A METHODOLOGY FOR GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN

- With Special Reference to COP FD Phase 1 Slope Design

Samuel Banda Geotechnical Engineer, NOP
ABSTRACT
The steeply dipping Chingola Open Pits (COP) F and D orebodies; an even steeper foliation in the Basement Schist on the footwall; the
geological structural influence of the Chingola Anticline, a complex thrust related northwest trending ridge of the Lufubu Gneiss and
Schist; and the presence of groundwater; were among the difficulties that have been encountered in designing slopes for COP FD.
Although much experience in design is available from Nchanga Open Pit (NOP) and other satellite pits, it was felt that due to the different
geological environment of COP FD, design parameters could not simply be transferred from NOP and / or other satellite pits to COP FD.
To overcome these difficulties, a design methodology was developed incorporating data gathering, rock mass rating classifications,
geostatistical modelling and stability analysis techniques. The methodology aims at obtaining a better geotechnical understanding of the
structural and geological implications as well as the spatial variability of the geotechnical parameters of the rock mass conditions and
how these will be affected by creation of an excavation. The methodology is both comprehensive in addressing pertinent issues and
auditable.
Although the design methodology has been developed to address the specific challenges encountered in the COP FD, an open pit mine,
its applicability is not restricted to open pit design.

Introduction
The COP F and D orebodies are shallow lying
orebodies which are to be mined by open pit method.
They are situated on what traditionally has been
described as the southwest limb of the Chingola
Anticline, a complex northwest trending ridge of Lufubu
Gneiss and Schist locally referred to as Basement Schist,
BAS (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Surface geology map of the Chingola Open Pits area.

A steeper dipping orebody (up to 45), presence of

groundwater and weaker rock mass conditions compared
to the Nchanga Open Pit, were some of the factors that
had to be incorporated into the design process. To
address these difficulties, a design methodology, aimed at
obtaining a better geotechnical understanding of the
structural and geological implications as well as the
spatial variability of the geotechnical parameters of the
rock mass conditions and how these will be affected by
creation of an excavation, was developed.
Three main phases are involved in the design process,
which can be subdivided into ten individual steps:
A. Data Gathering
1. Review of Previous Design Reports
2. Review of the Geological Plans and Sections
3. Geotechnical Logging
4. Field Mapping
B. Data Processing
5. Rock Mass Classification
6. Geostatistical Analysis
7. Rock Mass Model Analysis
C. Design Formulation and Analysis
8. Determination of Excavation Parameters
9. Kinematic Analysis for Probable Failure Modes
10. Stability Analysis for Bulk Failure

Figure 2 outlines the design process of the ten step

methodology, which is discussed in detail in this paper.

Figure 2: Process diagram of the design methodology

Data Collection

STEP 1: Review of Previous Design Reports

Data Processing

The purpose of reviewing the previous design reports is

to revisit the basis for selecting the proposed excavation
design parameters and to confirm that they are
adequately supported by data. Valuable information can
be gathered from an early stage, which can be used to
identify the strengths and shortcomings for further
consideration in the design process.
In the COP F and D area, four previous design reports
had been prepared. Two of these reports, AMC (1995)
and Hepworth (1997), proposed slope angles based on
very limited drilling information. One borehole, was
geotechnically logged while groundwater conditions
were based on information obtained from two other
holes.
The third report, Leech (1996), relied on geotechnical
logs from one borehole and geotechnical parameters from
about 60 geological borehole logs, to come up with the pit
wall parameters. The final report, Tunono and Murphy
(2001), utilised extensive geotechnical logging data (i.e.
47 boreholes) to derive pit wall parameters.
Design Formulation
& Analysis

No

Design
Okay?

No

Acceptable
Pit?

Yes

Economic
Analysis

Yes

Mine & Monitor

for Compliance

STEP 2: Review of Geological Plans and Sections

The geological structure forms the basis for any
geotechnical design, hence, it is imperative to obtain the
correct interpretation. The geological structure has a
strong influence on the rock mass conditions. The COP
FD orebody lies on the south-western limb of the
Chingola Anticline, a complex, thrust related, northwest
trending ridge of the Lufubu Gneiss and Schist (BAS)
which forms the basement on which the sediments were
deposited (Figure 3). The thrusts are restricted to the
BAS and have a general northwest-southeast orientation
with a northeast vergence, while the sediments generally
dip at 30-45 to the west.
129

Since the footwall of the COP FD Phase 1 pit is to be

excavated in the BAS, an understanding of the influence of
the thrusts and the foliation in the BAS on the footwall
slope stability becomes important. The interpreted thrusts
lie far back into the slope and as they do not daylight on
the slope face, they are unlikely to have any significant
influence on the stability of the footwall. The foliation in
the BAS is likely to have a major influence on the footwall
stability.
Figure 3: NW-SE section orientation showing the structural
relationship of COP FD, COP E and COP C.

STEP 3: Geotechnical Logging

For COP FD, mapping was undertaken in the mined out

part of the COP FD pit and the adjacent COP E pit.
Ratings for Insitu Conditions
Formation

IRS

RQD

JR

Adjusted for
JC

RMRL

Weath
ering

Orienta
tion

Blastin
g

Total
Adjust
ment

Final
MRMR

Initial
Slope
Angle
()

Laterite

2.6

0.7

13.5

12.7

29.5

0.70

0.80

0.90

0.50

14.9

37.0

URD

2.5

6.3

13.5

12.7

35.0

0.70

0.85

0.90

0.54

18.7

39.0

SWG

2.0

9.4

13.5

12.7

37.6

1.00

0.90

0.94

0.85

31.8

45.5

CDOL

3.4

5.6

13.5

12.7

35.2

0.95

0.90

0.94

0.80

28.3

44.0

DOLSCH

3.4

8.7

13.5

12.7

38.3

1.00

0.96

0.94

0.90

34.6

47.0

UBS

2.7

5.9

13.5

12.7

34.8

1.00

0.97

0.94

0.91

31.8

45.5

TFQ/TFQT

4.3

6.7

13.5

12.7

37.3

1.00

0.95

0.94

0.89

33.3

46.5

BSSU

4.0

6.5

13.5

12.7

36.8

1.00

0.96

0.94

0.90

33.2

46.5

PQ/SM

5.6

4.7

13.5

12.7

36.5

1.00

0.95

0.94

0.89

32.6

46.0

BSSL

3.4

5.0

13.5

12.7

34.6

1.00

0.96

0.94

0.90

31.2

45.5

LBS

4.0

4.9

13.5

12.7

35.2

1.00

0.97

0.94

0.91

32.1

46.0

TR

5.2

8.1

13.5

12.7

39.5

1.00

0.95

0.94

0.89

35.3

47.5

ARK

6.2

9.5

13.5

12.7

41.9

1.00

0.95

0.94

0.89

37.4

48.5

BCONG

5.9

8.8

13.5

12.7

41.0

1.00

0.95

0.94

0.89

36.6

48.0

BAS

5.7

10.1

13.5

12.7

42.0

1.00

0.95

0.94

0.89

37.5

48.5

Diamond drilled cores are critical in that they provide

the only window to see the nature of the rock mass prior
to excavation. Hence, it is imperative to ensure that the
diamond drill cores are correctly logged, geotechnically.
The following parameters are assessed during
geotechnical drilling and logging of core: Intact Rock Strength (IRS),
Joint/fracture spacing,
Discontinuity conditions and
Groundwater conditions.
The data collected forms the basis for rock mass
classification, which is an important tool in evaluating
the probable rock mass conditions. In the case of oriented
core, discontinuity trends can be obtained, which are
critical in structural and discontinuity analysis.
It is essential for an appropriate design to establish a
level of confidence in the parameters obtained from
geotechnical logs. For COP FD, the drilled cores, which
had been kept, had suffered some deterioration due to
handling. Hence, to establish confidence, the parameters
from geotechnical logs were compared with those
obtained from geological logs where these were
available. More recent geotechnical logs were compared
with the core to identify and rectify any inconsistencies.
To further improve the confidence levels in the logs, old
geological logs containing geotechnical parameters were
incorporated in the geotechnical parameter database.

Table 1: Summarised Laubschers rock mass rating (RMRL) and

mining rock mass rating (MRMR) per formation for COP FD
Phase 1

STEP 4: Field Mapping

The whole purpose of rock mass classification systems

is to obtain rock mass conditions of the entire area in
which the excavation is to be made. Geostatistical tools
such as those used for orebody modelling can be
employed to model the rock mass conditions of an area
utilizing point and/or line data obtained from drill core
and/or mapping.
The rock mass classification data (from Step 5) for COP
FD was modelled and the resulting RMRB and RMRL
Models (Figure 4) were used to analyse the rock mass
conditions and to obtain the geotechnical zones prevailing
in the COP FD rock mass.

The purpose of field mapping is to collect data that can

be utilized to confirm the general trends of major
discontinuities identified in Steps 2 and 3. Exposed areas,
such as old excavations in the proximity of the planned
excavation, provide important sources of data. It is
important that data pertaining to the dip/dip direction and
spacing of discontinuities are collected during the
exercise. Data pertaining to the condition of the
excavation in which data is obtained must be noted as
well as this can form the basis for justification of the
design parameters.
130

STEP 5: Rock Mass Classification

To analyse the rock mass conditions, geotechnical
parameters obtained from logging and/or mapping (Steps
3 and 4) are processed into rock mass classification
systems. Rock mass classification systems provide useful
tools in the quantification, derivation and selection of
rock mass properties and excavation parameters.
The COP FD geotechnical data was processed into two
classification systems; Bieniawskis (1989) Rock Mass
Rating (RMRB) and Laubschers (1977) Rock Mass
Rating (RMRL). Since the groundwater environment for
the COP FD area is not yet fully defined, assumptions for
groundwater were made in both classifications systems.
These assumptions were based on the available
information. The RMRB and the RMRL classifications
systems were used to assess the rock mass conditions of
COP FD. Laubschers RMRL classification was further
adjusted for weathering, orientation and blasting effects to
obtain the Mining Rock Mass Rating (MRMR), which
was ultimately used in assessing the initial slope angles of
COP FD Phase 1 (see Table 1).
STEP 6: Geostatistical Analysis

1423Elev

1423Elev

1408Elev

1408Elev

1393Elev

1393Elev

1378Elev

1378Elev

1363Elev

1363Elev

1348Elev

Figure 6: Design chart used to determine the slope parameters for

COP FD Phase 1 (after Haines and Terbrugge)

1348Elev

1333Elev

1333Elev
NE0988

1
R

QV

R1

R1

R1

R1

R1

1288Elev

1
R

1
R

1273Elev

1
R

1
R1

1
R

1258Elev

1
R

1
R

1
R1

2
R

3
R

30-40

3
R

1243Elev

2
R

2
R2

2
R

R3

R3

S1

S1

1
1

S1
S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

S1

5
5

S3
S1

1
1
1

S3
S4
S4

S2

S4

S4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

S4
S4
S4
R1
R2
R1
R2
R2
R2
S4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

R1
R1
R1
S4
S4
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R2
R2
R2
R2

R2

1
1
2
1

R2
S3
S4
S4

R4

R4

S1

1
1
4

S2

5
5
5

S3
S2

QV

65
70

S3
R
S 31
S2
S4
S2
S2

5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5

S3

R3

55

R 3

S3

S1
S1
S4
S4

85
80

S2
R1
S1
R
R1
1
R 1
3
R
3
1
R
1
3
R1
3

3
3

S1

S1

80

R
1
R
1
S2
R
2
R3
R3
3
SS 1
5
3
R43
33
S4

85

S1

S1

Q
VV
Q
Q
QVV

85

70
70
70

80

80
80
80
80
60

S4
4
R2
3
R
3
R 12
1
R2
1
R2
34
R 2
R 2
3
R2
4
R

2
R

R1

R1

R2

1
R1

1
R

1213Elev

1
R

1198Elev

2
R

2
R

2
R

2
R

2
R

S2

R2

R2

4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

R2
R2
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1

1
1 11
R 1
2
1
R
11

60

S1

S1

S3
S2
S3
S3
S3
R2
R2
R3
R3
R3

1
3
4
1
1

R3
R3
R3

S4
R1
R1
R1
R1
R1

35-45

S1

5
5
1
1
1
1
1

60

S1
S1
R4
R 4
R 2
R 1
R3

R
R33
R3
R
2
R 33
2
R
2
3
R
1
R33
1
R3
11
R
R33
1
R
11
R3
3
R
R3
11
3
R
1
3
R3
1
R3
1
R3
1
R3
1

1
11

QV

60
60

60
R 3 60
R 3 60
R 3 60
R3

1
1

65
60

R3

60

60

S1

1
1
3
1
3
3
1
4
1
1

QV

DOL
DOL
DOL

1
R1
R
1
R1
R1

R1

1
3
1
1
1
1

R1
R1
R1
S4
R2
S4

R1

2
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
5
2
2

R1
R1
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R1
R1
R1
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
S4
S4
S4

1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3

S2
S3
R1
R3
R3
S3
S4
4
S
R3

R1

1168Elev

QV
QV

1153Elev

QV

1138Elev
1123Elev

QV
QV

R1

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1

S3
R2
S4
3
S
S4
S4
S4
R1

R1

1108Elev
1093Elev

PEG
QV
QV
V
Q

1078Elev
1063Elev

QV

60R 1
50 R 3
45

QV
QV
QV

R2

55

R1
R1

S4

S4

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

S4
R1
R2
R2
R2
R2
R1
S4
R3
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R2
R4
R2
R2
R2
R4
R3
R4
R3
R3
R3
R4
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3
R3

1
1
1
1

R3
R3
R3
R3

55
55
70

QV

55
50

S1
R1

5
1
1
1
1
1

R1
R1
R1

R3
S4
S4

2
1

55
55
60
55
55

60

1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

R1
R 1
R 3
R 4
R 3
3
R
R 3
R 3
R 3
R 3
R 3

R3

1273Elev
1258Elev

50

45
50

COPFDROCKMASSMODEL

55

5
S1
R3
1
R3
1
R 3
12
R 3
2
R 3
2
R 3
1
1
R 3
R 4
1
1
R4
R4
1
1
R4
1
R4
1
R4
1
R 4
1
R 4
R 4
1
R 4
1
R4
1
R4
1
R4
1

10 N

SectionNorthing: 16920
Scale 1:1000

Date: 07 Jan 2004 Drawn by S. Banda

MRMRLegend

NOP LI THO COLOURS ( WI REFRAME)

[0.0 , 20.0] Cl ass 5 (Very Poor Rock)

60
60
60

FW ARK

FW of LBS

[20.0 , 30.0] Class 4B (Poor Rock)

60
65
40

FW of BSSL

[30.0 , 35.0] Class 4A (Mod. Poor Rock)

FW of PQ

[35.0 , 40.0] Class 4A (Slightly Poor

Rock)

FW of BSSU

[40.0 , 50.0] Class 3B (Fair Rock)

FW of TFQ

[50.0 , 60.0] Class 3A (Fairly Good Rock )

1048Elev

FW of UBS

FW od DOLSCH

[60.0 , 80.0] Class 2 (Good Rock)

1033Elev

[80.0 , 100.0] Class 1 (Very Good Rock)

FW of CDOL
FW of SWG

1138Elev
1123Elev
1108Elev

and Upper Roan Dolomites (URD) with RMRL with

values averaging 29 and 35 (i.e. MRMR values of 15
and 19), respectively,
The intermediate hanging wall stack comprising the
Shale with Grits (SWG) and the Chingola Dolomites
(CDOL) with RMRL values averaging 38 and 35 (i.e.
MRMR values of 28 and 35), respectively,
The lower hanging wall stack comprising units below
the CDOL from Dolomitic Schist (DOLSCH) to Arkose
(ARK) with RMRL values averaging from 35-42 (i.e.
MRMR values of 31 to 37) and
The footwall stack comprising the Basal
Conglomerates and the Basement Schist and Gneiss
(BAS) with RMRL values averaging 41 and 42 (i.e.
MRMR values of 37 and 38), respectively.

These geotechnical zones were used to determine the

initial slope angles for COP FD Phase 1.
Figure 5: Process diagram showing interaction between
Provisionary
Geotechnical
Geological Model and Planning sections during the formulation of the
Geotechnical Input
Mine plan
Whittle Optimisation

of

Excavation Design

Mineable Shell Identified

Based on the geotechnical zones obtained from the

analysis of the rock mass model in Step 7, geotechnical
design parameters for the planned excavation can be
determined utilising design charts and employing a fair
degree of engineering judgement. The design parameters
are then given to Mine Planning section who then come
up with the geometry of the excavation. The excavation
geometry is then reassessed for compliance to the
geotechnical design parameters and pit economics. This
is an interactive process as illustrated in Figure 5.
For the COP FD Phase 1, the design chart, reproduced
from Haines and Terbrugges paper (Figure 6), was used
to determine the pit slope angles. This chart has been used
extensively in designing slope excavation by the authors
and has been continually upgraded whenever more data
has become available. Table 2 gives the design parameters
for COP FD, which were determined utilising this chart.
Detailed Slope Design

No

Acceptable
Pit?

Draft Mine Plan Design

No

Geotechnical
Analysis Okay?

Yes

Economic
Analysis

35-37 12.0m

60m

16.8

35-37 12.0m

1078Elev

60m

30

Yes

Draft Design
Ready for
Approval

40-43

9.5m

34
45-47 8.0m
Once the geometry of the60m excavation
has been
determined, based on the design
obtained
in
180mparameters
35
38-39
11.50
Step 8, it becomes now prudent to carry out a rigorous
structural and discontinuity analysis. This exercise is
aimed at identifying possible failure modes. The
orientation of the major structural features and
discontinuities relative to excavation walls determine the
stability of the excavation and their effects are analysed
utilising stereographic plots. By employing engineering
judgement and/or statistical analysis, the likelihood of
each identified failure mode occurring can be
determined.
The stereographic analysis of the COP FD Phase 1
structural and discontinuity data yielded the failure
mechanisms which are summarised in Figure 7. From
these analyses (based on engineering judgement), plane
slide and to a less extent wedge failure came out as the
most probable failure mechanism due to the relative
orientation of discontinuities and the pit wall slope in
various parts of the pit.

1063Elev
1048Elev
1033Elev

973Elev
958Elev
6700E

6600E

6500E

6400 E

6300E

6200E

6100E

6000 E

1. The upper hanging wall stack comprising the Laterite

Upper Stack
SWG
North And
Intermediate
South Side
SWG & CDOL
Stack
Walls
DOLSCH, UBS, TFQ,
Lower Stack
BSS, LBS & ARK
Footwall
Footwall
BAS
Stack

STEP 9: Kinematic Analysis

1093Elev

988Elev

STEP 8: Determination
Parameters

16.8

1153Elev

1003Elev

4.

60m

1168Elev

1018Elev

3.

Laterite, URD &

Berm
Width

1183Elev

988 Elev

2.

Maximum
MRMR Stack
Stack Height
Angle

1198Elev

1003Elev

958 Elev

Upper Stack

Formations

weathered SWG
Table 2: COP FD Phase
1 slope design parameters determined
Hanging Intermediate
SWGshown
& CDOL in figure
60m
40-43
9.5m of
using
chart
4 (note:30bench
height
Wall the design
Stack
DOLSCH,
UBS,
TFQ,
15m was used
throughout based on the
of
the machinery
Lower Stack
60mdig height
34
45-47
8.0m
BSS, LBS & ARK
used on the site) Laterite, URD &

1018Elev

973 Elev

Pit Slope Stack

Area

1213Elev

60

R2
R2
R2

1
4
4

1
R1

QV

60
60

1288Elev

1228Elev

The aim of undertaking an analysis

of the rock mass is
45-60
to distinguish the rock mass into geotechnical zones. A
geotechnical zone is defined as an area in which similar
rock mass parameters prevail. Excavation design can then
be modified to suit prevailing conditions.
Analysis of the COP FD rock mass model resulted in
the distinction of the COP FD rock mass into four
geotechnical zones (Figure 4):
1183Elev

1303Elev

1243Elev

60
60
60
60
60
60
65
65
60
60
60
60
60

STEP 7: Rock Mass Model Analysis

4
1228Elev

1318Elev

75

S1
S1
S1
R1
R1
R2
R2
S4
S4
S2
11
R1
S4
1
S4
1
R1
1
R1
1
R1
1
R2
1
R2
1
R2
1
R2
11
R2
R2
1
R2
3
R2
2
R2
1
R2
1
R
1
R22
1

4
4
11

80
80
80

S4

5
4
3

3
3

S2

60

S1

75

S1

5
5
1
1

S1

5
51

60

S1

4
5

S1

65

S1
S1
S1
S1

S1
S1

5
5
5

55

R 1

S1

QV

S1
S1
S3
S1
S1
S2
S2
S1

5
55
5

S1

75

S1

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

S1

S1

S1

S1

65

R3

S1

60

QV

S1

60

NE0915

1303Elev

1
R

NE0999
NE0469

NE0344

NE0916

1
R

NE0926

NE0930

10N

1318Elev

NE0939

Figure 4: Section 10N (W-E orientation) showing the Laubschers

1
RMR20-35
L classification model and the determined geotechnical zones of
2
COP F rock mass
R

STEP 10: Stability Analysis

In order to perform a stability analysis, the following
steps are taken:
1. Obtain a correct interpretation of the structural
geological conditions in the rock mass (Steps 27),
2. Identify the blocks and wedges which can be
released by the creation of the excavation (Step
9),
3. Analyse the stability of the blocks and wedges
using an appropriate model.
4. Evaluate the design in terms of safety factor and
probability of failure. The risk analysis results can
be compared with the company criteria and the
acceptability of the design assessed.
Limit equilibrium analyses of different slope geometries
for COP FD Phase 1 was done using Slide 4.0, which is a
2D slope stability program for evaluating the safety factor
of circular or non-circular failure surfaces in soil and rock
slopes. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show typical analysis results
obtained for COP FD Phase 1 using Slide 4.0, while Table
3 summarises the safety factors obtained for the critical
slope components of the COP FD Phase 1. The minimum
131

acceptable criterion for the safety factor for pit slopes is

1.2.
Figure 7: Proposed COP FD Phase 1 pit showing the structural
regions, the stereographic plots and summaries of anticipated
failure mechanisms in each region

Figure 8: Section GTF3 on the footwall (east wall) of the COP FD

Phase 1 pit, analysed using Slide 4.0 software, showing a Global
Minimum safety factor of 1.56

Figure 9: Section GTF6 on the hanging wall of COP FD Phase 1

pit, analysed using Slide 4.0 software, showing a Global Minimum
safety factor of 1.28
Overall
Overall
(simplified) Safety Factors
Table
3: Summary of Bishop
the Slide
4.0 analysis results
on selected
Slope
Slope
Section No. Pit Slope Area
Upper
Lower
Overall
Height
Angle
critical slope sections of Slope
the COP Slope
FD PhaseSlope
1
GTF1
GTF2
GTF3
GTF4
GTF5
GTF6
GTF7
GTF8
GTF9
GTF10

Footwall
Footwall
Footwall
Footwall
South Side wall
Hanging wall
Hanging wall
Hanging wall
Hanging wall
North Side wall

1.79
1.58
1.61
1.28
1.30
1.30
1.72
1.78
2.02

1.96
1.97
2.08
2.06
2.26
1.92
1.93
1.30
1.32
1.28

1.96
1.63
1.56
1.55
1.56
1.28
1.29
1.32
1.31
1.38

72
159
174
174
161
155
158
142
147
157

Monitoring the Implementation of the Design

48
37
38
38
39
40
36
39
39
36

The purpose of monitoring is two fold. Firstly, to ensure

that mining of the excavation complies with the design
parameters and that any variations are identified and
explained. Secondly, to confirm that the performance of
the excavation is according to the design expectations.

Rock Slope Engineering (revised second edition) by E.

Hoek and J.W. Bray The Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London (1977)
2. A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock
mass in mine design by D.H. Laubscher Journal of the
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 90,
no. 10, pp 257-273 (October 1990)
3. Rock Mass Classification System (After Bieniawski 1989)
obtained from Chapter 3: Rock Mass Classifications of
Rock Engineering Course Notes by Evert Hoek
4. Preliminary estimation of rock slope stability using rock
mass classification systems by A. Haines and P.J. Terbrugge
SRK Consulting Engineers and Scientists, Johannesburg,
South Africa
5. Hydrogeological Investigation of Chingola Open Pit F by
J.J. Van Hooydonck and P.J. Terbrugge SRK Report No.
299716 (December 2001)
6. COP FD Phase 1 Slope Design Report by Samuel Banda
KCM Internal Report (January 2004)
7. Investigation for Determination of Preliminary Slope
Angles for Proposed COPs D and F by African Mining
Consultants Ltd (April 1995)
8. Assessment of COP D and F Slope Angles by N. Hepworth
KCM Internal Report (July 1997)
9. Recommended final pit wall design for COP D 110m
Interim Pit by Simon J. Leech KCM Internal Report (July
1996)
10. Proposed Slope angles for Satellite Pits COP F by A.B.
Tunono and B. Murphy KCM Internal Report (2001)
1.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Alan Naismith, KCM Group Geotechnical
Engineer for the technical support and for editing the paper.

Conclusion
To undertake a comprehensive geotechnical design
process of COP FD Phase 1, that addressed the pertinent
issues, required the formulation of a design methodology.
Although the design methodology has been developed to
address the challenges encountered in the COP FD, which
is an open pit mine, its applicability is not restricted to
open pit design alone. Since the methodology aims at
obtaining a better geotechnical understanding of the
structural and geological implications and spatial
variability of the geotechnical parameters of the rock mass
conditions and how these will be affected by creation of an
excavation, the methodology should be applicable to both
open pit and underground geotechnical designing.
Moreover, best practice calls for a design process that is
not only comprehensive in addressing pertinent issues, but
auditable as well (Appendix 1). This methodology aims to
address this challenge.
The effectiveness and robustness of the methodology
thus formulated, remains to be tested, since COP FD Phase
1 mining is currently in progress.
References

132

Appendix 1: Suggested Audit Checklist for the Ten Step Design Methodology

A. Data Gathering
1. Previous Design Reports
i. Are they available?
Yes
ii. If yes to 1, have they being reviewed?
Yes
2. Geological Plans and Sections
i. Are they available?
Yes
ii. If yes to above, have they being reviewed?
Yes
iii. If yes to above, have structural and discontinuity trends being identified?
Yes
3. Core Logging
i. Does drill core for the area exist?
Yes
ii. If yes to above, has it being logged geotechnically?
Yes
iii. Are geological logs available for the same core?
Yes
iv. If yes to above, are the geotec hnical logs consistent with geological logs?
Yes
v. Have comparisons with core being done to identify and ratify inconsistencies Yes
in the logs?
4. Field Mapping
i. Are there exposed areas in t he proximity of the planned excavation?
Yes
ii. If yes to above, have they being mapped for structural and discontinuity
Yes
trends?
iii. Have the conditions of the exposed areas being recorded?
Yes
B. Data Processing
5. Rock Mass Classification
i. Has the logging and/or mapping data being processed into rock mass
Yes
classifications?
ii. Has any assumptions being made in the classification system?
Yes
iii. If yes to above, state the assumptions:______________________________________
6. Geostatistical Analysis
i. Has the rock mass rating data being modelled?
Yes
7. Rock Mass Model Analysis
i. Have geotechnical zones being identified from the models?
Yes
ii. If yes to above, are they consistent with geological boundaries?
Yes
C. Design Formulation and Analysis
8. Determination of Excavation Parameters
i. Are the excavation parameters obtained by use of a design chart?
Yes
ii. If yes to above, state the design chart used:__________________________________
9. Kinematic Analysis
i. Has a structural and discontinuity analysis of the planned excavation being
Yes
undertaken?
ii. If yes to above, have probable failure modes being identified?
Yes
iii. Have the identified failure modes being ranked in terms of likelihood of
Yes
occurrence?
10. Stability Analysis for Bulk Failure
i. Has a correct interpretation of the structural geological conditions in the rock Yes
mass being obtained?
ii. Have the blocks and wedges that can be released b y the creation of the
Yes
excavation being identified?
iii. Has the stability of the blocks and wedges being analysed using an
Yes
appropriate model?
iv. Has the design being evaluated in terms of safety factor and probability of
Yes
failure?

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

133