SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ
ROOF CONTROL, PILLAR STABILITY, AND GROUND CONTROL ISSUES IN UNDERGROUND STONE MINES
D. Newman, Appalachian Mining & Engineering, Inc., Lexington, KY
ABSTRACT
The U.S. stone industry is in a transition from surface quarries to
single and multiple level underground stone mines. The factors driving
this transition include surface quarries;
→ reaching their economic stripping ratio,
→ encroaching on the mineral reserve boundary where the
remaining reserves are below the active pit,
→ dust, noise, and blast vibration concerns as suburban
neighborhoods and development move into formerly rural
areas.
Ground control is critical to the success of a safe and productive,
mining operation. The primary focus of the ground control engineer in
an underground stone mine is the stability of the roof or back,
development and benched pillar stability, stability of the sill pillar
between vertically adjacent mining levels, and floor stability.
Roof stability begins with the selection of a stable back horizon
based upon the presence of a thin shale parting, stylolite, or other
discontinuities from which the production shot can easily "peel" away
leaving a stable back stratum. Room width and the decision of
whether to bolt the roof, the bolt length, bolt type, bolt diameter, and
spacing of the support is controlled by the thickness, fracture spacing,
jointing, and material properties of the back strata. Horizontal stress
controls the header and crosscut azimuth as to avoid driving
perpendicular to the maximum horizontal stress direction.
Stable pillar dimensions depend upon the interaction of the;
→ vertical stress resulting from overburden thickness and
multiple level interaction of overlying level(s),
→ mining height during development and the final mining height
after floor shots are taken while benching,
→ presence of faults, folds, or joints passing through the pillar,
and
→ stone lithology recognizing that the presence of oolitic
bands, shale partings, and bentonite beds create zones of
weakness that can destabilize an otherwise competent pillar.
Floor stability is typically not a significant issue for underground
stone mines because the bearing capacity of the stone exceeds the
vertical pressure transferred through the pillar. However, floor heave
can be a ground control issue where shale partings, moisture sensitive
strata, weak stone bands, or horizontal stress is present. Roof stability
and pillar stability problems can be initiated as the floor heave enables
the pillar and roof to settle.
The ground control issues for underground stone mines are most
clearly presented through a series of case histories. The case
histories presented in this paper are a mix of ground failures and
successful mining. The focus is on the geotechnical data required for
underground stone mine ground control for roof, pillar, and floor design
and stability analysis.
INTRODUCTION
The successful planning of an underground limestone mine is a
balance between rock mechanics, geology, chemical qualities and
physical properties of individual ledges. For each level, the selection
of back horizons, mining heights, pillar dimensions, header and
1 Copyright © 2016 by SME
Preprint 16-078
crosscut widths, mine orientation with respect to horizontal stresses
and the sill pillar thickness between adjacent ledges. A thorough
understanding of the regional geology is critical to underground mine
planning. Regional geology includes structural features (faults, folds),
horizontal stress orientation, and depositional features (pinch-outs,
bentonite beds, calcite or other mineral intrusions). It is assumed that
these items have been quantified during the exploration phase of a
project and will not be discussed further.
Since most limestone deposits in the Midwest and south are
sufficiently thick to have multiple levels, the selection of the upper back
horizon must be carefully chosen because it sets the sequence of
mining for the limestone bed which may be multiple hundred feet thick.
The interdependence of the parameters is presented using case
histories.
The end use (DOT grade aggregate, lime, cement, wet FGB
scrubber stone for power plants, chemical or agricultural lime, coal
mine "rock dust", or filler) of the limestone drives the selection of the
economically mineable horizon. Once the economically mineable
horizon is defined the back horizon of the upper level is selected.
Selection of Appropriate Back Horizon
The selection of an appropriate back horizon for any level is a
balance between;
1) Limestone material properties if the end use is for crushed stone
or aggregate,
2) Chemistry (CaCO3, MgO, SiO2) composition of the limestone if
the end use is an industrial application to ensure deleterious
waste material does not come with the production shots,
3) Geology where a;
a) thin shale parting or stylolite band is present to provide a
discontinuity so the production shot will "peel" away from the
back and avoid "back break" and fracturing of the back,
b) thick bed is present in the immediate back to provide rigidity
against gravity induced sag and if excess horizontal stress is
present, resistance to stress induced fracturing.
4) Rock mechanics where the combination of fracture spacing and
material strength properties ensure a competent back.
The process of back selection is illustrated in a case history of
multiple level development at Mine A. The selection of a back horizon
at Mine A involves the selection of the back horizon for Level 2. Mining
on Level 1 is reaching exhaustion as the workings are approaching
property boundaries. Level 1 operates at 1,000-feet of overburden
with 60-foot x 60-foot pillars spaced on 100-foot centers. The 39-foot
mining height reflects a 25-foot development height and 12-foot to 13-
foot floor shot that bottoms on a shale unit. A 50-foot mining height
was chosen for Level 2 based upon a balance between reserve
recovery and the pillar dimensions required by the combination of the
overburden depth and the stress interaction between the levels.
An in-mine drilling program identified two potential horizons for
Level 2 at 28-feet and 31-feet below the Level 1 floor. Both horizons
have stylolite partings and would easily separate from a production
shot. The 28-foot horizon, shown in Figure 1, was chosen because
there were no significant discontinuities in the interburden between it
and the Level 1 floor. Rock strength (uniaxial compressive, tensile)
and physical property (elastic modulus, Poisson's ratio, density) was
conducted on the immediate back and main back strata. A summary

of the rock testing including the 58% reduction for use in finite element
modeling is shown in Table 1.
Figure 1. Level 2 Back Horizon - 28 feet Below the Level 1 Floor
Table 1. Summary of Rock Strength Test Results.
The close interval between the Level 1 and the proposed Level 2
requires numerical modeling to supplement analytical calculations and
empirical approaches. A two-dimensional finite element model was
constructed along a profile taken through the center of Level 1. As
seen in Figure 2, the pillars on Levels 1 and 2 are not columnized.
Columnization is infeasible because;
1. The different mining heights on Level 1 and Level 2 create
different width-to-height (w/h) ratios and different pillar
behavior,
2. The Level 1 pillars do not rigidly conform to the 100-foot
pillar centers and 60-foot x 60-foot pillar dimensions, and
3. The difference in overburden depth between the Levels
requires Level 2 to have larger pillars.
Figure 2. Finite Element Mesh for Analysis of 28 foot Sill Pillar
between Levels 1 and 2.
The result of the finite element analysis of the 28-foot sill pillar is
shown in Figure 3. The horizontal line in the bottom 1/3 of the Level 1
pillars is the interface between two limestone beds. In Level 2, the
immediate back is bolted with 6-foot long fully grouted resin bolts
installed on 6-foot centers while Level 1 is not bolted. Figure 3 clearly
2 Copyright © 2016 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ
illustrates that the failure develops in the Level 1 pillars and along the
interface between the two limestone beds.
Figure 3. Finite Element Analysis of the 28 foot Sill Pillar between
Levels 1 and 2 of Mine A.
The Level 1 pillars illustrate the development of "hour glassing".
This is the classic pillar failure mode in limestone where the rock in the
middle of the pillar sloughs rendering the pillar area smaller. Because
the effective pillar area at mid-pillar is smaller the pillar continues
sloughing until the pillar eventually disintegrates leaving the bottom
half as a cone. It should be noted that maintaining stability in Level 1
is not a requirement as access to this Level will not be necessary other
than for the Level 1 - Level 2 decline and ventilation raises. The
greatest concern is the connection of failed/yielded material between
Levels 1 and 2 in the sill pillar. The worst condition occurs when the
Level 1 header directly overlies the Level 2 header.
The conclusion is that the 28-foot header is not feasible from a
rock mechanics perspective although from an operations perspective,
the proposed back horizon provides a clean separation along the back
line. This horizon traceable throughout the reserve as it is found in all
the exploration core holes.
The selection of the back horizon was refined to identify a suitable
horizon with an increased sill pillar thickness. Another stylolite and thin
shale parting was found approximately 60-feet below the Level 1 floor.
The results of the finite element analysis are shown in Figure 4. It is
clear that the 60-foot thick sill pillar is stable and there should not be a
connection or failure between the overlying levels should be
anticipated. The Level 1 pillar stability is similar to that encountered in
the 28-foot sill pillar. The Level 2 pillar stability with a 60-foot sill pillar
has deteriorated in comparison with a 28-foot sill pillar. It is likely that
at 60-feet the Level 2 pillars are not in the stress shadow of the Level 1
mine workings and the overburden depth has increased by 32-feet.
Figure 4. Finite Element Analysis of a 60 foot Sill Pillar between
Levels 1 and 2 of Mine A.
The Level 2 pillars shown in Figure 3 are 90-feet x 90-feet and
spaced on 130-foot centers. At this point changes to improve Level 2
pillar stability will focus on reducing the depth of the floor recovery.
This increases the w/h ratio and improves pillar stability.
PILLAR DESIGN AND MINING HEIGHT
Pillar design and mining height are related in that the mining
height controls the pillar width. Pillars are required to support the
overburden based upon tributary area loading. Different than coal
mines, limestone pillars are designed for long-term stability. Although
the failure of 4-foot to 10-foot coal pillars can initiate surface
subsidence and structural damage, the failure of a 60-foot to 70-foot
high limestone pillar has catastrophic consequences. Therefore, a

pillar safety factor of 1.80 is a widely accepted value for limestone
mine (Esterhuizen, et al., 2008).
Typical of all pillars irrespective of the mineral, pillar stability is a
function of the width-to-height (w/h) ratio. Pillars with a w/h ratio of
less than 0.8 (ibid) begin to fail by "hour glassing" where the center of
the pillar spalls creating a concave geometry as shown in Figure 5
(Esterhuizen, et al., 2008a). Spalling of rock slabs is initiated in the
middle third of the pillar where there is no confinement. Movement in
the upper and lower third of the pillar is confined by the frictional
resistance along the interface between the pillar and the back and
floor. The spalling reduces the pillar area in the middle third of the
pillar which in turn increases the stress and propagates continued
slabbing or spalling of rock.
Figure 5. Classic "Hour Glass" Pillar Failure Mode (after Esterhuizen
et al., 2008)
Ultimately the pillar fails by disintegrating and the overburden load
is transferred to adjacent pillars. If the adjacent pillars are of similar
size, the pillar failure is propagated until a barrier pillar or solid area of
sufficient size to bear the overburden stress is encountered. Although
the stress transfer may occur slowly, because limestone is brittle, the
failure of similarly sized pillars can be rapid and violent. Examples of
massive pillar collapse include a Georgia marble mine (Phillipson,
2012) and more recently at a Pennsylvania limestone mine (Pittsburgh
Post Gazette, 2015) where violent pillar failure occurred over a short
time. It provides an excellent starting point for further analysis.
The NIOSH S-Pillar (Esterhuizen, et al., 2008) program is a
widely accepted empirically based approach to limestone pillar design.
Figure 6 illustrates the 130-foot pillar centers and 90-foot x 90-foot
pillars cited in the Mine A case history. It is important to note that
although the safety factor meets the 1.80 criterion for a 50-foot mining
height at 1,000-feet of overburden and the w/h ratio > 0.8, the S-Pillar
program is intended to analyze single level pillar stability.
Figure 6. Pillar Stability Calculation for Level 2 at Mine A.
It is widely recognized that rectangular pillars are stronger than
square pillars of the same width. Rectangular pillars can be used to
3 Copyright © 2016 by SME
SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ
achieve higher recovery in mines where high horizontal stress or
where floor bearing capacity is a concern. Rectangular pillars enable
greater extraction parallel to the major horizontal stress direction in
mines where there is a preferred horizontal stress orientation and
where the horizontal stress is an integer multiple of the vertical stress.
The crosscut width is perpendicular to the major horizontal stress
orientation and is narrow relative to the headers.
Figure 7 provides an example of the preferred orientation of
headers and crosscuts when the horizontal stress orientation is known.
For Mine B, the principal horizontal orientation was measured as
N77oE (Kuhnhein and Ramer, 2004). Mine B had experienced back
falls in the crosscuts that are oriented N26oW which is 13o from being
perpendicular to the major principal horizontal stress orientation. Since
a shift in the mine orientation was infeasible, Mine B reduced the
crosscut width in the unfavorable orientation from 40-feet to 30-feet
and in increased the header width in the favorable orientation from 40-
feet to 50-feet. The intersections were changed from four-way to
three-way to reduce the opportunity for back instability to propagate
along the crosscuts.
Figure 7. Changes in Opening Width and Intersection Geometry to
Address Horizontal Stress - Mine B
Weak floor is an infrequent condition in underground limestone
mines. However, in Mine C the immediate floor in Levels 2 and 3 is
weak. The combination of pillar geometry, overburden stress, and the
regional fracture orientation result in floor heave in preferred
orientations. The floor heave was not well controlled in Level 2 and
caused pillar sloughing as the base of the pillar moved into the header.
When floor heave started in Level 3, the pillar geometry was changed
to rectangular pillars oriented perpendicular to the preferred direction
of floor heave as shown in Figure 8. The crosscuts were staggered so
that were floor heave to initiate, it would terminate against the long
dimension of the rectangular pillars. The approach to combating floor
heave was successful and is identical to that used in Mine B to
address horizontal stress initiated back falls.
Figure 8. Rectangular Pillars Used to Stop Floor Heave.
MULTIPLE LEVEL PLANNING
Many limestone formations are of sufficient thickness to develop
multiple levels. All levels within a multiple level mine should be planned
 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ

prior to the development of the upper level. The location of the upper Mine D is a three level mine terminated at the base of a 50-foot
level within the geologic column and mining height control and thick shale interval. Future levels are planned but at this time only the
constrain the options for underlying levels. Stone quality and physical initial three are of concern. The maximum overburden above Level 1
characteristics are the initial focus as the engineer wants to avoid is relatively light at 196-feet. The mine was planned based upon the
having a high calcium or comparably valuable ledge left in the pillars on Level 3. The overlying Levels are columnized because of the
interburden between two levels. thin sill pillars as shown in the cross section of Figure 11.
Geology is important to planning a single level mine and critical to
multiple level mine planning. Specifically, joint and fracture orientation
and the presence of calcite veins and or forms of mineral intrusion
should be determined from a surface exposure or active underground
level. The joint and fracture orientations should be measured using a
Brunton or Clar compass and corrected for the local magnetic
declination. A rosette diagram, shown in Figure 9 illustrates the
preferred joint and fracture orientation.
Limestone is typically strong so failures will occur along joint,
fractures, or other discontinuities. The objective is to orient the upper
level and those below it so that the headers and crosscuts intersect
joints at an angle, minimizing the exposure of these structural defects
in the mine openings. The intent is to have the joints pass through and
not parallel to the mine openings so they are supported by the pillars.

Figure 11. Case History of Multiple Level Mine Planning - Mine D.

Finite element analysis was used to quantify pillar stability within
each of the Levels and the sill pillars between vertically adjacent
Levels. The approach is similar to that used for Mine A. The layout of
the finite element mesh is shown in Figure 12. Each color denotes a
different limestone bed or zone with different material properties.

Figure 9. Preferred Joint Orientation as Measured in Surface Quarry

Adjacent to Mine D.
Once the economically valuable ledges are identified, the focus is
on the selection of the back horizon, final mining height, and by default
the floor horizon for the upper level. The correlation between the back
horizon (painted orange) as chosen in the core and as it exists in the
field is shown in Figure 10. The next decision is whether to columnize
pillars on vertically adjacent levels. The sophistication of multiple level
planning is directly related to the interburden thickness and rock
strength. Columnization of pillars becomes less of a concern when the
interburden between vertically adjacent levels exceeds 100-feet or is
competent as in the example from Mine A. However, the pillar stability
on each level should be quantified by hand calculation or by the well-
accepted NIOSH S-Pillar program.
Figure 12. Finite Element Mesh Layout for the Three Levels of Mine
D.
The safety factor shading is shown in Figure 13. It is clear that
the sill pillars between the Levels are competent. The Level 1 pillars
are anticipated to spall at mid-pillar with full extraction and the total
mining height of 60-foot is exposed after the floor is taken. A similar
conclusion is reached for Level 2. Here the pillar ribs are more stable
due to stronger limestone and less spalling should occur. However, in
Level 3 the combination of multiple Level interaction and higher
overburden creates a situation where the ribs spall heavily. The safety
factor of the pillar core is marginally stable. The solution is to reduce
the floor recovery in Level 3 from a 60-foot mining height to 40-feet.
This will leave a higher w/h ratio and consequently stronger pillars.
The results can be seen in Figure 14 where the Level 3 pillar stability
resembles that of the overlying Levels.

Figure 10. Correlation Between Mine D Back Horizon in Core and in

the Field.

4 Copyright © 2016 by SME

 SME Annual Meeting
Feb. 21 - 24, 2016, Phoenix, AZ

Figure 13. Safety Factor Results for the three Levels of Mine D.

Figure 14. Finite Element Analysis With a 40-Foot Mining Height on

Level 3 - Mine D.
REFERENCES
1. Esterhuizen, G.S., Dolinar, D., and Ellenberger, J., (2008), "Pillar
Strength and Design Methodology for Stone Mines", 27th
International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, West
Virginia University, Morgantown, WV., pp. 241- 251.
2. Esterhuizen, G.S., Dolinar, D., and Ellenberger, J., (2008a),
"Assessment of Stable and Failed Pillars in Underground
Limestone Mines", Mining Engineering Nov; 60(11), pp: 43-48.
3. Ibid.
4. Phillipson, S.E., (2012), "Massive Pillar Collapse: A Room-and-
Pillar Marble Mine Case Study", 31st International Conference on
Ground Control in Mining, West Virginia University, Morgantown,
WV.,
5. Pittsburgh Post Gazette, "Big Blast of Air Injures Three Limestone
Miners - Roof Collapses, Causes Air Blast That Knocked Out
Miners", April 29, 2015
6. Kuhnhein, G. and Ramer R. (2004), "The Influence of Horizontal
Stress on Pillar Design and Mine Layout at Two Underground
Limestone Mines", International Conference on Ground Control in
Mining, West Virginia University, Morgantown, pp. 311-317.

5 Copyright © 2016 by SME