Excavation Engineering - The Integration of Excavation Design, Blast Design and

Reinforcement Design
C R Windsor1, A G Thompson1 and G P Chitombo2

ABSTRACT In the mining industry these tasks are often undertaken by

Excavation engineering involves three key design processes; the
excavation design, the blast design and the reinforcement design.
An excavation engineering methodology is proposed in an attempt
to promote integration and simultaneous consideration of these
three design processes. This methodology requires research and
development of, inter alia, a Universal Rock Mass Classification
System and a Universal Data Display System. Simple examples
are used to explain and illustrate the concepts central to these
components in the three design processes.
INTRODUCTION
The design of a mine, quarry or civil excavation requires
consideration to be given to a multiplicity of interactions between
various design constraints. For mine and quarry excavations, the
orebody geometry, ore grades and extraction schedule are often
dominant constraints. Geometric layout, safety and serviceability
are usually the dominant constraints for civil engineering
excavations. The process of engineering the excavation to fulfil
these constraints also requires interactions to be considered
between a number of principal design processes (e.g. the
excavation design, the blast design and the reinforcement design).
It is known that the excavation design affects the required blasting
strategy and that the excavation design and blasting strategy affect
the artificial support or reinforcement requirements. Furthermore,
an optimal design seeks to maximise extraction and blast
efficiency and to minimise dilution, overbreak and the
requirements for reinforcement or support.
Ideally, all design constraints and design processes need to be
intrinsically linked and to receive cyclical treatment in a rigorous
and formal engineering design procedure. In reality, the design
processes are so complicated that they are usually conducted
separately and sometimes without consideration of their effects on
one another. However, if a simple design methodology can be
developed that integrates design processes and enables their
interactions to be observed, it might be possible to suggest small
design adjustments to various aspects that could improve blasting
performance, reduce excavation instability and consequently
decrease reinforcement requirements. Such a methodology
requires the development of uniform description, calculation and
presentation tools for use by the different design disciplines.
different personnel with a specific expertise who conduct their
work using particular input data and engineering calculations and
then present their results and design output in a particular way.
Although this is to be expected, some form of interaction between
the processes is essential.
In terms of set theory, excavation engineering may be loosely
described as the 'union' of excavation design, blast design and
reinforcement design. Similarly, the amount of interaction and
collaboration between these processes can be termed their
'intersection'. The three design processes, their union (U = ED
BD RD) and their intersection (I =ED BD RD) are
shown schematically in the Venn diagram given in Figure 1. The
ratio of the intersection (I) to the union (U) indicates that two
extreme conditions of interaction are possible. Firstly, the case
where one person (or one group) is responsible for simultaneous
design of all three aspects of the excavation; here I/U = 1.
Secondly, the case where three persons (or three groups) are each
responsible for a particular aspect of design but without
interaction and collaboration; here the three sets are disjoint and
I/U = 0. Clearly, a balance between these extremes is desirable.
Research has identified ways to develop an excavation
engineering methodology that may simplify and improve
interaction between the three design processes. This methodology
requires the research and development of, inter alia, two concepts:
1. A Universal Rock Mass Classification System.
2. A Universal Data Display System.
A Universal Rock Mass Classification System will allow standard
description of the rock mass for use during excavation design,
blast design and reinforcement design. A Universal Data Display
System will allow the input and output data from each process to
be viewed simultaneously. A limited number of aspects
associated with each of these concepts will be explored briefly.
EXCAVATION UNION (U)
DESIGN
ED

EXCAVATION ENGINEERING
The problem of engineering an optimum mining excavation may
be divided into a number of principal design processes. Three
particularly important processes are :
BD RD
1. Excavation Design.

2. Blast Design.

3. Reinforcement Design.
____________________________________________________

1. Principal Research Engineers

Rock Technology, PO Box 1605, Subiaco WA 6904 Australia
Formerly, CSIRO Exploration and Mining BLAST INTERSECTION (I) REINFORCEMENT
2. Principal Research Engineer DESIGN DESIGN
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre
Isles Road, Indooroopilly, QLD, 4069, Australia Figure 1 The Venn diagram for excavation engineering.

Rock Technology
A UNIVERSAL ROCK MASS
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The rock mechanics literature reveals that numerous classification
systems have been proposed for use in rock engineering. A
review of the early classification systems has been provided by
Dearman (1974). More recent classification systems have been
included in an extensive review by Bieniawski (1989). Some of
the better known systems include:
RQD - Rock Quality Designation (Deere, 1964)
Q - Rock Mass Quality (Barton, Lien and Lunde, 1974).
RSR - Rock Structure Rating (Wickham, Tiedeman and
Skinner, 1974).
RMR - Rock Mass Rating (Bieniawski, 1974).
MRMR - Modified Rock Mass Rating (Laubscher, 1977)
R - Simplified Rock Mass Rating (Brook and
Dharmaratne, 1985)
Analysis of classification systems in the context of excavation
engineering yields two important findings. Firstly, many of these
systems have been developed for the design of underground
excavations and their supports; but very few have been developed
for other aspects of excavation engineering (e.g. rock slope
stability, blast design, etc.). Exceptions include the work of
Kirsten (1982), Abdullatif and Cruden (1983) and Lilly (1986).
Secondly, and without referring to any system in particular, it is
not clear that all the important aspects of a rock mass have been
included and properly accounted for. This is one of the arguments
used by detractors of classification systems and one that has still
to be properly addressed.
A common feature of classification systems is that they result
in a 'quality' or a 'rating' for a rock mass that is a function of one
or more parameters that describe characteristics of the rock mass.
In each classification system the number of parameters, the type
and representation of each parameter and the functional
relationship between parameters are usually different. Some of
the differences between the Geomechanics Classification System
(designated RMR and described by Bieniawski, 1974) and the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute Q System (designated Q and
described by Barton, Lien and Lunde, 1974) have been
highlighted by Hudson (1992). He points out that RMR is the
sum of five parameters, Q is the product three quotients formed
from successive pairs of parameters, and that different parameters
are used in each scheme (e.g. Q considers the effect of in situ
stress while RMR does not). These observations may be
expressed in functional form:
RMR = f(Pi) = f(P1, P2, P5)
5 engineering form subsets of the Universal Parameter Set as shown
where f(Pi) = Pi
i =1
Q = g(Pj) = g(P1, P2, .P6)
( ) ( )
3 specific aspects of excavation engineering (e.g. regions V, VI,
where g P j = P 2 j1 / P 2 j
j=1
In these equations, rock mass parameters Pi rock mass
parameters Pj.
Hudson (1992) has described how mechanisms of behaviour
and parameter interactions can be studied using an atlas of rock
engineering mechanisms for rock slopes and underground
excavations with what he has termed Rock Engineering
Mechanisms Information Technology (REMIT). He has also
suggested that a rock mass classification system should be
Rock Technology
developed for each project to properly take into account the
relevant site conditions, the project objectives, mechanisms of
behaviour and parameter interactions. Hudson's observations and
suggestions are especially important for two reasons. Firstly, they
suggest the need for care in the application of the classification
schemes currently in use. Secondly, they hold the keys to the
improvement and future development of rock mass classification
systems.
In the first instance, the effects of the differences in
formulation and complexity of the various classification systems
currently in use may be less severe than might first be expected.
Regardless of the apparent differences, practitioners and
investigators have been able to obtain correlations between the
different schemes and in the predicted performance of
excavations. This partially supports the continued use of these
systems. But more importantly, it may imply valid relationships
for common and particularly dominant parameters that are
appropriate for certain engineering applications (e.g. the design of
supports for underground excavations). However, there is still a
need to improve the validity and robustness of rock classifications
systems and to extend their application into other areas.
In the second instance, Hudson's observations, together with a
need identified by the Australian mining industry, have provoked
the question; could a single classification system be developed
that is suitable for use in excavation design, blast design and
reinforcement design? The answer is partially found in
considering a problem associated with current classification
terminology. A rock mass may be 'classified' in two ways;
according to its properties (e.g. Class 'A' might generally be
massive, high strength, low permeability, etc.) or, according to its
behaviour (e.g. Class '1' might span 20m or stand at 70 degrees
without support). However, rather than consider rock mass
classification in terms of these two options, it is probably more
appropriate to consider it to be composed of two distinct parts or
schemes. One scheme would require a given rock mass to be
'described' purely on the basis of a finite number of intrinsic
properties with each property having a unique definition and
description. The other scheme would require the demand or
capacity resulting from the response of the rock mass to any given
engineering activity to be 'rated' from 0 to 100.
This subtle modification to terminology suggests that a rock
mass could be completely described with a finite set of parameters
or a Universal Parameter Set. Furthermore the demand or
capacity resulting from a particular engineering activity could be
determined as a function of a multiplicity of parameters and then
rated from 0 to 100. These ratings could be termed Rock
Engineering Indices. The Universal Parameter Set and the Rock
Engineering Indices would form the main components of a
Universal Rock Mass Classification System.
The parameters relevant to each design aspect of excavation
in the Venn diagram given in Figure 2. The various intersections
of these parameter subsets indicate which parameters are in
common use and require standardised description (e.g. regions I,
II, III, IV). Similarly, some parameters are only required for
VII). Further subdivision of parameter subsets may be made on
the basis of the Rock Engineering Indices. For example, Figure 3
shows how the Blast Design Parameter Set contains parameters
used in a functional relationship for a Rock Mass Fragmentation
Index and a Rock Mass Overbreak Index. Parameters common to
both indices are contained within their intersection. The existence
of an intersection indicates that fragmentation may affect
overbreak and highlights which parameters are influential in any
interaction. Similarly, the effects of each and both on another
aspect (e.g. reinforcement requirement) are also implied.
This description of a single classification system provokes three These questions demand a considerable research investment and
questions: represent components of joint research being conducted by the
1. Can the complete Universal Parameters Set be determined and authors in an Australian Mineral Industries Research Association
properly defined to describe the intrinsic engineering (AMIRA) Project called Blasting and Reinforcement Technology
properties of a rock mass? The ISRM have standardised and (BART). In this project the concepts of a Universal Rock Mass
continue to modify the description of many parameters Classification System and the interactions of excavation design,
(ISRM, 1981). Although many of the dominant parameters blast design and reinforcement design will all be studied in the
have probably been defined, additional work is still required. context of mine site practice.
2. Can a suite of Rock Engineering Indices that describe the In the balance of this discussion, functional relationships
demand or capacity of a rock mass, when subjected to
dominated by one parameter from the Universal Parameter Set and
engineering activity, be formulated from functional
relationships between the Rock Mass Parameters? one data display device from the Universal Data Display System
Hudson (1992) has gone some way towards this in the area of will be used to illustrate how the interactions between design
excavation design with his Rock Engineering Mechanisms processes can be assessed. The display utility chosen is called an
Information Technology. However, more detailed research 'isoplethogram' which allows visualisation of vectorial data. The
and development is required; particularly in the area of blast parameter chosen is the shape of in situ blocks of rock. Block
design and reinforcement design. shape is thought to be contained in the intersection I but does not
3. Can the Rock Mass Indices be presented in a fashion that will feature in current classification systems and blasting calculations.
allow the outcomes of excavation design, blast design and Brief descriptions concerning the construction of isoplethograms
reinforcement design to be viewed and assessed and block theory are given below. These are followed by some
simultaneously? It is believed that this can be achieved with a
simple examples which show how a feature contained within the
Universal Data Display System comprising a toolkit of graphic
utilities. intersection of the three design processes can affect all three
aspects.
UNIVERSAL EXCAVATION DESIGN
PARAMETER SET PARAMETER SET THE ISOPLETHOGRAM
An isoplethogram is a diagram that displays the isolines (or
contours of the same magnitude) of a functional relationship that
EPS is directionally variant. In a spherical coordinate system vectorial
__ data may be represented completely using rotation in the
V
__ horizontal and vertical planes to indicate orientation (representing
UPS
__ __ dip direction and dip respectively) and radial distance to indicate
II
__ III
__ magnitude. The tips of all unit vectors representing all space
__ produce the surface of a unit sphere called the reference sphere.
I
__
The reference sphere may be divided into upper and lower half-
__ __ space by a horizontal, equatorial cutting plane. The upward and
VI
__ VII
__ downward directed normals to this plane plot as points (or poles)
__ at the zenith and the nadir of the sphere surface respectively. The
BPS IV
__ RPS intersection of the equatorial plane and the sphere is the circular
locus (or great circle) of all directions in the horizontal plane.
Any given plane in space may be uniquely defined by a great
circle on the unit sphere and planes other than the equatorial plane
may be uniquely defined by a unit vector representing the line of
maximum declination or inclination contained within the plane.
BLAST DESIGN REINFORCEMENT DESIGN The upper and lower half-space of any plane may be uniquely
PARAMETER SET PARAMETER SET defined by points on the sphere surface representing the upward
and downward directed normals of the plane respectively.
Consequently, any plane intersecting the rock mass may be
Figure 2 Venn diagram of rock engineering parameter sets.
described on the sphere surface by its great circle, the pole of its
upper or lower normal, or the point representing its line of
FRAGMENTATION maximum declination or inclination.
DEMAND The three-dimensional surface of the sphere may be mapped in
PARAMETER SET two-dimensional space using a variety of projections. For
example, hemispherical projections have been used by geologists
for many years to show relationships between geologic features.
However, these projections are limited to data lying in the upper
OVERBREAK
or lower half-space. A stereographic projection has been used by
CAPACITY
PARAMETER SET Gen-hua Shi (Shih Ken-hua, 1978) for plotting the complete plane
in space. The stereographic projection of the complete sphere
BPS
surface for a regular dip, dip direction grid at five degree intervals
is shown in Figure 4. The projection is divided into an upper and
a lower hemisphere by the horizontal plane, projected as the
reference circle. In the conventional lower focus projection, the
BLAST DESIGN lower half-space lies within the reference circle and the upper
PARAMETER SET half-space lies outside the reference circle. Similarly, any plane in
space plots as a circle with the two regions bounded by this locus
Figure 3 Venn diagram of parameters associated with blast design. representing the half-spaces either side of the plane.

Rock Technology
 1
8 5 5
1
10
4 2
4 2 9
7 6
3 3 3

EXCAVATIONS STRIKING NORTH

1
8 5
10

DIP
4 2
9
7 6
3
DIP DIRECTION
Figure 4 A stereographic projection of the complete sphere
surface.
3
C
2 4 D
B
A regular grid of dip, dip direction on the sphere surface may also
1 5 A E
be mapped as orthogonal trajectories in cartesian space. The
cartesian mapping of a regular dip, dip direction grid at ten degree 8 6 H F
G
intervals is shown in Figure 5. The dip, dip direction of any given 7
direction, plane or half-space may be plotted as a point on the N
diagram. In this diagram the dip of an excavation plane is non-
conventional in that it is taken as the vertical angle measured from
the horizontal to the excavation surface. The surfaces of a number
DIP

of different example excavations are shown in Figure 6. C G

Any functional relationship associated with a given direction, B D F H
plane, half-space or normal may be shown as a density on the A E A
surface of the reference sphere and then mapped on to Cartesian 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1
space, or plotted using a stereographic projection. Consequently, DIP DIRECTION
isolines may be drawn to represent any Rock Mass Parameter (e.g.
the in situ normal stress on a plane rotated through the rock mass) Figure 6 Sample excavation boundaries plotted on Cartesian
or any Rock Engineering Index (e.g. the reinforcement pressure isoplethograms.
demanded to maintain stability at particular excavation plane
orientations). BLOCK ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
The rock mass surrounding an excavation can usually be defined
HORIZONTAL PLANE as either massive, stratified or jointed. In jointed and stratified
180
rock, the intersection of discontinuities with one another create an
assembly of fully and partially formed blocks of rock. The
UPPER HALF SPACE geometric arrangement of the block assemblage will, along with
other factors, affect various aspects of excavation engineering.
Rock As far as blasting is concerned, the degree of complete block
( Degrees )

formation, the shape of blocks, the distribution of block sizes for

Dip
VERTICAL PLANE
each block shape and the distribution of smaller blocks contained
90 within larger blocks will all tend to affect fragmentation, damage
and overbreak. Different parts and features of the block
DIP

assemblage will dominate the effect that block shape might have
LOWER HALF SPACE
on each aspect of blasting. For example, the effects of block
shape on fragmentation are best studied in terms of internal
blocks. However, this discussion will be restricted to aspects of
blasting that are affected by and affect excavation design and
0 HORIZONTAL PLANE reinforcement design (e.g. overbreak and damage). Thus it will be
0 90 180 270 360 more concerned with the external block shapes remaining at the
DIP DIRECTION ( Degrees ) newly created free excavation face.
When an excavation face cuts the rock mass a new
arrangement of blocks is created at the new surface. Damage,
instability, overbreak and dilution may occur as individual blocks
Figure 5 A Cartesian mapping of the complete sphere surface. or groups of blocks attempt to move into the excavation under the
influence of the static gravitational field or indeed, due to transient
acceleration fields initiated during blasting. Block instability is

Rock Technology
particularly common around surface excavations and in the backs
of large span underground excavations and this has prompted the
development of a number of design and analysis approaches. A
particularly tractable approach is to identify and then assess the
stability of the individual blocks that make up the rock mass under
the assumption that they behave as rigid bodies. This type of
approach has become generally known as 'block theory' and key
works have been presented by Warburton (1981), Priest (1985)
and Goodman and Gen-hua Shi (1985). Extensions to this work
and the computer programs used to conduct the block analyses
described in this paper have been given by Windsor (1992). The
block analyses conducted for the examples presented here follow a
sequence of block shape analysis, block stability analysis and
block size analysis. This sequence and its relationship with
excavation engineering are shown in Figure 7.
Block shape analysis defines the shapes of the blocks that may
form in the rock mass from a given structural arrangement of
discontinuities. It also determines which of these shapes represent
blocks with the kinematic potential to fall, slide or rotate into the
excavation. The block shapes that can form may be classified in
two ways. The first classification concerns the 'order' of the block
shape. This defines the number of faces that make up the surface
of the block (e.g. tetrahedral, pentahedral, hexahedral, ....,
decahedral, etc.). The second classification concerns the
'removability' of the block shape. Non-removable blocks cannot
be removed and cannot become unstable unless they disturb their
neighbours or they are broken by blasting.
In a block shape analysis all possible block shapes are split
BLOCK SHAPE
ANALYSIS
REMOVABLE
BLOCK STABILITY
ANALYSIS
UNSTABLE
BLOCK SIZE
ANALYSIS
UNDER SIZE
REINFORCEMENT DEMAND NO DEMAND FOR
TO ACHIEVE STABILITY BLASTING
OR REINFORCEMENT
Figure 7 A flow chart of block analysis procedures.
Rock Technology
into two categories; infinite blocks and finite blocks. Clearly,
infinite blocks are not a stability problem but require
comminution. The finite blocks are split into another two
categories; removable blocks and non-removable blocks. Finally
the removable blocks are split into different types depending on
their modes of rigid body behaviour. Some finite, removable
block types are inherently stable because of the geometric
arrangement of their faces relative to the prevailing acceleration
field. Some block types are inherently unstable (e.g. free-falling
blocks in a gravitational field). Other shapes give rise to possible
single plane, double plane and multiple plane instability behaviour
modes which depend on their size and the shear strength of the
planes on which sliding might occur. Consequently, the block
stability and block size analyses are really conducted
simultaneously in a scale-stability analysis.
A number of useful concepts associated with block size
emerge from the scale-stability analysis described by
Windsor (1992). One aspect of interest here concerns the
maximum block size that can form at the new face for any given
block shape. It is suggested that the maximum size is limited by
either the excavation dimensions or the extent of the
discontinuities which form its faces. Basically, each discontinuity
involved in forming a block will have a maximum possible trace
length that will define the maximum length of any edge of the
associated block face. Every possible edge of each block face is a
candidate that might limit size and one or more edges will define
the maximum block size. When maximum block size is limited by
the extent of discontinuities it is termed the 'trace limited block'.
SUM OF ALL INTERNAL
AND EXTERNAL BLOCKS
OF ALL SHAPES AND SIZES
FINITE INFINITE
NON REMOVABLE
STABLE
OVER SIZE
BLASTING DEMAND TO
ACHIEVE FRAGMENTATION
EXAMPLE ISOPLETHOGRAMS RELATED Table 1 Structural geology data for the three rock mass domains
used in examples.
TO BLOCK SHAPE
Orientation Domain
Structural descriptions of the rock mass models to be used in the Set (Degrees)
examples are given in Table 1. The isoplethograms associated
with instability, overbreak and reinforcement design are given in 1 75/314 I,II,III
Figure 8 to Figure 11. 2 65/201 I,II,III
Figure 8 is the isoplethogram of the blocks which are potential
candidates of instability. The numbers represent the sum of 3 48/272 I,II,III
convex, removable tetrahedral, pentahedral and hexahedral blocks 4 55/162 -,II,III
that may form at the surface of any given excavation plane
(fdi/ fdi) cutting through a rock mass containing discontinuities 5 33/345 I,II,---
from Sets 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. In this diagram the isolines
representing block numbers are plotted in Cartesian fdi , fdi 6 32/073 I,--,III
space.
Figure 9 is the isoplethogram of the number of the removable plotted using lower focal point, equal angle, stereographic
tetrahedral blocks that are potential candidates of instability from projection where the isolines of block numbers are plotted at the
any given excavation plane cutting through a rock mass containing normal to the associated excavation plane (fni/ fni). In this
discontinuities from Sets 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This isoplethogram is projection, the lower half-space lies within the reference circle.

180

REMOVABLE TETRAHEDRAL, PENTAHEDRAL AND HEXAHEDRAL BLOCKS

150
( Degrees )

120

90
FACE DIP

60

30

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

FACE DIP DIRECTION ( Degrees )

Figure 8 The complete space Cartesian isoplethogram for removable block shapes.

6 5
7
8

10

Figure 9 A stereographic isoplethogram for potentially unstable tetrahedral blocks.

Rock Technology
 REMOVABLE TETRAHEDRAL BLOCKS - LOWER HALF SPACE - 3 DOMAINS
90

( Degrees )
60
FACE DIP

30

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

FACE DIP DIRECTION ( Degrees )

Figure 10 A lower half-space isoplethogram for removable blocks from three domains.

Isoplethograms may also be restricted to a particular half-space of the plane). They are limited to the lower half-space and are
interest. Half-space isoplethograms in Cartesian dip, dip direction restricted to aspects associated with the finite, removable and
are possibly the simplest to understand. For example, Figure 10 is unstable tetrahedral shaped blocks that may form at any given
the isoplethogram of the number of the removable tetrahedral excavation plane cutting through the rock mass.
blocks that are potential candidates of instability at excavation
surfaces in the lower half-space. In this example, the rock mass Excavation Design Isoplethograms
comprises three domains, marked I, II and III in Figure 10. The
Consider the design of the excavation in terms of its shape and
structural details for each domain are listed in Table 1. All sets
orientation. For example, what shape should it be and what are
are assumed to have trace lengths of 10 metres, a joint cohesion of
the optimal orientations of the free faces comprising this shape?
1 kPa and a joint friction angle of 15.
Figure 11a illustrates the numbers of unstable tetrahedral shaped
At this point it is worth noting that the structural differences
blocks that may form at any given excavation plane cutting
between domains I and II and between domains II and III are
through the rock mass. Figure 11b illustrates the minimum factor
limited to a difference in the orientation of one discontinuity set.
of safety of all blocks that form. In general, and bearing in mind
Consequently, the isolines through the transition zones I/II and
the grid density which controls contour accuracy, the unstable
II/III shown shaded in Figure 10, are reasonably smooth. The
blocks are bounded by the 'isoline of limit equilibrium' which
structural difference between domains I and III involves
coincides with the isoline for the factor of safety equals unity.
differences in two discontinuity sets and consequently the
The excavation final limits could possibly be constructed to
interface is more abrupt. In circumstances where adjacent
the isoline of limit equilibrium. Alternatively, the consequences
domains are well-defined and distinctly different (e.g. non-
of any chosen excavation plan could be assessed simply by
conformable strata), the interface between domains will be
marking the boundary on the diagrams. For example, the
discontinuous rather than transitional.
excavation boundary for a circular excavation dipping at a
The value of the functional relationship for a given excavation
constant angle will appear as a horizontal line when overlaid on
plane is simply obtained from the isoplethogram by interpolating
the diagrams. A first trial might be to assume an excavation dip of
between the given isolines at the dip, dip direction of the selected
30o in which case, the excavation is probably stable. The areas
excavation plane. The isolines are smooth or coarse depending on
where rock slope steepening could occur and the amount and rate
the nature of the function being plotted (e.g. contouring integers
of incurring an instability penalty would then allow the design to
sometimes raises special problems) and on the discretisation and
be sequentially modified. For example there is little chance of
density of grid points at which the functional relationship is
incurring instability in steepening a slope oriented at 30/060 to
determined (i.e. coarse grids sometimes cause erratic contouring).
60/060 but there is considerably risk of instability in steepening a
In the case of Figure 8 and Figure 9 the isolines were determined
slope oriented at 30/240 to 60/240.
from a computation scheme that evaluates the function on a grid at
Clearly, there are many other excavation design features
5 degree intervals of dip (ranging from 0 to 90 degrees) and at 5
that could be interpreted from Figure 11a and Figure 11b.
degree intervals of dip direction (ranging from 0 to 360 degrees).
Furthermore, it should also be clear that the chosen excavation
This required 1440 complete block shape analyses. In the case of
boundary will affect the blast performance on the boundary and
Figure 10, the calculation grid was discretised in 10 degree
the requirement for artificial support or reinforcement.
intervals of both dip and dip direction which required 360
complete block shape analyses.
Blast Design Isoplethograms
Block Shape Effects in the Design of a Surface Excavation
The block stability isoplethograms shown previously were
Consider the requirement to design, extract and make stable a determined on the basis of static, gravitational loading of the
surface excavation within a uniform rock mass comprising blocks. Clearly, when a new face is created additional
Domain 2 specified in Table 1. Numerous isoplethograms may be acceleration fields may be applied to the remaining block
drawn to illustrate the possible effects of block shape on the assembly. Dynamic excitation can markedly affect the mode of
design processes. However, six isoplethograms are chosen here potential instability and the actual instability of a block.
and arranged in Figure 11. The isoplethograms will be referred to Fortunately, if the excitation driving functions are known then
in pairs in an attempt to illustrate how each pair is relevant to each these effects can be accounted for. Basically, substantial
design process and to the complete design process. For simplicity accelerations would increase the number of unstable removable
the isoplethograms have been mapped on Cartesian dip direction, blocks and reduce the factors of safety given in Figure 11b.
dip space. Furthermore, the isoplethograms are drawn in respect However, for simplicity it will be assumed that block stability is as
to the dip, dip direction of the excavation plane (not the normal to given in Figure 11b.

Rock Technology
 90

60

30

a) NUMBER OF UNSTABLE BLOCKS

0
90

UNSTABLE ZONE
60

30

b) MINIMUM FACTOR OF SAFETY FACTORS OF SAFETY > 5

0
90

60
( Degrees )

30

c) AREA OVERBREAK ( % )
EXCAVATION FACE DIP

0
90

60

30

d) VOLUME OVERBREAK ( % )

0
90

60

30

e) MAXIMUM APEX HEIGHT (m)

0
90

60

30

f ) MAXIMUM PRESSURE DEMAND ( kPa )

0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

EXCAVATION FACE DIP DIRECTION ( Degrees )

Figure 11 Three pairs of isoplethograms for the three aspects of excavation design.

Rock Technology
The potential structurally controlled overbreak from a newly
created face is given in Figure 11c and Figure 11d. Figure 11c
illustrates the percent area of overbreak which represents the
percentage of a given face area that has a propensity to overbreak.
This is the area observed perpendicular to the face and is
determined by calculating the ratio of the sum of the face areas of
unstable tetrahedral blocks to the sum of the face areas of all
tetrahedral blocks. The calculation is conducted at the trace
limited volume of each block shape under the assumption that this
worst case actually occurs. Figure 11d illustrates the percentage
volume of overbreak that might occur from an 'equivalent free
face' volume of rock. The percentage volume of overbreak is
found from the ratio of volume of overbreak to the equivalent free
face volume. The volume of overbreak is the sum of the trace
limited volumes of each unstable block shape. The equivalent free
face volume is the sum of the product of face area and apex
height, at trace limiting size, for every possible block shape.
Clearly, this superficial treatment is restricted to structurally
controlled overbreak and ignores many other factors known to
affect overbreak in practice. However, for the time being the
diagrams might be considered useful if special blasting techniques
were to be targeted at particular regions to reduce the severity of
overbreak and the relative dilution or clean up required.
Reinforcement Design Isoplethograms
The reinforcement or support demanded to maintain stability of
the excavation boundary is of course intrinsically linked to the
chosen excavation design and blasting practice. For example,
steep slopes and large blast vibrations may result in large
reinforcement demand. However, some care and attention may
reduce or completely remove the need for any form of artificial
support. The minimum reinforcement lengths and minimum face
pressure demands of a reinforcement and support scheme for the
conditions of Figure 11b are shown in Figure 11e and Figure 11f
respectively.
Figure 11e illustrates the maximum apex height of all trace
limited, unstable blocks associated with each excavation face
orientation. To ensure stability, reinforcement must penetrate the
rock mass to a 'minimum' of this distance and, depending on
device type, would probably need an additional length for
anchorage purposes. Figure 11f illustrates the maximum pressure
demand of all trace limited, unstable blocks associated with each
excavation face orientation. This pressure is determined as the
quotient of the out-of-balance force to the block face area. The
maximum is taken from considering all unstable blocks and a
'minimum' of this maximum out-of-balance pressure is required in
order to ensure stability of the complete excavation surface.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
An excavation engineering methodology has been proposed that
attempts to improve interaction between three design processes;
namely, excavation design, blast design and reinforcement design.
Two components of this methodology have been identified and
discussed briefly; namely, a Universal Rock Mass Classification
System and a Universal Data Display System. One classification
parameter and one data display utility have been used with simple
rock mass models to illustrate how the interactions between design
processes can be assessed. The parameter chosen was the shape of
in situ blocks of rock which does not appear in classification
systems. The display device chosen allows complete display of
vectorial data.
This study indicates that with continued development, some
safety and productivity improvements might be captured if the
complete excavation design, blast design and reinforcement design
are conducted simultaneously with due consideration given to
their interactions. The development of a Universal Rock Mass
Classification System and the interactions of excavation design,
blast design and reinforcement design form some of the central
issues of a large research project entitled Blasting and
Reinforcement Technology (BART) being undertaken by the
authors in conjunction with AMIRA and numerous mining
companies.
Rock Technology
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Some of the ideas presented in this paper has been inspired by
discussions with Professor John Hudson of the Imperial College
of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of London. We
would like to thank Professor Hudson for his insights, advice and
the stimulating discussions. We also wish to acknowledge our
colleagues Glynn Cadby, Wayne Robertson, Patrick Carden,
Rosalie Thompson and Bob Middleton for their assistance in our
endeavours.
REFERENCES
Abdullatif, O M and Cruden, D M, 1983. The relationship
between rock mass quality and ease of excavation, Bull Int
Assoc Eng Geol No.28, pp 184 - 187.
Barton, N, Lien, R and Lunde, J, 1974. Engineering classification
of rock masses for design and tunnel support, Rock Mech, 6,
189-236.
Bieniawski, Z T, 1974. Geomechanics classification of rock
masses and its application in tunnelling, in Proceedings 3rd
Int Cong Rock Mech, 2, pp 27-32 (ISRM: Denver).
Bieniawski, Z T, 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications,
(Wiley-Interscience: New York).
Brook, N and Dharmaratne, P G R, 1985. Simplified rock mass
rating system for mine tunnel support, Trans Inst Mining
Met (London), A148-A154.
Dearman, W R, 1974. The characterisation of rock for civil
engineering practice in Britain, Centenaire de la Societe
Geologique de Belgique, Geologie de L'Ingenieur, Leige, 1-
75.
Deere, D U, 1964. Technical description of cores for engineering
purposes, Rock Mech Engg Geol, 1, 17-22.
Goodman, R E and Gen-hua Shi, 1985. Block Theory and its
Application to Rock Engineering, 338 p (Prentice Hall
Inc: Englewood Cliffs, New York)
Hudson, J A, 1992. Rock Engineering Systems - Theory and
Practice. London, Ellis Horwood. p.182.
ISRM, 1981. Rock Characterisation, Testing and Monitoring -
ISRM Suggested Methods (Ed: E T Brown), (Pergamon:
Oxford).
Kirsten, H A D, 1982. A Classification System for Excavation in
Natural Materials, Civ. Eng. S. Afr. Vol.24, pp.293 - 308.
Laubscher, D H, 1977. Geomechanics classification of jointed
rock masses - mining applications, Trans Inst Min Metall,
Section A - Mining Industry, 86, A1-A8.
Lilly, P A, 1986. An empirical method of rock mass blastability,
in Proceedings of Conference on Large Open Pit Mining
(Newman, W.A., Australia). The Aus.I.M.M. pp. 89 - 93.
Priest, S D, 1985. Hemispherical Projection Methods in Rock
Mechanics, 124 p (George, Allen & Unwin: London).
Shi, Ken-hua (1978). A geometric method of stability analysis of
rock mass. Scientific Research Institute, Ministry of Water
Conservancy and Electric Power, Academia Sinica, Peking.
Warburton, P M, 1981. Vector stability analysis of an arbitrary
polyhedral rock block with any number of free faces, Int J
Rock Mech Min & Geomech, 18, 5:415-427.
Wickham, G E, Tiedemann, H R and Skinner, E H, 1972. Support
determination based on geologic predictions, in Proceedings
1st National American Tunnelling Conference, pp 43-64
(AIME: New York).
Windsor, C R, 1992. Block stability in jointed rock masses, in
Proceedings of Conference on Fractured and Jointed Rock
Masses , pp 65-72 (University of California: Berkeley).