STABILITY GRAPH DESIGN METHOD

A MINING OPERATOR’S GUIDE

Michael F. Neumann, P. Eng.

Neumann Engineering & Mining Services Inc.

Abstract

The empirical stability graph method was first proposed by Dr. Matthews et al in 1980 and
was modified somewhat by Potvin in 1988 by incorporating the results of 175 case studies.
Several other case studies and adjustments by Bawden, Bawden et al, Greer, Milne and
Hadjigeorgiou-Leclair-Potvin have been added in recent years. Since its introduction, many
operators have used this method to design and evaluate geometry and ground support
design for their stopes.

Stability graphs have proven to be a valuable design tool, particularly in larger mining blocks
and with non-entry mining methods. The graphs incorporate a 2 dimensional failure curve
between a rock stability factor called “Modified Stability Number (N’)” and a shape factor
called “Hydraulic Radius”. The paper will introduce this empirical method in practical terms
so operators can understand how the designs are calculated, the areas where errors are
normally made and how to assess the validity of results. This is not intended as a rock
mechanics paper on rock mass classification, mining or support methods; rather, as a
reference for those in operations who may not be totally familiar with the system.

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 1

BACKGROUND

The first Empirical Stability Graph was proposed by Dr. Ken Mathews in 1980. This stability
system is based on practical mining experience combined with basic rock behaviour
observations and principles. In the 1980’s, Yves Potvin was a Ph.D. student at the University
of British Columbia and his thesis involved analysing actual Canadian mining case studies to
verify and validate the original graphs. This Ph.D. thesis was published in 1988 and
incorporated data from 175 case histories of supported and unsupported stopes. Since
1988, several other researchers have added to the data base and have provided additional
refinements to the system.

Because of the long development time and the number of persons involved in developing the
system to the present state, the system is referred to by many names including “Mathews
Stability Graph Method”, “Mathews Analysis”, “Stability Graph”, “Modified Stability Graph”
or as a reference to “Potvin”. Others involved in creating modified versions of the original
graph and adding graphs for support design are Stewart & Forsyth, Nickson, Greer, Milne,
Hadjigeorgiou and Leclair.

USES OF STABILITY GRAPHS

Stability graphs combine a plot comparison between “State of the Rock” in a wall or back
and a “Size Factor”. The cross points are plotted and, if they are located above the curves, it
is an indication that the wall or back is stable. If the point plots below the curve, the wall will
have poor stability and will require cable bolting and/or size/shape changes to a more stable
configuration. These curves are based on actual case studies and have been proven to be
reliable. However, mines tend to establish their own customized curves when sufficient
evaluations have been plotted.

Although the plots are straight forward once the “X Axis - Hydraulic Radius” and “Y Axis -
Modified Stability Number” factors are known, arriving at the numbers requires a certain
amount of geomechanical expertise. The graphs can also be interpreted in a reverse fashion
to determine some of the factors such as “Q’ ”, or, if one dimension for a stope is known or
restricted by sub-level intervals, the second can be found.

Stability graphs have also been adapted to incorporate cable bolt support so a user can
estimate and design a cable bolt system to increase the stability of the stope.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

N’ – Modified Stability Number = Q’ x A x B x C

Hr – Hydraulic Radius = Area of one wall of opening / Perimeter
Q – NGI Rock Quality Index = RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja x Jw/SRF
Q’ – Modified Q = RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja x Jw
A – Strength Factor = Uniaxial Compressive Strength / Stress
B – Joint Orientation Factor = Angle of least stable joint set to the wall being evaluated
C – Gravity or Sliding Factor = Effect of gravity on stability based on wall inclination for
gravity/
slabbing failures and on the joint dip in the case of sliding.
UCS – Uniaxial Compressive Strength of the rock

NOTE: The convention for establishing the strike and dip is always the right hand rule. With
right hand palm up, open and extended, point the thumb in the down-dip direction and the
finger tips provide the strike direction.

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 2

 Figure 2. Stability graph after Potvin

Figure 1. Mathew's original stability 1988

graph. After Mathew's et al. 1981

STABILITY GRAPHS

The original Stability Graph, shown in figure 1, was proposed by Ken Mathews in a 1980
Golder Associates study supported by CANMET. Mathews based his stability graph on the
Norwegian Institute’s Rock Quality Index Q with a minor modification and on a shape factor.
The Rock Quality Rating, Q, was devised with the reasoning that rock stability relied on three
principal factors: 1) the block size formed by the rock mass due to joint sets and calculated
by RQD/Jn; 2) the condition of the joints determined by the roughness of the joints and the
joint infilling properties calculated by Jr/Ja; and 3) external factors affecting the stability such
as the water inflow and the instability caused by lack of confining stress calculated by Jw/SRF.
The modification to Q was to remove the effect of the Stress Reduction Factor, SRF, and
replace it with a factor that more accurately represented the effects of stress on an exposed
stope face. The modified “Q” was labeled “Q’ ” and is called “Q Prime”.

In 1988, Potvin published a Modified Stability Graph based on his observations during 175
case studies in Canadian mines. Potvin’s work was a very important step forward in mining
because it provided a robust system for use in stope design and yielded a way to measure
the effects of cable bolt support on stope walls and backs. Figure 2 is the stability graph that
Potvin proposed and figures 3a,b and c are the graphs used to determine the values for
factors A, B and C. In the original graph, the B factors were set in angle increments between
the orientations of wall and joint, while Potvin created a chart to account for intermediate
angles. Potvin also set the Jw factor to 1 and introduced the sliding mode of failure to C as a
separate case. To differentiate the modified N from the original Mathew’s, the Stability
Number was labelled “N’ ” (N Prime). Since 1988, others have added more case studies
and refinements to the Stability Graphs and also proposed methods for designing support.
However, these changes do not really affect the graphs in any major way. Therefore being
familiar with the Potvin curves provides sufficient understanding of the method for most
operators.

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 3

Understanding the graphs is very straight forward. A shape factor is determined for the “X”
axis based on the area and perimeter of a wall or back and a modified stability number “N’ ”
is found for the “Y” axis, providing a point at the intersection of the values. If the point plots
above the failure line, the face is stable while the stability decreases as the point plots within
or below the curves. Adding support to the face, in effect, moves the failure curves
downward so the same point that was marginal without support would now be stable. An
important point to remember is that each point on the graph refers to one stope face or wall
only and calculations must be done for all faces. In some cases, the end walls can be treated
as a pair, as can the footwall and hangingwall under special circumstances.

Calculation of Hydraulic Radius Hr ( Shape Factor)

The Shape Factor plotted on the “X” axis is based on the relationship between the area and
the perimeter of the face being plotted. A smaller number for Hr can withstand poorer rock
stability factors and still plot in the stable zone. Obviously, the smaller the opening that is
created, the more stable it will be. However, the other factor that Hr accounts for is the
stability based on shape. The area of the face is divided by the perimeter to arrive at an Hr
value. Faces with one dimension larger than the other, even though the area is the same, are
more stable and provide lower Hr value. The least stable configuration for a face is a square.

Calculation of the Modified Stability Number N’

This number is much more complicated to calculate and requires some basic knowledge of
the rock mass and a data base of geomechanical measurements that provide the necessary
values for calculating Q’, A, B and C. The pieces of informaton required for each face are:
RQD, Jn (joint number), Jr (joint roughness), Ja (joint alteration), Jw (water condition that is
normally ignored in dry mines), Uniaxial Compressive Strength of the rock types, in-situ
stresses, induced stress on the face or back and the strike and dip of joint sets and other
structures.

If the results are to be relied on for mine design, the above information must be gathered in
a diligent and consistent manner and the results modified as necessary for each new area of
the mine, for changes in rock type, rock quality or for changing stress conditions. There are
several papers listed in the references that can be used to provide guidance in the proper
techniques for data gathering, determining stress conditions and laboratory testing.

Q’ - MODIFIED ROCK QUALITY INDEX

The symbol “Q” represents a Rock Quality Value in terms of the blockyness of the rockmass,
the condition of the joint sets, stress effects and the influence of water infiltration.
Calculating Q is not difficult once the necessary information is gathered. Because there can
be a variability in the value of Q, even when the utmost care is taken, some users will
calculate a “Best” and “Worst” case for Q.

Q’ is a modified version of the original Rock Quality Index Q that is applied to stability graphs
and reduces the Stress Reduction Factor, SRF, to 1 since the stress affects are accounted for
in factor A, and sets Jw to 1 because most had rock mines are dry. Values of Q’ range from .
001 (exceptionally poor) to 1000 (exceptionally good) but normal values in underground
mining range from 0.1 to 40.

Q = RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja x Jw/SRF Q’ = RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja SRF =1, Jw=1

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 4

Obtaining values for the calculation of Q involves a certain amount of geomechanical
expertise, consistent structural mapping, an extensive data base of values for each rock type
in the mine and measured values for in-situ stresses and rock strength. Commonly, it is the
responsibility of the rock mechanics engineer to obtain the necessary data but some
operations have the geology department compile this information as part of their routine
geologic mapping. It is beyond the scope of this paper to detail data gathering methods but

most mining and geological engineers now receive geomechanical mapping training as part
of their rock mechanics courses and there are some excellent references and field guides
available for in-house training.
Figure 3a. Rock Stress Factor Figure 3b. Joint Orientation Factor
( After Potvin 1988) ( After Potvin 1988 )

Figure 3c1. Gravity Adjustment Factor C for Figure 3c2. Gravity Adjustment
Factor C for
Gravity and Slabbing (After Potvin 1988 ) Sliding ( After Hadjigeorgiou et al
1995)

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 5

Figure 3c4. Determination of Failure Mode for Factor C. Gravity and Slabbing use figure
3c1; Sliding uses figure 3c2. (After Potvin 1988 and Hadjigeorgiou et al 1995)

A - ROCK STRESS FACTOR

The factor “A” takes into account the effects of the stress that the rock at the face
experiences. This is calculated by dividing the Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) of the
rock by the maximum stress on the face. Graphs have been devised to determine the
induced stress levels on the faces but most users today rely on 2D and 3D numerical models.
Before mining, a rock mass will contain a locked-in, 3D stress field caused by volcanic action,
deposition, effects of erosion or techtonic action. In solid rock, this stress passes freely but is
altered to “go around” or “be reduced” by openings, faults, variance in rock stiffness or
backfill. In the case of a stope, the same stress that normally passed through the solid ore
must now go around the opening and is concentrated on the back, floor and ends while the
levels are reduced on the footwall and hangingwall. Care must be taken in calculating this
factor, if sequence mining is being performed, by modelling the stresses in 3D. Once the
stresses on a face are known, A is found from the chart (Figure 3a). The value of A ranges
from 0.1 to 1.

B - JOINT ORIENTATION FACTOR

This factor takes into account how the rock will behave based on the orientation of the most
significant joint set to the orientation of the wall or back being studied. At times, it is not
entirely obvious which joint set is the one with the least factor of safety, since one has to
visualize both the strike and the dip of both the joints and the wall or back. Normally, the set
that is most parallel to the face and intersects it at a shallow angle is the critical one. The
easiest and most common method is to use the chart for B shown in figure 3b. A difference
in dip is found on the “X” axis and extended vertically until the appropriate difference in
strike is found. This point is then extended horizontally to find the B value on the “Y” axis. If
uncertainty exists as to which joint set is the critical one, plot all the joint sets on figure 3b
and use the one that provides the lowest value of B. Another common method for finding
the critical joint set is to plot the poles of the joint sets using a stereographic program such
as DIPS and use the lowest angle between the poles. The actual values of B can be placed
as “cones” in the pole plots and read directly. Some experienced users employ vector math
in a spreadsheet to calculate the true angle between the joint and face and then calculate
the value of B directly. Values of B range from 0.2 to 1.

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 6

C - GRAVITY INFLUENCE FACTOR

This factor takes into account the effects of gravity on the joint or feature most likely to fail.
The reasoning is that gravity will have a greater influence on horizontal surfaces than on
vertical ones. In the case of stopes, the backs are inherently less stable than the walls and
vertical walls are more stable than inclined ones.

The first step is to decide what mode of failure is most likely to occur on the particular wall
being examined. Failure types are easily visualized by considering the plane of the wall or
back being studied and the strike and dip of the critical joint. Gravity failures, slabbing and
buckling can be thought of as free falling once the failure has occurred and the block is in
motion. On the walls, slabbing and buckling occur when the critical feature dips into the wall
from the top – down. With the above failures, the value of C is found by plotting the angle of
the wall or back against the curve and referencing the corresponding value on the “Y” axis in
Figure 3c1. In the case of sliding, the failure block rests on a plane and must overcome the
friction then slide into the stope. In sliding modes of failure, figure 3c2 is used to find the
value of C. For sliding to occur, the critical feature must dip into the wall in question from the
bottom – up. Another method to establish the mode of failure is to plot where the centre of
gravity of the block falls. If the centre of gravity of the block falls into the opening, the
failure is due to gravity and the C value found from chart 3c1. When the centres of gravity
fall outside the stope, then the failure modes are either slabbing or sliding and the user
decides the failure method and employs the appropriate chart for the value of C. Keep in
mind that for the gravity and slabbing modes of failure, the correct angle is the dip of the
face being assessed and not the difference between joints and the face. In the case of
sliding, the required angle is the dip of the joint. Values of C range from 2 to 8.

Recent work by Hadjigeorgiou, Leclair and Potvin 1995, provided a modification to the sliding
graph because their research indicated that in cases where the critical joint dip is parallel,
“C” was underestimated. Figure 3c2 is the Modified Gravity Adjustment Factor Chart for the
sliding failure mechanism. When the critical joint angle is greater than the footwall dip, the
dashed line should be used.

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 7

Figure 4. Print out of beta version software developed Figure 5. When
sufficient case studies are
by CAMIRO Mining Division documented at a mine and plotted
on the
stability graph, custom curves can
be established. (After Bawden
1993)

CABLE BOLT SUPPORT

There has been tremendous research during the past decade on cable bolt types, grout
mixtures, quality control and the behaviour of cables in field settings as well as in the
laboratory. Stability graphs that include cable bolt support have been developed and are
now routinely used by many mines. Figure 6 was proposed by Hutchinson & Diederichs after
considerable collaborative research and field trials in Canada, New Guinea and Australia.

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 8

Figure 6. Support Design Zones for cable bolt support using the Stability Graph (After
Hutchinson & Diederichs)

CONCLUSION

Stability graphs have received great acceptance in the mining industry as a useful tool to
design the size of stopes with and without cable bolt support. Although refinements are
being made by researchers quite often, these changes have been very minor since Potvin’s
modified graphs. Plots are normally made by hand on blank graphs or charted in template
spreadsheets but software packages are now being developed to simplify the process (Figure
4). The most recent versions of the graphs should always be used but the most important
failure curves are the ones developed through experience at the mines. Figure 5 is based on
many case studies of open stopes and demonstrates that the curves by Potvin in 1988 over-
estimate the stability for this particular mine. Care must be taken that geomechanical
mapping is consistent within a property and values of Q’ and the factors influenced by the
mapping do not change solely due to an interpretation by another person gathering data in a
different manner.

After stopes have been designed using this method, it is important that the design be
verified by inspecting the completed stope. Any failures should be studied and the failure
joint sets documented along with the type of failure and location. These points should then
be placed on the graph and the values adjusted for subsequent designs. When many trials
are made in a consistent fashion the failure curve for each mine, or section of a mine, can be
established.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank Mr. Charles Graham and the Management and Technical Advisory
Committees of CAMIRO for their financial and technical support for development of Stability
Graph software and to Dr. Graham Swan and Mr. Graeme Fitz, who wrote the software.
Thanks also to Dr. Will Bawden for his assistance and advice and for sharing his practical field
knowledge using this method.

REFERENCES

BAWDEN, W.F., 1992

The Use of Rock Mechanics Principles in Canadian Underground Hard Rock Mines,
Queen’s University course notes.

HADJIGEORGIOU, J., LECLAIR, J.G., POTVIN, Y., 1995

An Update of the Stability Graph Method for Open Stope Design CIM Annual Meeting,
Halifax.

HOEK, E., KAISER, P.K., BAWDEN, W.F., June 1993

Design of Support for Underground Hard Rock Mines.

HUTCHINSON, D.J., DIEDERICHS, M., 1996

Cablebolting in Underground Mines, p 177 – 235.

MATHEWS, K.E., HOEK, E., WYLLIE, D.C., STEWART, S.B.V., March 1980

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 9

 Prediction of Stable Excavations for Mining at Depths Below 1,000 Meters in Hard
Rock, Golder Associates.

POTVIN, Y.,. 1988

Empirical open stope design in Canada. Ph.D. thesis, The University of British
Colombia.

CIM Mine Operators’ Conference, Bathurst, New Brunswick. February, 1999 10