quality Index Q (from Hoek and Brown, 1980) The equivalent dimensions (De) given in Table IV were estimated
as the ordinate corresponding to the point of intersection of the Q
value and the straight line (Figure 3), and the unsupported span then
calculated by multiplying the Excavation Support Ratio (ESR) by De.
for the RQD calculation decreased the rating of the RQD by more than
ESR values between 3 and 5 for a temporary mine opening were used
one-half (Table III).
for the stopes (Hoek and Brown, 1980). It is evident from Table IV that,
where the rock mass is of good quality, spans of 30 m were possible
ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION
with RQD threshold value of 0.1 m. The estimation of the unsupported
spans should therefore be site specific.
A rock mass is rarely continuous, homogenous, or isotropic. Rock
In the 4-m by 4-m hanging wall drives and crosscuts, ESR value
mass is usually intersected by a variety of discontinuities such as
of 1.6 was used. The product of the ESR (1.6) and De given in Table
faults, joints, shear zones, bedding planes, and foliation. Descriptive
IV at the various RQD threshold values were in the “No Support
indices required to characterize the rock mass, with details of the
Required” zone, an indication that support was not required. This was
discontinuities such as orientation, persistence, spacing, infilling,
consistent with what was seen at the mine, except at a few areas
aperture thickness, and roughness for each crosscut and hanging
where the rock had spalled.
wall drive, were recorded. The rock mass was classified according to
the Geomechanics Classification (RMR) and the NGI Classification or
STABILITY GRAPH METHOD
Q-rating (Hoek and Brown, 1980).
The stability graph method accounts for the key factors that
Geomechanics Classification (RMR)
influence open stope design. According to Hoek et al. (1995),
information about the rock mass strength and structure, the stresses
The rock mass classification system carried out along the hanging
around an opening, and the size, shape and orientation of an opening
wall drives and crosscuts where access is obtained into the stopes
can be used to determine whether an open (stope) will be stable
predicted RMR values between 65–70 and 53–65 for RQD threshold
without support (SZ), stable with support (SWS), or unstable even if
values of 0.1 and 1.0 m, respectively. The following six parameters
supported (UZ). In between the stable zone and the stable with
were used to classify the rock mass using the RMR system (Hoek and
support zone is an unsupported transition zone (USTZ), where
Brown, 1980):
support may or may not be required. On the other hand, support may
• Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock material
be required at the transition between stable with support and caved
• RQD
zone (i.e., supported transition zone (STZ)).
• Spacing of discontinuities
The design procedure for the stability graph method was based
• Condition of discontinuities
upon the calculation of two factors: N', the modified stability number
• Groundwater conditions
which represents the ability of the rock mass to stand up under a
• Orientation of discontinuities
given stress condition, and S, the shape factor or hydraulic radius
which accounts for the stope size and shape (Hoek et al., 1995). The
This placed the rock mass in Good and Fair designations (Hoek
stability number, N, is defined as:
and Brown, 1980) for RQD threshold levels of 0.1 and 1.0 m,
respectively
N = Q' X A X B X C (6)

4 Copyright © 2003 by SME

 2003 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-26, Cincinnati, Ohio

Figure 4. Rock Stress Factor, A (from Hutchinson and

Diederichs, 1996)

where:
Q' is the modified Q (Tunneling Quality Index)
A is the rock stress factor
B is the joint orientation adjustment factor Figure 5. Adjustment Factor B, Accounting for the Orientation of
C is the gravity adjustment factor the Joint with Respect to the Joint and Stope Surface (from Hoek
et al., 1995)
The modified Tunneling Quality Index, Q', was calculated from the
results of structural mapping of rock mass in the same way as the using the relation (Hutchinson and Diederichs, 1996):
standard NGI rock mass classification, except that the stress
reduction factor (SRF) was set to 1.00. According to Hoek et al. HR = Area (m2) (7)
(1995), the system has not been applied in conditions with significant Perimeter
ground water, so the joint water reduction factor Jw is commonly 1.0.
The sections where this analysis was focused were dry and thus have The modified Q’ was calculated for RQD thresholds
Jw of 1.0. The rock stress factor, A, calculated from Figure 4 reflects corresponding to 0.1 and 1.0 m. A UCS value of 52.14 MPa for the ore
stresses acting on the free surfaces of open stopes at depth. This zone was used with the induced stress to estimate the rock stress
factor was determined from the unconfined compressive strength of factor A (from Figure 4). The angle between the stope face and the
intact rock for the ore zone and the stress acting parallel to the joint was estimated and the joint orientation factor found using Figure
exposed face of the stope under consideration. The induced 5. According to Hoek et al. (1995), both gravity-induced failure and
compressive stress acting parallel to the stope was determined from slabbing failure depend on the inclination of the stope surface α.
numerical modeling using the computer program PHASES (Rock Thus, the factor (C) for these cases was calculated from the relation:
Science, 1991).
The values of the hydraulic radius (HR) were estimated for a 30- C = 8 – 6 cos (α) (8)
m and 50-m-high stope dipping at 65° from horizontal and 20-m-wide

Table V. Parameters Used to Estimate the Input Parameters for the Modified Stability Number
UCS Induced Stress UCS/Maximum Dip of Joint Angle Between Face and Joint
(MPa) (MPa) Induced Stress (°) (°)
52.14 42.161 1.24 82 17
50 15
78 13
14.292 3.65 82 17
50 15
78 13
90.002 0.58 82 17
50 15
78 13
1Induced stress from PHASES analysis at the crown of stope.
2Induced stress from PHASES analysis at the hanging wall of stope.

Table VI. Input Parameters for the Modified Stability Number

t = 0.1 m t = 1.0 m N (t = 0.1 m) N (t = 1.0 m)
Q' (min) Q' (max) Q' (min) Q' (max) A B C Q' (min) Q' (max) Q' (min) Q' (max)
16.45 97.55 8.22 38.46 0.10 0.2 5.46 1.80 10.66 0.90 4.20
0.25 0.2 5.46 4.49 26.65 2.25 10.51

5 Copyright © 2003 by SME

 2003 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 24-26, Cincinnati, Ohio

Table VII. Summary of Results for the Stability Graph Method for RQD Threshold of 0.1 and 1.0 m for Hydraulic Radius of 7.12 (30-
m-high and 20-m-wide Stope)
Hydraulic Radius of 7.12 (30-m-high and 20-m-wide Stope)
N (t = 0.1 m) N (t = 1.0 m)
Q' (min) Q' (max) Status Q' (min) Q' (max) Status
1.80 10.66 SWS1 USTZ2 0.90 4.20 SWS SWS
4.49 26.65 SWS SZ3 2.25 10.51 SWS USTZ
Hydraulic Radius of 8.67 (50-m-high and 20-m-wide Stope)
1.80 10.66 STZ4 SWS 0.90 4.20 STZ SWS
4.49 26.65 SWS SZ 2.25 10.51 SWS SWS
1SWS — stable with support
2USTZ — unsupported transition zone
3SZ — stable zone
4STZ — supported transition zone

where:
α is the dip of the stope surface

It is anticipated that the shallow dipping joint with 48° dip and 318°
dip direction will play a major role in structurally controlled failure. The
reason being that it will have a shallow failure angle, which will
intercept and break the bridge between the discontinuity surface and
the intact rock either by blasting, stress, or by the presence of another
joint set.
The parameters used to estimate the input parameters for the
modified stability number are given in Table IV. The input parameters
for the modified stability number and summary of results are given in
Tables V, VI, and VII. Figure 6 shows the plot of the stability numbers
estimated with the hydraulic radii. The stability graph (Figure 6) had
most of the points plotted in the stable with support zone for RQD
threshold (t) values of 0.1 and 1.0 m. However, one point (for t = 1.0
m) lay within unsupported transition zone, with two other points (for t
= 0.1 m) also in that region. The analysis with a hydraulic radius of
7.12 (30-m-high stope) compares favorably well with Table IV when
the Q rating was rated “Good.”
• Indicator for the minimum and maximum modified stability
CONCLUSION number corresponding to an RQD threshold of 0.1 m when
hydraulic radius is 7.12.
The major discontinuity planes identified had dips and dip o Indicator for the minimum and maximum modified stability
directions (dip/dip direction) of 48/318, 78/221, and 83/298. The number corresponding to an RQD threshold of 1.0 m when
presence of graphite as a major discontinuity plane reduced the hydraulic radius is 7.12.
safety factors. The RMR values for the rock mass ranged between ♦ Indicator for the minimum and maximum modified stability
65–70 and 53–65 for RQD threshold values of 0.1 and 1.0 m, number corresponding to an RQD threshold of 0.1 m when
respectively. The presence of water pressure did affect stability of the hydraulic radius is 8.67.
wedges. Analytical results substantiate that the presence of graphite + Indicator for the minimum and maximum modified stability
contributes to instability, while steeply dipping joints control wedge number corresponding to an RQD threshold of 0.1 m when
slabbing and wedge toppling in the hanging wall. Stable stope hydraulic radius is 8.67.
widths/dimensions were determined to range from 8.1 to 30 m.
Detailed field mapping can aid engineering decision making in Figure 6. Stability Graph Showing Zones of Stable Ground,
underground excavation design. Caving Ground, and Ground Requiring Support (from Hoek et al.,
1995)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author acknowledges the support given to this research by Rock,” London: Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
the management and staff of AGC, Obuasi Operations in Ghana. The Hoek, E., Kaiser, K. P., and Bawden, W. F., 1995, “Support of
manuscript benefited from reviews by Professor Jaak Daemen of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock,” Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema.
Mackay School of Mines, as well as Dr. Michael Hardy and Leo Priest, D. S., 1993, “Discontinuity Analysis for Rock Engineering,”
Gilbride of Agapito Associates, Inc. London: Chapman and Hall.
Rock Science, University of Toronto, 1989, “DIPS User’s Manual,
REFERENCES Version 3.0.”
Rock Science, University of Toronto, 1991, “PHASES User’s
Hutchinson, J. D. and Diederichs, M. S, 1996, “Cablebolting in Manual, Version 2.0.”
Underground Mines,” BiTech: Richmond, Canada. Rock Science, University of Toronto, 1992, “UNWEDGE User’s
Hoek, E. and Brown, E. T., 1980, “Underground Excavations in Manual, Version 2.0.”

6 Copyright © 2003 by SME