i i

ROCK MECHANICS
C£D[;J
j j

The Mathew's method for open stope design

S.B.V. Stewart, Kilborn Engineering Pacific, and
W.W. Forsyth, Golder Associates, Vancouver, British Columbia

ABSTRACT Evolution of Rock Mass Classification Systems

Since the Mathew's methodfor open stope design was fIrSt pro- Rock Mass Classifications have their origins in the civil engineer-
posed by Golder Associates in 1980 it has been applied at a num- ing and in particular tunnelling fields. The need for a systematic
ber of mine sites in Canada. The initial hypothesis was based on description of rock mass conditions arose through contractual
a relatively small amount of data and the intervening period has descriptive requirements as well as a need to rationalize design tech-
allowed the collection of a significant amount of new data to test niques. Figure I shows the development of the more significant rock
the validity of the method. mass classification methods and indicates their interrelationships.
This paper examines a brief history of the evolution of rock Terzaghi's Rock Load Classification (Terzaghi, 1946) was the
mass classification systems to provide background and emphasize first rational method of estimating rock loads for steel arch sup-
their empirical and non-rigorous approach. It also presents the new ported tunnels. Almost all subsequent classification systems stem
data which appear to indicate that the initial hypothesis was reason- from or reference this source.
ably good. The modification to the original graph proposed by Pot- In 1958, Lauffer proposed a classification system which intro-
vin is discussed as well as the applicability of the method to duced a relationship between active span, stand-up time, and seven
predicting the onset of caving. The original graph has been updated rock classes varying from very good rock to very poor rock. The
and has been subdivided into four zones described as "stable"; determination of rock class was subjective and relied on the ex-
"potentially unstable"; "potential mqjor failure"; and "potential perience of the user. This classification introduced stand-up time
caving". The method is recommended as a useful open stoping and the span as the two most important parameters for determina-
design tool provided it is recognized that it is not a rigorous design tion of the type and amount of support.
method.
Deere (1964) proposed the frrst quantitative index to describe
Finally the paper proposes a recommended approach for a,r
rock mass quality with his Rock Quality Designation (RQD). This
plication of the method by would-be users and addresses some typi-
index has had wide acoeptance and is incorporated into most modem
cal pitfalls that may be encountered.
rock mass classifications.
Menitt (1968) attempted to extend the range of applicability
of RQD for estimating tunnel support requirements. He produced
Keywords: Open stope design, Mathew's method, Rock mechanics.
a graph of tunnel width vs RQD which was divided into three zones:
Paper reviewed and approved for publication by the Rock no support or local bolting; pattern bolting; and steel rib support.
Mechanics and Strata Control Committee of elM. He also recognized that the graph was limited in use in areas where
the joints contained thin clay fillings or weathered material.
Cording, Hendron and Deere (1971) attempted to relate RQD
to a modified Terzaghi (1946) rock load factor. They appeared to
S.B.V. Stewart was educated in South
Africa and the United Kingdom, receiv- get a reasonable correlation for steel set supported tunnels but not
ing his Bachelor of Science in civil engi- for rock bolted chambers. They stated that Rock Quality Designa-
neering from the University of the tion alone was not sufficient to provide the full answer to support
Witwatersrand in 1970, and a Bachelor problems and that high loads in excellent (high RQD) quality rock
of Science (honours) in mining engineer- can occur due to a few major intersecting joints with a low friction
ing from the Royal School of Mines in
1973. Upon graduation, he returned to
angle, and conversely low loads in highly fractured rock (low RQD)
South Africa to work as a mine planning are possible if the fractures are tight and initial loosening is prevent-
engineer for De Beers. He moved to ed. They further recommended that design loads for large cham-
Canada in 1977 and worked for geotech- bers be evaluated considering the actual geometry of the joints
nical consulting finns providing services around the opening.
to the Canadian mining industry, he took a
Brekke and Howard (1972) presented an in depth discussion
four-year break in Ireland and the United Kingdom working flIst for Tara
Mines and then a British geotechnical consultant to the transportation sector. of the stability problems caused by seams and faults. The follow-
Mr. Stewart is now with Kilborn Engineering Pacific Ltd. providing min- ing statement from their paper nicely highlights the pitfall awaiting
ing engineering services to the hard rock industry worldwide. an unwary user of rock mass classifications (and for that matter
sophisticated nwnerical models) for excavation design:
W.W. FOrl>'YIh graduated in 1987 with a "Rock masses are so variable in nature that the chance for ever
degree in geological engineering from the fmding a common set of parameters and a common set of constit-
University of Manitoba. After graduation
utive equations valid for all rock masses is quite remote. Simpli-
he joined Golder Associates Ltd. as a ge0-
technical engineer in its Vancouver office fied engineering geological classifications as well as sophisticated
and in 1994 was made an associate part- mathematical fonnulations have in many instances proven to be
ner. Mr. Forsyth works in the mining valuable tools in assessing rock mass behaviour. However, they are
group specializing in underground rock often, both in literature as well as in engineering practice, given
mechanics and blasting. He is a Registered a general validity although they may be highly inadequate both from
Professional Engineer in the Province of
the point of view of restrictive asswnptions, and from the point
British Columbia and a charter member
of the Pacific Canada chapter of the of view of the variability of rock masses. Misused in this way they
International Society of Explosives may be more misleading than helpful, giving a false feeling of ade-
Engineers. quate design procedures." .
 ROCK MECHANICS THE MATHEWS METI:lOD FOR OPEN STOPE DESIGN

,
1946 Tezaghi
1 Rock Load ClassifICation
\..._--~---_.
"' I

I """"
I
"'"----..---_.
1950 Stini
Geological ClassifICation

Lauffec "'"
1958 Subjective Engineering I
1 Classification ~I

Deere "'"
19641 Rock QUali~Designation
R!D J
~
.....
-
J

"'

Merritt
1968 RQDvsSpan
J
1971 .J

, " I'
,
"
,
\...
Cording, Hendron & Deere
RQD vs Rock Load
"'"
I 1972 (
\...
Wickham Tiedeman and
Skinner
Rock Structure Rating (RSR) ..4
I
w Bieniawski
,
Barton, Lien & Lunde
Geomecbanics
Classification (RMR) I
1974 NGI Classificalion
1 (Q)

Laubscher and Taylor

~I
Mining Rock Mass
r " 19'6 ClassifICation (MRMR)
1980
I
\...
Mathews, Hoek, Wyllie &. Stewart
MatheWi MethOd for Open
StopeDesip ~

r
Laubscher
Introduces Concept of Design
"'"
I
1988
r

I
\..
Potvin
Modified Mathew's
[Link]
. ._ _-oOIII.
~

I 1984 Rock Mass Stren~ (DRMS) ..4

r Stewart &, Forsyth

Update Ma~ Stability ..41 1993

FIGURE 1. Chronology of l'()(k DUISS classification.

46 VOLUME 88, No. 992

 ROCK JlvlECHANICS 1HE MATHEW'S M£IHOD FOR OPEN STOPE DESIGN

Wickham, TIedeman and Skinner (1972) developed the rock factor or hydraulic radius was presented delineating zones of "potm-
structure rating (RSR) concept which introduced a weighted tiaIly stable"; "potentially unstable"; and ''potentially caving" (Fig.
numerical rating system incorporating many parameters. The RSR 2a). The initial database for this hypothesis was small.
prediction model was developed primarily for design of steel rib Potvin et aI. (1988) modified the Mathew's Stability Graph by
support, although an attempt was made to apply it to rockbolt and redefming some of the rating adjustment factors. The modifica-
shoterete support design. Charts for a particular tunnel diameter tion was based on the collection of a large number of case hist0-
rela~ RSR to ribspacing for three typical rib sections. bolt spac- ries. His modified stability graph related the modified stability
ing for three boh diameters of S/8 in., 3/4 in. and 1 in., and shot- ownher' to hydraulic radius and has two zones: "stable and caved"
crete thickness were presented. separated by a narrow "transitional" zone (Fig. 2c.)
Bieniawski (1973) developed the Geomechanics Classification In 1989. Potvin et aI. introduced a "cable bolting line" to the
which related a weighted nwnerical rock: mass rating (RMR) to Modified Graph (FIg. 2d). It was suggested that cable bolting would
unsupported span and stand-up time. A table was also presented be an impractical means of support for surfaces plotting below the
to guide the selection of primary support in 5 m to 12 m diameter cable bolt line.
tunnels at shallow depth. The classification was based on 49 tun- Other more specific applications were developed for drift sup-
nel case histories. The RMR classification has attained wide accep- port in United States block cave mines by Kendorski et al. (1983).
tance in the rock engineering field. and for coal mine entry support in the United States by Unal (1983,
Barton, Lien and LWlde (1974) developed the Norwegian Gee- 1986) and in India by Venkateswarlu (1986).
technical Institute Engineering Classification of Rock Masses. This
classification related a numerical assessment of the rock IMlS quality Discussion of Potvin et al. 's Modifications
to predicted support requirements of tunnel spans. The support
categories were very detailed. The classification was based on an The authors propose modification to the original graph (dis-
analysis of some 200 tunnel case histories from Scandinavia. The cussed in detail below) because they believe that the modifications
N.O.I. classification has received wide acceptance in the rock engi- proposed by Potvin et aI. appear to be lending too great a sophisti-
neering fJeld. cation to the method and may be leading less experienced users into
The latter two classification systems are the most commonly falling into the trap of a "false feeling of adequacy of design proce-
used cIassification systems in CUITent use. Rock mass classification dures" warned of by Brekke and Howard (1972).
systems specifically biased toward mining applications have devel- Potvin et aI. 's modified graph with just two zones seems to imply
oped from both these systems. too great an accuracy to the method. It is the authors' experience
Almost all the above authors recognized and stated in their that the narrow grey area does not accurately represent a realistic
papers that in various ways their proposals carried limitations due transition from stable conditions to caving conditions. The modifi-
to the variable nature of rock masses and the difficulties associated cation implies that either the situation is "stable" or "caved". Le.
in trying to adequately represent them. All these methods can at "ok" or "catastrophe". Furthennore, the modifications for cal-
best only provide an indication of the correct path the engineer culation of the modified stability number N do not greatly affect
I

should follow and provide one of a nwnber of tools in the engineer- the result and unnecessarily complicate its calculation and imply
ing design process. Sound engineering judgement is still considered an accuracy that is not warranted.
to be the most essential ingredient to underground excavation design. The choice of the word "caved" to represent the "unstable"
zone was unfortunate as it has a definite meaning in the mining
sense which seems not to have been adhered to in the proposed
Mining Rock Mass Classifications modification. In our understanding caving refers to the situation
The frrst was developed from the Geomechanics Oassification where the rock mass fails and continues to fail WltH aU void space
(RMR) by Laubscher and Taylor (1976). In this classification now is filled with broken rock. often but not necessarily causing a break-
known as the mining rock mass rating (MRMR), the RMR rating through to surface. It is noted that the term "caved" was not de-
is further adjusted to take into account joint orientation, weather- fmed by Potvin et al. (1988, 1989).
ing. field and induced stresses. stress changes due to mining and Their introduction of the "cable bolting" line in 1989 seems
the effects of blasting. The adjusted rating was used to predict sup- to indicate that it was recognized that some further zoning was
port requirements for development openings, required undercut area appropriate. This cable bolting line appears similar to the division
to induce caving, the angle of cave and extent of a surrounding between "potentially unstable" and "potentially caving" on the
failure zone, open pit slope angles, and whether open stoping min- original Mathew's graph (Figs. 2d and 2a).
ing may be employed. The initial data were based on experience The authors thus felt it would be appropriate at this jWlction
in block cave mining and the applications reflect this. Laubscher to update the original Mathews graph by including data points col-
(1984. 1990) introduced the concept of design rock mass strength lected over the intervening years and to redefine the original woes
which is related to laboratory uniaxial compressive strength using of stability.
the MRMR value determined. Support categories are based on the
comparison of design rock mass strength to mining environment Proposed Mathew's Stability Graph Update
stress. A relationship between the MRMR and stability index
(hydraulic radius) was also presented (FIg. 2b). This graph distin- Figure 3 shows the stability graph with all the new data points
guishes zones of ustable -local support"; "transition zone"; and plotted. Because most of the data points derive from open stoping
/csubsidence/cavingtt. The examples used for this graph came mines the data are biased toward stability. Consequently the data
primarily from mines using caving methods. points have been descnbed as being "stable", Uunstable" and
Mathews. Hoek, Wyllie and Stewart (1981) developed what has CCmajor failure". Major failure represents cases where the extent
become known as the Mathew's method for open stope design. This of back or wall failure was greater than about fifty per cent of the
method uses an adjusted NOI "Qu rating to determine stable exca- smaller dimension of the opening.
vation dimensions. The fust four parameters of the NOI system Figure 4 presents our recommended update of the Mathew's
are unchanged and the quotient of the fmal two parameters are Stability Graph. It has the following four zones:
arbitrarily set to one. This Q is then adjusted for induced stresses,
I Potendally Stsble - Points falling in this zone indicate that the
orientation of structure and orientation of the surface being exa- surface under consideration should be essentially self supporting.
mined. A graph relating the resulting stability nwnber versus shape Access permitting. and depending on rock quality, pattern rock boh-

elM BULLETIN, JULY-AUGUST 1995 47

 ROCK MECHANICS THE MATHEW'S METHOD FOR OPEN STOPE DESIGN

100

..... ~

(LI
IIl'UlE
~ ..."
brt) [7 ZOM
/
V

80

100
70
7 / ..... r~-Inft
0l~"0II

a 60
I 7 V

1/
(;IN ttG

I 10
50
/
IJ
/
V
I .0
I I

1.0
.- I/
: .." /f
'P

, / I
V
0-1
0 I 10 18 20 21 ~ 7/
~ FMm)A"., . . . ., ........ (.-)

0
If
o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
A) ORIGINAL MATHEWS GRAPH, (1981) HYDRAUlIC RADIUS = EXl;Qwllon Aleo / EllCCI\totion Parimelet. 1'1.

B) LAUBSCHERS GRAPH. (1900)

k -
!
tOO

I I
~
10

I I
I
i I 1.0
CAWN6 ZONE

C) POTVIN ET AL MODIFIED D) POTVIN ET AL CABlE BOLnNG LINE,

MATHEWS GRAPH, (1988) (1989)
FIGURE 2. Comparison of stability graphs.

48 VOLUME 88. No. 992

 ROCK MECHANICS THE MATHEW'S METHOD FOR OPEN STOPE DESIGN

ing or local support or spot bolting may be required. Dilution should

be minimal, estimated at less than 10070.
Potentially Unstable- - Points falling in this zone indicate that the
surface under consideration should require some form of pattern
support. If support cannot be placed due to access constraints some
failure with associated dilution should be anticipated, however a
stable unsupported confJgUl'3tion should eventually be attained. Dilu-
tion is estimated to fall in the range of 100/0 to 300/0.
Potential Major Collapse - Points faDing in this zone indicate that
the swface under consideration will require extensive and heavy SU~
port. If due to access constraints support cannot be placed a stable
configuration may be reached only after relatively large and prob-
ably unacceptable failure with associated excessive dilution and!or
ore loss. Dilution is estimated to be greater than 30070.
Potential Caving - Points falling in this zone indicate that the sur-
face under consideration is probably unsupportable and will fail
and continue to fail until the void is completely filled or surface
breakthrough occurs, Le. a true caving situation.
There appears to be a reasonably clear-cut boundary between
the stable and unstable points and it is suggested that this bound-
ary may be used with a high degree of confidence.
The differentiation between the unstable and major failure points
SHAPE FACTOR. S, (m)
is not as clear cut. This is probably due to the subjective nature
of the descriptions of many of the failures. [OSTABL£ A UNSTABlE • MAJOR FAILURE I

Comments received from users of the original Mathew's method

to determine the size of an undercut for a block cave indicated that FIGURE 3. Updated Mathew's graph, (data points).
the potentially caving line did not provide a large enough under-
1000'~~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~_~__ ~
__~_~
__ .~
cut, Le. the line should be shifted to the right and down. This is +: --~-_
__.. _
.._--_...,.....==:===
understandable because the data used to defme the original graph ::::...:.:==-----r- -----= -~~----,-----T===-=-::---=-=:F::::=::=:=-=
+---------j----~' - - - -...... ------f---- ------
stemmed primarily from open stoping mines and so the data would . --i_.~,.-.-- . --
--------J-.--.~-~.-....J,...----.-~.--.-

be biased to the "stable" side. Unfortunately this is also true of ------I- -----------~-- -----+-
i I !
i---m-----
the great majority of the new data. As a check on the Caving I
!

Boundary on the original Mathew's stability graph (other edge of ,~~~~~.:..-.:::-_._--_._-

the scale) Laubscher's curves from Figure 8 of his 1990 paper were
included on Figure 3. Laubscher's data stenuned mostly from cav-
ing mines and so would be biased toward "instability". The ad-
justed rock mass rating was converted to Q using the formula
RMR = 9LnQ + 44 proposed by Bieniawski (1976). It will be no-
ticed that Laubscher's Caving line plots well to the right of the origi-
nal Potential Caving line proposed by Mathews et aI. in 1980. At
the current stage of development it would be prudent to use both
methods to estimate undercut dimensions with greater confidence
being placed on Laubscher's method. Because there is a lack of
hard data for caving mines the proposed caving zone in Figure 4
has been designated with a broad boundary.
Although there are some indications that the method may be
generally applied, it must be emphasized that the curves have been
drawn based on a biased set of data. The data have been collected O'11R-------Jr------+-----+-----t------1
chiefly from North American open stoping mines and typically o 10 1li 10
represents experience in steeply dipping orebodies in strong rocks SHAPE FACTOR. S, (m)
of medium to good quality. Very little data comes from mines with
very weak or poor quality rocks and beyond the range of Shape FIGURE 4. Updated Mathew's [Link]. (proposed stabWty zones).
factors or Hydraulic Radii of 2 m to 15 m. Application of this
method to excavations outside the limits noted above should be ap-
proached with extreme caution. In cases that do not fall into the from a graph, but rather to lead the designer to examine the rock
above category the user should concentrate on collecting sufficient in a systematic and objective manner and logically collate local ex-
examples to redraw their own zones of stability. In fact this ap- perience. Combined with other empirical design methods, numeri-
proach is highly recommended even for cases that do comply with cal analyses, and production and economic requirements, an optimal
the data base and the user should build their own experience and solution both technically and economically may be arrived at. The
defme their own site specific stable and unstable zones rather than method is thus but one of a number of design tools that should
try to fit their data points to the modified graph proposed in this be used and it should always be treated as such.
paper. Naturally in the case of new mines initial estimates will have
to rely on the proposed zones until sufficient local experience is col-
lected. Pitfalls
The greatest benefIt that the application of this method can pro- Some of the pitfalls that the unwary user may fall into are dis-
vide however, is not to directly determine stable stope dimensions cussed below.

elM BUllETIN, JULY-AUGUST 1995 49

 ROCK MECHANICS TIlE MATHEW'S MElHOD FOR OPEN STOPE DESIGN

TABLE 1. Rock mass quality data

Item Descrtptlon Value
(1) Rock Quality Good ROD = 85%
(2) Jolnt sets One joint set and random In ;: 3
(3) Joint roughness Rough or irregular undulating Jr =3
(4) Joint alteration Unaltered with surface staining Ja = 1
(5) Joint water Dry with minor surface staining Jw ;: 1
(6) Stress reduction Single weakness zones containing clay SRF ;: 2.5

85 3 1
Hence Q ;:
3
x
1
x
2.5 = 34

,.(),-----------,-----~----~---....,
ORIENTATION ORIENTATION
OFROQF
FACTORS OF WALL
(J.B

1.0 --~=-~.
-~
(U

()+-~L...--~----_t_----r__---__l
D s 10 1$ 0.8
0",,/0; a'C·I/[Link] _ _... _OI_CIIfJd<.

0;._--..._
FIGURE A-I. Graph to determJDe flldor "An.

The most important pitfall to avoid is to believe that the method

0.4
is a rigorous analysis. One should not carry out a nwnber of ana-
lyses varying strike length by 1 m at a time to examine "sensitiv-
ityu. One should rather select dimensions for economic or perhaps
intuitive reasons and see where they plot on the stability graph. Edu-
cated best guesses are good enough for estimating input parameters
when little real infonnation is available. For example. it is not likely 0.3
worthwhile carrying out detailed numerical stress analyses purely
for determining the stress factor "A". Provided a reasonable "gues-
timatett of strength/stress ratio is made it will suffice. Nwnerical
stress analyses are, however. a powerful design tool and in their
own right fonn an integral part of the over-all design process.
As mentioned above the best use of the method will be to derive 0.5
one's own stable and unstable zones as data and experience are ac-
cumulated. This approach would also reduce variation arising from
differing opinions or experience in the assessment of the input
parameters. Users should not rely on the accuracy of the zones
presented here or try to make their own data fit them. However, "CURE A-1. Chart to determine factor "8".
a careful analysis of why the data does not fit the graph may prove
very beneficial as it will force the designer methodically to examine
the rock mass. Some factors that may contribute to "discrepan- ting on the graph. Conversely a hydrauJic radius read from the graph
cies" are: the presence of rolls or folds in foliated rocks that may will give dimensions in metres.
cause Wldercutting of structure not anticipated from mapping,
strength deterioration due to weathering of the rock fabric or joint
surfaces or joint infill; or bias of RQD calculation due to relative Conclusion
orientations of the critical joint set and drillholes. The chief aim of this paper is to emphasize the non rigorous
The presence of geological features such as major faults or sig- and empirical nature of rock mass classification design methods.
nifu:ant inclusions of rocks of differing strength would invalidate As with an empirical methods the strength of the method relies heav-
the usefulness of the method. These situations would need to be ily on the data base from which it is derived. Addition of more
dealt with on an individual design basis. A possible approach may data to the database will further improve the method's predictive
be to design the initial dimensions on the general rock quality and ability. Consequently the authors would welcome any data, com-
provide for extra support specifically designed for the feature in ments or suggestions from users' experiences with the method.
question. It would also be prudent for these cases to reduce allow-
able dimensions indicated by the stability graph method. REFEREN~
It should be remembered that the shape factor S or hydraulic BARTON, N., LIEN, R. t and LUNDE, J. t Engineering classification of
radius is not dimensionless but is expressed in metres. Thus, a shape rock masses for the design of tunnel support; Rock Mechanics. Vol.
factor calculated in feet must be converted to metres before plot- ~ No.4. 1974. pp. 189-236. Originally published as Analysis of rock

50 VOLUME 88, No. 992

 ROCK MECHANICS THE MATHEW'S METHOD FOR OPEN STOPE DFSIGN

10 -r-----r----.........----...,....----.....--------i

JII'IW 4!Bf.8l'"19"1M

tJ

8.0.,....-------,-------r------r--------,

"
6.0

~
b....
4.0
'5
0-+-----1----+-----1-----+------1 ..
o JO 40 80 80 90 ~
i4
ANGLE OF DIP FROM HORIZONTAL. (d#lgrees) ~
g: 2.0
~
FIGURE A-3. Graph to determiDe factor "e".

mass quality and support practice in tunnelling; Norwegian Geotech-

nical Inst•• Report No. 54206, June 1974. 74 p.
---- --- -- -!.:~--

0-+--.....6.:::....--2+:-,----4-+:-1----6+:-1-----18:1
BARTON, N., Recent experieIul:s with the Q-system of tunnd support
design; Proc. Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering,
RATIO OF OPENING DIMENSIONS
Johannesburg, Vol. I, 1976, pp. 107-117.
BIENlAWSKl. Z.T., Rock mass classification in rock engineering; Proc.
Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering. Johannesburg, Vol. LEGEND
1, 1976, pp. 97-1~.
BREKKE, T .L., and HOWARD, T., Stability problems caused by seams cr, =~s~
and fauks; Proc. FlI'St North American Rapid Excavation and Tun- {f.. = VwtIcM VbIn s" ...
nclling Conference, AIME, New- York, 1m, pp. 25-41. erN, = HtNIzotJt., WIvM SI,... tNt St,Ne.·
CORDING, E.J., HENDRON, A.J., and DEERE, D.U., Rock engineer- erN," HtwIW1fJt./l'qIa ~ NomIIII 10 SUlk.
ing for underground caverns; Proc. Symposium on Undergrolmd Rock HodzoItIIII ",.... K = aN/CTN,
Chambers, Phoenix. Arizona, 1971. published by ASCE, 1972, pp. IferlII:M ~ K:II (JH~/a..
567-«(1).
DEERE, D.U.• Technical description of rock cores for engineering
purposes; Rock Mechania and Engineering Geology, Vol. I, No. I, FlGURE A-4. Curves to estimate induced stresses in backs and
1964, pp. 17-22. [Link].
KENDORSKI, F.S.. CUMMINGS. RA.. BIENIAWSKI, Z.T.. and
SKINNER, E., A rock mass classification scheme for the planning
of caving mine drift supports; Proc. Rapid Excav. 1\mnelling Conf••
AlME. New York. 1983, pp. 193-223. method for open stope design; 90th CIM AGM, Edmonton, May 1988.
LAUBSCHER, D.H., and TAYLOR, H.W., The Importance of Goo- POTVIN, Y.• HUDYMA. M., and MIllER, H.D.S.• Design guidelines
mechanics Classifu:ation of Jointed Rock Masses in Mining Opera- for open stope support; elM Bulletin. Vol. 82, No. 926, JUnL! /989.
tions; Proc. of the Symp. on Exploration for Rock: Engineering, STINI, I., Tunnelbaugeologie; Springer-Verlag, Vienna, 1950. 366 p.
Johannesburg, Nov. 1976. TERZAGHI, K., Rock defects and loads on tunnel supports; In Rock
LAUBSCHER, D.H., Design aspects and effectiveness of support systems Tunnelling with Stec:f Supports. R.V. Procta and T. White, cds.• Pub-
in different mining conditions; Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. (Sect. A) 93, lished by Commerda1 Shearins and Stamping Co., Youngstown, 1946,
Apr. 1984. pp. 15-99. Also Harvard University, Graduate School of Engineering,
LAUBSCHER, D.H., A geomechanics classification system for the rating Publication 418, Soil Mechanics, Series 25.
of rock mass in mine design; JoumIll oj South African Ins!. Mm. UNAL, E., Design guidelines and roof control standards for coal mine
MetoJl' J Vol. 90. No. 10, Oct. 1990. pp. 257-271. roofs; Ph.D. thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
LAUFFER, H., Gebirgsk1assifi fur den Stollenbau; Geologie und
1983, 335 p.
Bauwesen, Vol. 24, No.1. 1958, pp. ~51. UNAL, E., Empirical approach to calaJlate rock loads in coal mine
MATHEWS, ICE.• HOEK, E., WYlLIE. D.C., and STEWARD, S.B.V., roadways; Proc. 5th Conf. Ground Control Coal Mines, West Vir-
Prediction of stable excavation spans for mining at depths below 100) ginia University, Morgantown, 1986, pp. 234-241.
m in hard rock mines; CANMEr Report ~ Serial No. ~1.
Apr. 1981. VENKATFSWARLU, V.• ~ dassification of coal measure rocks
MERRITT. A.H.• Engineering classification of in situ rock; Ph.D. thesis, \'is..a-vis roof supports; Ph.D. thesis, Indian School of Mines, Dhan-
University of Dlinois, Urbana. 1968. bad, 1986, 251 p.
MERRITI'. A.H., Geologic prediction for underground excavations; Proc. WICKHAM, G.E., TIEDEMANN, H.R., and SKINNER, E.H., Support
FIfSt North American Rapid Excavation and TunneDing Conference, determination based on geological predidions; Proc. First North Ameri-
AIME, New York. 1972. ))p. 115-132. can Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference. AIME. New Yark,
POTVIN, Y., HUDYMA, M., and MILLER. H.D.S., The stability graph 1972, pp. 43-64.

elM BULLETIN. JULY-AUGUST 1995 51

 ROCK MECHANICS THE MATIlEW'S METHOD FOR OPEN STOPE DESIGN

cr.

VIRGIN STRESS DIAGRAM

b£
... 2.0.........-----,--------.----,--.-----....,....----,--------.-----,
C
l!i
b
~
~ 1.0
"
,',
~
11a ','." . . - __ ------ "'_____

--K-=-1.0--
K=O.5

nGURE A-6. Summary of stresses used to defennine factor "A".

o~~r______T...__+-_+_-+_-+----t-.....,

~
Q
e-)
""'--- ,
........ -......
-- Top of Mid Stope Vertical Plane (Back)
= 27 MPa
~ - - _ _K=~.O_
Uv
am = 38 MPa
K = O'HlIO'v = 1.4
, ---=2c'-:1-=---3~:--=-,-4-:l-t-----,5::'-:
-1.0--"------I----';L- -6---=-':-t----7c'-:'----:-'8: 1
--=-,
For a height to span ratio of 3 and K value of 1.4, then O'I:Uy
RATIO OF OPENING DIMENSIONS is estimated at 2.6. Hence 0'1 = 2.6 x 27 MPa = 70 MPa. Refer-
LEGEND
ring to Figure A-I, the value of ac:(J1 = 120:70 = 1.7. As this
ratio is less than 2, the back is likely to be on the verge of instabil-
(f, = Indut»d Str. . . ity. The height of the stope should be reduced but for the purposes
er.. a "-rllt., fllIg/IJ sm... of this example, assume a rock stress factor (A) = 0.1
erN, ,. Horlzonl.' Virgin Sf"" on St,lk"
{fH.I. HtHIZ.",./ tIJrrIJn Sf..... Nonnet 10 Strike
HorlzotJIlI1 "'--. K = {fH1IrsH,
Strike end of Mid Stope Horizontal Plane (End
IIerlIt:M Plllne. K I/O {fll/err
Wall)
UHI = 38 MPa
FIGURE A-5. Curves to estimate induced stresses In bangingwalls. aH = 38 MPa
K = (JID/UHI = 1
For a length to span ratio of 1.2 and K value of 1, then ul:uHI
APPENDIX A is estimated at 1.0. Hence ur = 1.0 x 38 MPa = 38 MPa. Refer-
ring to Figure A-I, the value of Uc:UI = 120:38 = 3.2 and the rock
Example on the Use of the Stability Graph stress factor (A) = 0.25.
An open stope is to be developed at a depth of 100> m. The Referring to Figure A-5, the next step is to calculate the induced
orebody is assumed to be 25 m wide and dips at 80 degrees. It is stresses in the hangingwall and footwall considering the vertical and
desired that the stope length be a minimum of 30 In and the height horizontal mid-stope planes. The lowest value of the estimated rock
a minimum of 7S m to pennit the use of in-the-hole drilling equip- stress factor (A) is used.
ment. The unconfmed compressive strength of the intact rock aver-
ages 120 MPa and additional data on geoteclmical parameters are Mid-stope Vertical Plane (HIW and F IW)
given below. K = Um:av = 38:27 = 1.4
For a height to span ratio of 3 and K value of 1.4. then a l :Uy
Modified NGI Rock Mass Rating (R') is estimated at -0.1. As the value is negative, it is set to zero and
The rock mass quality data are summarized in Table 1. 0" is zero. Referring to Figure A-I, the value of uc:u] is greater than
Determine the modified NOI Rock Mass Rating (Q') by set- 10, hence the rock stress factor (A) = 1. It should be noted,
ting SRF = 1, hence Q' = 85. however, that horizontal joints intel"SeCting the hangingwall Mll open
as the induced stress at the centre of the hangingwall span is tensile.
Rock Stress Factor (A)
Virgin stress has not been measured, hence the values must be Mid-stope Horizontal Plane (H/W and FIW)
estimated. The vertical stress (av) is estimated at 27 MPa for a K = am:UHI = 38:38 = 1
depth of 1000 m. K, the ratio of average horizontal stress (Off) to For a length to span ratio of 1.2 and K value of 1, then a,:uHl
the vertical stress (O'v) is estimated to be.1.4 and (JH = 38 MPa. is estimated at 0.75. Hence 0'1 = 0.75 x 38 MPa = 28 MPa.
Considering the values of virgin stress in the horizontal plane, Referring to Figure A-I, the value of O'c:O" = 120:27.8 = 4.3 and
asswne that aHl = 0'H2 = O'H = 38 MPa where UHI is the virgin the rock stress factor (A) is 0.35.
stress parallel to strike and am is the virgin stress DOnnal to strike. It should be noted that both the hangingwall and footwall are
Referring to FIgUre A-4, the flfSt step is to calculate the induced in compression in the direction of strike and tensile (near the mid
stresses in the back (top of vertical plane) and the strike end (end span) in the direction of dip. FJgUl'e A-6 summarizes the stresses
of horizontal plane) of the stope. acting along the stope surfaces.

52 VOLUME 88. No. 992

 ROCK MECHANICS THE MATHEW'S METHOD FOR OPEN STOPE DESIGN

L~:""-~..----------6'-~-----1

00
'DO

FIGURE A-8. Grapb to determine shape factor.

o.1,~----+----+----I------+---------1
o 10 18
• Values of Stability Numbers (N)
SHAPE FACTOR. S. (m)
Values of N = Q' x A x B x C for the exposed surfaces are:
FIGURE A·7. Updated Mathew's lraph - proposed stability zones.

Exposed surface Value 01 (N)

Back 4.3
Sununarizing, the rock stress factors (A) to be used are: HanglngwalI 200.0
Back - A = 0.1 Footwall 240.0
H/W - A = 0.35 Vertical end 170.0
F/W - A = 0.35
Vertical End -A = 0.25
Values of Shape Factor (S)
Rock Defect Orientation Factor (B) Values of (S) equal to the ratio of the area of the exposed sur-
The principal joint set is flat dipping and joints are closely spaced face to the perimeter of the exposed surface are given below.
in the range of 7 em to 15 em apart. Joint surfaces are unaltered
with surface staining. Exposed surface Value 01 (5)
The orebody is 25 m wide and dips at 80 degrees. Referring
to Figure A-2, the orientation factor for the exposed surfaces are Back 6.8
as follows: Hanglngwall 10.7
Footwall 10.7
Vertical end 9.4
Exposed Orientation Value 01
surface (degrees) (B)

Back 0 0.5 Comments on Analysis

Hangingwall 100 1.0
80 The values of stability number (N) versus shape factor (8) are
Footwall 1.0
Vertical end 90 1.0 plotted in Figure A-7. All of the walls plotted in the stable area
of the graph but the back plots in the wne between "unstable"
and "caving". If these results are accepted, then the height of the
Design Surface Orientation Factor (q stope could be reduced to lessen roof stress.
The hangingwaIl and footwall dip at 80 degrees, hence the design Stresses were estimated for the central sections of the spans,
surface orientation factors for the exposed surfaces are: but corner stresses will be much higher. SpalIing can be anticipated
in the upper comers along strike and cable bolting Will not prevent
Exposed Inclination Value of this. However, cable bolting should be effective for general back
surface (degrees) (C) support and in areas that have spaDed to a stable shape.
Back Horizontal 1 Localized sloughing can be expected from the central portion
Hangingwall 80 6.8 of the hangingwall (and footwall) but the vertical ends should be
Footwall +90 8.0 sound. However, secondary joint sets are randomly orientated, hence
Vertical end 90 8.0
some random spalling and sloughing can be anticipated.

Readers are cordially invited to contribute written discussions on any paper published in the elM Bulletin.
Contributed discussions will be published with any response made by the authors.
Contributions should be sent to the Editor, elM Bulletin, Xerox Tower, 1210-3400 de Maisonneuve Blvd. W.,
Montreal, Quebec, H3Z 388.

elM BULLETIN, JULY·AUGUST 1995 53