Chapter 2

Geotechnical Characterization for Mass Mining

38

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

Mining geotechnical investigations: The need for an integrated approach

Allan Haines, T. Campbell McCuaig and Esther Theron, SRK Consulting, Australia

Abstract
The need for an integrated approach in mining is a key element during all phases of the evaluation of a mineable deposit. The integration of the geological, structural, hydrogeological and geotechnical disciplines, as feeds into the mine planning and scheduling process, are essential elements in the conversion of a deposit into a mine. Having the geotechnically related risks and benefits defined at an early stage may well differentiate the project from others queuing up to obtain financing, whether from internal or external sources. From the initial greenfields site, from scoping to drill out and the establishment of an advanced project, pre-feasibility, feasibility and ramp-up into operations it is beneficial to establish the links between the geotechnical characteristics and mining risks. This paper will examine the timing, functional silo mentality, the influencers and modifiers on mine design, the benefits resulting from integration and some operational examples to illustrate the benefits of this approach.

1 INTRODUCTION In the future environment of surface and underground mines, we face both a trend towards the development of super pits and super caves, and a tendency for the underground development of ageing pits. These super projects, or long-life ore factories, sprout from the calls for increased production and more cost effective solutions for mass mining projects, and perhaps from the belief that bigger is better. The move to fewer, larger, longer life projects exposes operations to an elevated level of risk from singular events. One of the most crippling and potentially fatal events in these mass mining operations is geotechnical failures. Safe and efficient operation of large scale open pit and underground excavations thus requires an even stronger focus on geotechnical issues. As geotechnical investigations rely on information supplied by the entire range of mining related disciplines, effective integration of these services is becoming even more crucial. Having the geotechnically related risks and benefits defined at an early stage may well differentiate the project from others, all queuing up to obtain financing, whether from internal or external sources, in todays ever-competitive marketplace. In the authors experience, the introduction of an integrated geological structural hydrogeological geotechnical approach, as early as possible in the development of a project, saves time and expense throughout all phases of the project life. 2 FUNCTIONAL SILO MENTALITY A geotechnical investigation requires the integration of data from a number of sources. The geotechnical engineer will thus be required to interact with a number of individuals. Depending on the status of the project these individuals will range from: Exploration/resource geologists...to define the geological model and resource footprint, Structural geologiststo assist with the interpretation of the rock mass fabric and applying geological and spatial context around the geotechnical data, Mine geologiststo describe the performance of the encountered geological conditions,
Massmin 2004

Hydrogeologiststo provide input into the impact of ground water on the excavation stability, Engineering geologiststo characterise the rock mass from strength and performance requirements, Mining engineersto develop the mining methodology (including blasting) from the geological and geotechnical interpretations, Mine planning engineersto plan the mine geometry, layout and scheduling in the most optimised fashion. The authors have noted that the lack of cross-discipline integration is commonplace in the industry. The industry as a whole suffers from a 'functional silo mentality, whereby tasks are undertaken in an assembly line fashion, often in isolation or with an incomplete understanding of how the results impact on the entire mining project or operation. Cross-discipline communication is often the critical issue. This is evident for example, when the exploration geologists often do not communicate well with mining and resource geologists, who do not communicate well with geotechnical engineers, and so on. Often, neither task team understands the others requirements, nor how they can help address the issues those teams face for the ultimate benefit of the study. The way consultants are used in the Australian industry often exacerbates this problem, in that companies select people for specific tasks on a perceived value for money basis. Therefore, one consulting firm may be used for geology, another for resource estimation, another for geotechnical engineering, and another for mining engineering. This presents additional challenges in ensuring the effective flow of information and knowledge across the task teams and, therefore, the entire operation. The functional silo mentality is a substantial challenge facing the industry and, therefore, focus is required on cross-training consultants and clients so that they are aware of issues facing each of the mining disciplines and can communicate across these disciplines. This helps to effectively break down the functional silos to allow the more effective flow of information and understanding throughout the mining process, and thus should result in more informed decisions.
39

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

3 TIMING Geotechnical investigations should be incorporated into an exploration or mining project at a very early stage. The specific investigation can take many forms depending on the type, scale and location of the project. It should have equal status alongside the geological, resource, metallurgical, mine planning and financial modelling studies. It is equally important to know that: the resource exists in a certain form and location, that it can be mined safely and economically by open pit or underground methods, that the ore can be processed, that it has a market that can be reached, and that the project will produce a viable return on investment. The main benefit of an integrated approach is that the geotechnically related risks can be understood and quantified as early as possible, especially where a mine design is sensitive to these parameters. The main geotechnical risks or issues that need to be addressed from an early stage can be related to the following: rock mass characteristicswhich can be managed with empirical methodologies, but require geological context to properly establish their spatial variability structural fabrican evaluation of the controls on the 3D distribution of rock damage (discontinuities), and the interaction between primary, secondary and tertiary structures and the excavation, ground waterwater pressure can significantly reduce the stability of the excavation, in-situ stressesand their redistribution during mining needs to quantified, seismicitycan have a detrimental impact on the stability of the rock mass, mine excavationand its interaction with the geotechnical environment can be modelled to determine the development of adverse tensile and shear stresses that may lead to failure of the excavation profile. All of the project scientists and engineers play a role during the development of a deposit from initial exploration or discovery through project scoping, pre-feasibility, feasibility, detailed engineering design, start-up, production and closure. The project risk profile can be changed by informed decisions taken by engineers, financiers, stakeholders and government that are involved in the emergence of a new mining project. From the initial greenfields site, from scoping to drill out and the establishment of an advanced project, prefeasibility, feasibility and ramp-up into operations, it is beneficial to establish the links between the geotechnical characteristics and mining risks. There is a real benefit in investing time and capital during early exploration to provide initial estimates of geotechnical risk. In our experience there is the potential to reduce expenditure during feasibility if the integrated geotechnicalgeological model is understood right up front. The geotechnical engineer must identify what will be the key influences on mine design and be aware of that which may subsequently modify the design. These aspects are normally assessed in relation to the risk profile for the project and whether a competitive advantage can be obtained by optimising the design process. It is the application of the influencing and modifying components that can result in significant cost saving during the project life and which may ultimately extend the operational life of a mine. This is illustrated in Table 1 for a steep slope strategy as applied to open pit design.

4 BENEFITS FROM INTEGRATION The main benefits resulting from an integrated approach can be categorised into savings in time and associated cost with a better scope for communication among the professionals involved. Incorporating geotechnical investigations as early as possible in a project study can be beneficial in guiding future work, especially into feasibility. With this approach, it is possible to reduce the dependence on long and costly feasibility studies in which the geotechnical risk profile had not been adequately defined earlier on. The estimate of capital and operating cost expenditure can be better quantified early on, by following a more rigorous and integrated approach. By getting the overall slope angle for an open pit closer to its expected value at an early stage, there can be substantial cost savings in estimates of waste stripping. For example, the difference between a 45 and a 50 overall pit slope, for a pit perimeter of approximately 3000m over a slope height of 150m, can result in an additional US$ 15M of waste stripping. In this example there is also a corresponding shift in the pit crest of approximately 25m. These values are illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. 5 PLANNING ON A RISK BASIS The follow extract from a 1997 paper by Oskar Steffen on the planning of open pit mines on a risk basis states the case with regard to the value that should be attached to geotechnical information during the development of a mining project. "As in the case of mineral resource estimation, the determination of slope angles is dependant on the understanding of geological and geotechnical information and the confidence of design is equally based on the degree of certainty which applies to the data available. Unlike the case of mineral resource estimation, where the exploration is specifically targeted to provide ore reserve information, the requirement for slope design only becomes necessary once a prospective mineral resource has been discovered. Exploration core has usually limited value for slope design purposes as the target areas for slope design are not necessarily the same as for the orebody. Drilling requirements for geotechnical purposes also differ considerably from that for mineral exploration. Hence a limited campaign for geotechnical purposes is usually undertaken in addition to whatever value can be obtained from the original exploration campaign. It is therefore not uncommon to have a slope design which has a much lower degree of confidence than that pertaining to the mineral resource definition. By definition, the mineable reserves within the resource are determined by applying a mine design which could economically exploit the resource." It is again emphasized that the evaluation and definition of the geotechnical risks as early as possible in the development of a project must be understood by all. The geotechnical risks described earlier in this paper must be investigated and quantified using the most appropriate techniques. In the case of caving it is almost impossible to fully define the nature of the cave without exposing the ore material in an exploration decline. The geotechnical evaluation should advance at the same rate as that for the resource model. 6 OPERATIONAL EXAMPLES Case 1 A SLOS operation in Australia has experienced difficulties with oversize in the stope drawpoints. The causes of the
Massmin 2004

40

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

problem are varied and the overall study has had to review: Production issues Stope design, sequencing and performance monitoring Geological and structural interpretation Geotechnical aspects Blasting practice As part of the study, SRK were contracted to focus mainly on improving the data collection, analysis and interpretation from a structural geology and geotechnical point of view. This has involved cross discipline training of personnel with varied backgrounds and establishing processes and procedures that will outlive the current staff complement. The key components of this integrated study were related to the geotechnical evaluation of the rock mass characteristics. From the results of the geotechnical database, it was shown that the Laubscher RMR/MRMR and Mathews / Potvin Q'/N' rating systems are applicable as predictive tools for the determination of rock mass stability relative to the excavation. In addition, a structural evaluation assisted in the determination the controls on the development of oversize. The initial interpretation has established the broad spectrum of rock mass and structural characteristics that influence the occurrence and frequency of oversize. The benefits from this process of integration convert to more effective data and information, with some additional effort, which may not have been possible without this concerted approach. Case 2 In Australia and West Africa there are numerous examples of open pits that have been developed through some of the most hazardous geological materials with regard to slope stability. The saprolites and saprocks within the zone of oxidation exhibit a range of geotechnical characteristics from the dry to partially saturated to the fully saturated condition that classify them as extremely challenging to say the least. They represent the geotechnical engineers "worst nightmare". Below these are commonly found the unoxidised mafic and ultramafic rocks which commonly exhibit structural complexity and weakness associated with joint coatings of dickite, brucite and tochilonite. An understanding of the spatial relationship of these rock weakening mineral coatings with regard to the mining excavation is vital to ensure that the most appropriate design parameters are selected. The value to be derived from a comprehensive geological and structural geological assessment of a property in association with the geotechnical engineer can be significant in our experience.

Slope design work in these materials requires a fully integrated approach to determine the relic structural fabric of the saprolites, and to a lesser extent in the saprocks. This rock mass fabric is normally identifiable in the unweathered rocks. A typical weathering profile is illustrated below. Transported Pallid Clay Saprolite Saprock Joint Oxidised Rock Unweathered Rock Designs in this range of materials requires that all of the geological and geotechnical characteristics must be evaluated as early as possible as the open pit design parameters must be derived for both soil, soft rock and hard rock environments. The use of empirical rock mass classification systems can provide very good indicative slope angles from the first series of exploration cores. These can be supplemented when exploration declines or shafts are excavated. SRK have previously provided training in geotechnical core logging to exploration geologists and mine geologists at a similar site in Western Australia. In practice, only the orezone and a limited amount of core into the hangingwall and footwall are logged. This data would otherwise be lost, as the core is subsequently cut and sampled. Recent developments have seen both scoping and feasibility level studies required for new prospects on the same mining lease. In the first instance, no additional drilling or logging was required. The study could be completed in some detail, within a short time and at minimal cost. Similarly, the feasibility study required very little additional specific geotechnical drilling and logging. The savings here were both in direct cost and, most critically in this instance, in time. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SRK would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by its staff and clients in the compilation of this paper. REFERENCES Haines, A and Terbrugge, PJ, 1991. Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability using rock mass classification systems, 7th Int. Congr. on Rock Mech, ISRM, Aachen, Germany. Laubscher, DH, 1990. A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine design, Jl S Afr Inst Min and Metall, Vol 90, No 10, pp 257-273. Steffen, OKH, 1997. Planning of Open Pit Mines on a Risk Basis, J SAIMM March/April 1997.

Massmin 2004

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

41

42

Table 1: Steep Slope Strategy Matrix: Modifiers and Influencers on Slope Geometry Modifiers Structure andGDM Density and orientation of structures will determine the permeability and modify the shape and gradient of dewatering surface Modifies the selection of bench face angles, local geometry, stack and overall angles. Can be a predictive tool for deeper pit sectors. Special pit limit blasting techniques may be minimised should early backfilling be an option. Determines the nature of displacement (acceleration/ deceleration) resulting from the improved blasting practice. Relative benefit of dry versus wet faces will influence blast design and final face angle will determine stack angles. Permits steeper hydraulic gradients to be developed behind back filled faces Determines the nature of displacement (acceleration/ deceleration) resulting from the influence of drainage. Determines the nature of the hydraulic gradient and the effectiveness of drainage Backfilling during Mining Slope Displacement Monitoring Piezometric Profile Monitoring May obtain an improvement of between 5 and 10 in overall slope angle, depending on type of material and slope height. May obtain an improvement of between 3 and 5 in bench stack slope angle, depending on achievable bench height. Assessed Benefit

Influencers

Typ

Key Component

Adjustments to Slope Geometry

Ground Water Drainage

Can have significant benefits from slope depressurisation, unloading of potential failure surfaces, dry working conditions and improved blasting.

Adjustments to slope geometry and mining sequence may be necessary to accommodate drainage requirements

Pit Limit Blasting

Improves slope geometry, reduces spill berm width, and reduces secondary cleaning and accidents from rock falls during bench cleaning following blasting.

The optimisation of bench height and face angle on the pit limits can be determined from geotechnical considerations. Can also modify the influence of postor pre- split blasting Effective for toppling failures below ramps and crucial surface infrastructure Failure of anchors are not crucial following backfilling. Effectiveness of anchoring can be monitored from dis placement records

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Anchoring of Bench Crests

For local bench crest stabilisation, ramp protection and for steepening of desirable slope sectors.

Modification of the slope geometry can benefit the influence of anchoring at bench crests.

Effective dewatering will reduce the design load on anchor tendons.

May obtain an improvement of between 3 and 5 in bench face angle, depending on orientation of most critical structure. Crucial to ensure that unloading has been effective for the stability of both the upper and lower slopes. To ensure that the measured groundwater profile does not exceed the design conditions. May obtain an improvement of between 3 and 5 in the bench stack slope angle for the lower competent material. The benefit will depend on the proportion between upper and lower slope heights.

Unloading of Upper Slope

For cutting back upper weaker material to allow steepening of lower slopes in more competent rock.

Overall slope angle of upper slope will be reduced to produce the required unloading

The relative competence of the upper and lower slope material will determine the benefit of unloading

Implication of failure of upper slope is not crucial. Can prevent deterioration of weak upper slope and protects surface infrastructure.

Massmin 2004

Figure 1: Cost saving in waste stripping (per m of pit perimeter) with slope steepening

Figure 2: Shift in pit crest with slope steepening

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 43