Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design in Weak Rocks

1

INTRODUCTION

Peter Stacey and Derek Martin

1.1   Background

The publication Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design was produced in 2009 as an outcome of the Large Open Pit (LOP) project managed by CSIRO and sponsored by major mining companies. The main focus of the LOP is international research and technology transfer focusing on the stability of rock slopes in open pit mines. The preface to the 2009 Guidelines state:

‘The purpose of the Guidelines was to link innovative mining geomechanics research with best practice. It is not intended for it to be an instruction manual for geotechnical engineering in open pit mines. Rather, it aspires to be an up-to-date compendium of knowledge that creates a road map which, from the options that are available, highlights what is needed to satisfy best practice with respect to pit slope investigation, design, implementation, and performance monitoring. The fundamental objective is to provide the slope design practitioner with the tools to help meet the mine owner’s requirements that the slopes should be stable, but if they do fail the predicted returns on the investment are achieved without loss of life, injury, equipment damage, or sustained losses of production.’

It was recognised by the LOP Sponsors’ Management Committee that the Guidelines were focused primarily on open pit slopes in strong rocks as defined by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) strength classification (i.e. a grade of ≥R2). As such, it did not fully consider the challenges that are often associated with open pits in ‘weak rocks’ (R0 to R2). Some of the challenges faced by the mining geotechnical practitioner are:

   insufficient experience in ‘similar’ geotechnical environments

   representative sampling and testing of materials which conform to the hybrid engineering behaviour associated with both soil and rock

   identifying commercial laboratories with expertise in testing these materials

   derivation of a representative shear strength

   understanding the sensitivity of shear strength to moisture content, stress history and stress change

   poorly defined and/or researched material constitutive behaviour for large scale unloading

   the role of negative (suction) and positive (excess) pore pressures on shear strength for large slopes in weak rocks

   complex, time dependent behaviour

   managing highly anisotropic geotechnical behaviour

   understanding the role of, and identifying, remnant or paleo-structures on stability.

With the increasing efficiency of mining equipment, the possibility of mining significant thicknesses of un-mineralised overburden, particularly over large low-grade orebodies, is increasing. As a result, pit walls several hundred metres deep have been developed in weak rock and an increasing number are planned. In these pits, failures can have a major impact from both the safety and economy perspectives, as illustrated in Fig. 1.1.

Weak rocks typically require flatter excavated slope angles than are adopted in strong rocks, and these flatter slopes will have significant economic impacts. It is therefore critical that the presence of weak rocks is recognised early in the project development process, because the pit slope design process will not be the same as for strong rocks, and may require a different site characterisation and design approach. This book has therefore been prepared as an addendum to the original Guidelines with the specific purpose of providing a framework for characterising, analysing and designing pit slopes in weak rocks. For the sake of completeness, certain sections of the 2009 Guidelines have been repeated in this addendum, in an attempt to provide a stand-alone text for the practitioner, who may be working in a remote mine.

Figure 1.1 Example of a pit slope failure in the ‘weak rock’ overburden (photo courtesy of Barrick).

1.2   General descriptions and definitions for weak rocks

The term ‘weak rocks’ in the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) classification comprises rock with intact strengths ranging from extremely weak (R0) to weak (R2), with equivalent Uniaxial Compressive Strengths (UCS) ranging from 250 kPa to 25 MPa, respectively (Fig. 1.2). The R0 class overlaps with soils that display very stiff (S5) to hard (S6) characteristics. Consequently, slope failures in pit walls excavated in weak rocks can display behaviours ranging from those associated with stiff soils to those failures partially controlled by discrete geological structures. For this Large Open Pit (LOP) project, the term ‘weak rocks’ is used to recognise both the weak rock strength and soil-like properties as defined in Fig. 1.2.

The five weak rock categories that will be dealt with in these Guidelines (which represent the most common encountered in LOP sponsors’ operations) are:

1.   Cemented sediments

(a)   bedded cemented sediments

(b)   cemented gravels

2.   Weak sedimentary rocks

(a)   mudrocks and lake bed sediments

(b)   chalk and limestones

(c) coals

3.   Saprolites (weathered rocks and residual soils)

4.   Soft iron ores and leached rocks (high void ratio leached rocks)

(a)   weathered and leached iron ores and associated altered country rocks

(b)   leached quartzites

5.   Hydrothermally altered rocks.

These five weak rock categories, illustrated in Fig. 1.3, can be divided into two broad geographical groupings, namely:

   those formed of material that has been transported from elsewhere and deposited either underwater or sub-aerially. Cemented sediments (e.g. alluvium or colluvium) and weak sedimentary rocks fall into this group.

   those that have been derived from the in-situ alteration of a parent rock, including saprolites, leached rocks (e.g. soft iron ores) and hydrothermally altered rocks.

Within the five weak rock categories, the LOP sponsors’ case histories indicated that many of the failures occurred through the rock mass without any discrete geological structure playing a dominating role. However, when geological features were present, such as contacts, foliation, bedding and structure, these features had influence on the mode of failure, often as a secondary process. Within the LOP case histories, regardless of the mode of failure, the dominating failure kinematics were either circular or planar failure, with wedge and toppling failures playing a minor role, as shown in Fig. 1.4. The dominating modes of failure highlight an important difference between weak rocks and strong rocks. In strong rocks, geological structure is almost always ubiquitous and nearly all major failures are controlled by structure. In weak rocks, ubiquitous structures may be absent, and hence, the rock mass can play a dominating role. However, when geological structure is present, it will be weaker than the rock mass and, as with strong rocks, may control the mode of failure. Detecting random geological structure in weak rocks challenges the site investigation strategy for these materials.

In a mining context, weak rocks often form the near-surface materials that may be encountered when developing an open pit. They can range in thickness up to several hundred metres and can hence form a significant proportion of the pit slope. It is notable that many weak rocks (e.g. cemented sediments or residual soils) are relatively young in origin, most being of Tertiary age or younger, as shown in Fig. 1.5, although the protolith may be considerably older, as in the case of soft iron ores and some saprolites. In addition, most weak rocks have existed in relatively stable tectonic environments in which erosional forces have been limited.

Figure 1.2 Range of uniaxial compressive strengths typically associated with ‘weak rock’ geology described in this report (sources: ISRM Suggested Methods; Brown 1981).

Figure 1.3 The five geology categories classed as ‘weak rocks’ where LOP sponsors’ operations experienced slope failures.

At this time, it is not possible to provide definitive classification systems for the weak rock categories because the geological, hydrogeological and climatic conditions encountered at the various mine sites vary significantly. To supplement the general descriptions of the weak rock categories, case histories are used to illustrate the current state of local design practice when these materials are encountered in open pits. The general characteristics of each of the of weak rock types are briefly described in the following sections. The respective chapters provide details, together with case histories.

It must be emphasised that, as with all pit slopes, having a robust geological model is a critical component of formulating a stable wall design. Without an accurate geological model that considers the distribution of the rock types and their alteration variants, including weak layers and zones, as well as significant structures and any residual fabric, a slope design may well be subject to unexpected instability or, conversely, may not represent the optimum economic configuration.

1.2.1   Cemented sediments

The term ‘cemented sediments’ implies relatively young sediments that have been transformed to a weak rock by cementing rather than by induration processes. Consequently, the term covers a wide variety of materials and significant variations in properties that reflect the chemical composition and amount of cementing. Bedded cemented sediments are typically very weak and have a distinct structure, as typified by the Carlin Formation, which overlies several major gold deposits in Nevada and is shown in Fig. 1.6. This type of weak rock can be subject to both rock mass failure and block sliding, particularly if pore pressures are high.

Figure 1.4 The general mode of failure and the dominating kinematics.

Figure 1.5 Geological time scale.

On the other hand, the cemented gravels exposed in several gold mines in Nevada, copper mines in the south-western United States and copper mines in Chile have very little evidence of bedding and are relatively strong. They support slope angles of up to 60° over heights of up to at least 200 m, as illustrated in Fig. 1.7. These materials generally have a relatively high porosity but will remain stable as long as the cohesion resulting from the cementing remains undisturbed. If all the porosity is filled with cementing materials, these gravels can have uniaxial compressive strengths approaching 25 MPa. In these materials, there is little geological structure. However, where geological structure is encountered, it typically controls the slope stability.

There may also be the potential for collapse or severe erosion of cemented soils if the cementing agent is water soluble and/or an external water source is applied to the pit wall (leaky tailings dams, reservoirs and pipelines). Understanding of the cementing agent (calcium carbonate, gypsum or iron oxide) could be very important to pit slope design in these materials.

Figure 1.6 Cemented sediments exposed in an open pit slope of Pliocene-Miocene age Carlin Formation, northern Nevada (photo by Bob Sharon).

Detailed discussion of the characteristics of cemented sediments – both bedded and colluvial gravels in the slope designs context – are presented in Chapter 6.

1.2.2   Weak sedimentary rocks

Sedimentary rock sequences that are weakly indurated to the extent that they can be considered to have ‘rock like’ properties can be the focus of specific mining operations or provide waste overburden that must be removed to access the ore. They include:

   mudrocks or clay shales

   chemical precipitate deposits, such as borates

   chalk and weak limestone deposits

   low rank coal deposits in North America and elsewhere, including Indonesia.

Figure 1.7 Pit slopes in cemented colluvium Cortez, Nevada (photo by Peter Stacey).

These rocks are invariably bedded to some extent and can therefore be susceptible to either block sliding on weak planes or mass failures. When saturated, the fine-grained varieties can be subject to flow slides as a consequence of failure, as illustrated in Fig. 1.1.

Clay shales are notorious for creating difficulties in geotechnical and mining engineering. Their complexity arises from depositional conditions, subsequent deformational processes that induce a defect structure, and clay mineralogy, which determines their susceptibility to deterioration by weathering. The characteristics and behaviour of clay shales can be summarised as follows:

   Porosity is greater than 5% and typically less than 25%.

   UCS is a function of moisture content.

   Because of the stress-release and sensitivity to moisture it is difficult to obtain laboratory properties that are not disturbed.

   There can be a propensity to swell after unloading and exposure to moisture.

   The behaviour can be sensitive to moisture, with resulting slaking.

   The shales contains clay minerals, such as smectites, in the matrix and in some cases resulting in weak layers concentrated in thin beds. Slopes in these clay shales often fail on these weak layers.

   Slopes cut in these materials are prone to time-dependent weakening and progressive failure.

Consequently, the performance of slopes excavated in clay shales can be highly variable. Figure 1.8 illustrates the general behaviour of clay shale slopes exposed in a pit wall. It is common for the pit slopes to display excessive deformations (Cooper et al. 2011) and for the benches to gradually deteriorate with time. These weak sedimentary rocks are described in Chapter 7.

Figure 1.8 Example of the behaviour and appearance of mudrocks slopes in an open pit. Note the deterioration of the grey mudrocks benches from excessive movement in the top photo and the surface weathering/deterioration of the mudrock benches in the lower photo (photos by Marc Ruest and Josef Ekkerd).

1.2.3   Saprolites: weathered rock and residual soil

In contrast to the transported sediments, saprolites (residual soil and weathered rock) are derived from in-situ weathering and decomposition of rock by interacting physical and chemical (including biological) processes. Weathering results in the formation of a vertical profile, represented by a succession of zones (horizons) having differing chemical, mineralogical and/or physical characteristics. As the parent rock weathers, its original fabric is initially retained, but new fabrics develop in upper horizons by collapse, consolidation and the formation of secondary structures. In extreme cases the original fabric may be totally destroyed and the mineralogy completely changed.

The geological origin of residual soils is different than for transported soils and is reflected in the differences in behaviour of these two materials. In transported soils, sediment deposition leads to self-weight consolidation, and its stress history plays a key role in the material characteristics and behaviour. On the other hand, the formation of residual soils involves stages of weathering that essentially convert fresh rock into small particles and clay minerals. This can produce a less dense and weaker material as weathering progresses.

In stable continental regions, saprolite profiles ranging from as little as 3 m to in excess of 100 m have developed over periods of millions to tens of millions of years, generally under humid subtropical to tropical climates. These deep weathering profiles are the most significant in an engineering context. They consist of materials having a wide range of compositions and physical properties, depending on the original bedrock lithology, weathering processes and weathering history. This heterogeneity, varying from soil to unweathered rock, can present significant challenges to slope designers and pit operators. Deere and Patton (1971) gave an excellent description of residual soil and weathered rock and emphasised that the key to understanding the stability of slopes in residual soils lies in recognising the roles of weathering profiles, groundwater and relict structures. Figure 1.9 shows the general description of residual soil and weathered rock proposed by Little (1969) with the nomenclature that was proposed by the Tropical Residual Soils Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party Report (Fookes 1990).

Figure 1.9 Generalised diagram of residual soils and weathered rocks (modified from Little 1969).

As illustrated in Fig. 1.9, the structure of the parent rock, which is generally referred to as ‘relict structures’, becomes more important with depth as the behaviour becomes more rock-like. Hence the challenge with residual soils and weathered rock is developing methodology for describing this overlapping soil and rock behaviour.

Saprolitic materials can frequently be excavated without blasting, and steep bench faces can be achieved using either excavators or through dozing, as shown in Fig. 1.10. The steep faces can have a significant advantage in tropical climates, because they promote rainfall runoff and minimise surface area exposed to erosion. However, this approach requires a robust surface water management strategy to prevent concentrated flows, which can result in severe erosion of these weak materials (Beale and Read 2013).

Figure 1.10 Dozer cut slope in saprolites in a Brazilian iron mine (photo by Peter Stacey).

Figure 1.11 Example of open pit mining in residual soils and weathered rock. The material in the top two benches is excavated and treated as a soil. The contact with the slightly weathered rock is evident in the bottom bench (photo by Peter Stacey).

In less-weathered saprolites, the relict structure and fabric of the rock mass introduces anisotropy. It is not uncommon for the weathering front to follow the original rock structure so that the vertical depth of weathering can vary significantly. In these situations, the weathering reduces the rock mass strength and the strength of the discontinuities.

In open pit operations, the ‘soil-like’ behaviour that can be encountered when mining the more highly weathered rock is illustrated in Fig. 1.11. Although mechanical excavation of the slopes may be straightforward in these materials, characterising them, and establishing their short- and long-term behaviour as a basis for slope designs, remains challenging, as is discussed in detail in Chapter 9.

1.2.4   Soft iron ores and leached rocks

Leached rocks are characterised by the removal of certain minerals by supergene or, less frequently, hypogene processes to form a material with a relatively high void ratio. Probably the most prolific material of this type found in open pit mines is the soft iron ores resulting from the leaching of Precambrian banded iron ores (itabirites), but other examples can be found in leached quartzites, in saprolites and in ‘vuggy silica’ alteration zones associated with some hydrothermal gold deposits. Regardless of the process or the initial material, weakly cemented grains and a high porosity characterise the resulting leached material.

The friable variants of high grade iron ores (soft iron ores) formed by the leaching of Precambrian itabirites are found in large deposits in tropical countries, notably Brazil, Guinea and other West African countries. To a lesser extent, they are also present in non-tropical countries including Canada and Australia. These high-grade iron ores are given different local terms around the world, but can generally be classified as follows:

   powder ore – totally disaggregated iron oxide grains

   friable ore – iron oxide grains cemented by either re-mobilised iron oxide or carbonate

   medium ore – a mixture of friable ore and compact ore

   compact ore – massive iron oxide.

Typically, the iron oxide is hematite or martite, often derived from oxidation of magnetite in the original itabirites.

There have been several examples of very rapid pit slope failures, many of which had long run-out paths, in the soft iron ores in the Iron Quadrangle in Minas Gerais state in Brazil. Probably the most notable was the failure of the Patrimônio slope in the Águas Claras open pit in 1992. Since the Águas Claras failure, it has been recognised that particular attention must be focused on pit slopes in soft iron ores, which can extend to depths of several hundred metres and can be subject to catastrophic ‘collapse-type’ failures. In many of the deeper pits, soft iron ore forms the lower section of walls and on occasion it is necessary to leave sections of soft iron ore on pit walls for economic reasons. It is therefore essential to have a full understanding of the strength characteristics of these materials when they are subjected to the stresses experienced in high pit slopes. This has been reinforced by other failures in the Brazilian iron ore open pits, most of which have involved some degree of structural control (sliding on foliation or on weak contacts within the country rock) combined with ‘brittle’ mass failure through the iron ore.

The intense leaching and chemical weathering that formed the soft iron ores in the Iron Quadrangle of Brazil and in West Africa has had a significant impact on the associated country rocks. This is particularly true where the associated rocks are metamorphosed argillic sedimentary rocks such as phyllites. Where the associated rocks are metavolcanics, such as in the Carajás region of Brazil, the alteration is less intense and less widespread. The alteration of the meta-sediments typically produces weak to very weak rocks, with ISRM values in the range of R0 to R1/R2. In extreme cases, the alteration results in soil-like properties for the phyllites, but more generally they remain foliated, but with UCS of less than 5 MPa, and a clear strength anisotropy; this gives them similar characteristics to saprolites. These materials can extend to depths of several hundred metres, and, as such, can form significant wall heights in some of the large open pits.

Leaching of quartzites, including those associated with the soft iron ores, can also produce weak rocks with a high void ratio, which can be subject to collapse, with the formation of flow slides.

Leached rocks, particularly the soft iron ores and associated altered sediments, are discussed in detail in Chapter 10.

1.2.5   Hydrothermally altered rocks

The alteration associated with intrusive or hydrothermal ore bodies can result in a wide variety of changes to the host rock. The most dramatic and wide-ranging effects of hydrothermal alteration are on the intact rock and rock mass, in which the rock is chemically changed, with resulting different engineering behaviour characteristics (Fig. 1.12).

Alteration associated with hydrothermal deposits can be highly variable and can either decrease or increase the strength of the host rocks. Argillic alteration almost invariably significantly reduces the strength of the original rock, partially or completely destroying any structural fabric, and creating rocks with intact strengths of less than R2 on the ISRM scale. This strength reduction is associated with the clay minerals, which can range from kaolinite and illite to montmorillonite. As a result, shear strengths can be rather variable, with friction angles ranging from as low as 8 to 14° and variable cohesion. Hence there is a need to classify the argillic alteration in terms of both mineralogy and degree so that those areas with the clay minerals can be identified and treated appropriately. Even with intense alteration, relict structures can also play a significant role in pit slope stability.

Figure 1.12 Example of a pit slope in argillic alteration and the clay observed in the core (photos by Derek Martin).

The clay mineralogy associated with the argillic alteration also results in very low permeability. Sullivan (2007), and more recently Beale and Read (2013), reviewed the hydro-mechanical coupling in pit slopes, and note that this coupling becomes more important in altered rocks in which the low permeabilities almost invariably prevent rapid depressurisation by normal means. Horizontal drain holes tend to be less effective due to the fact that they cannot be installed until the slope has been excavated, and pumping wells normally show low effectiveness. Consequently, most slopes in argillic altered materials have to be designed assuming high pore pressures, for which remediation options may be limited.

Besides argillisation, hydrothermal alteration also includes leaching to form high void ratio materials from both quartz-rich rocks and carbonates. In the case of the siliceous rocks, ‘vuggy silica’ can be a cemented material that is friable, that has the capacity to retain relatively steep slopes unless it is disturbed. These aspects are discussed in Chapter 11.

1.3   Slope design terminology

This section introduces the terminology typically used in the slope design process and presents a case for standardising this terminology, particularly with relation to slope movements and instability. It is repeated from the 2009 Guidelines for the sake of completion.

1.3.1   Slope configurations

The standard terminology used to describe the geometric arrangement of the benches and haul road ramps on the pit wall is illustrated in Fig. 1.13.

It should be noted that terminology related to the slope elements varies by geographic regions. Some important examples include the following:

   Bench face (North America) = batter (Australia).

   Bench (North America) = berm (Australia). The horizontal area between bench faces used for rockfall catchment. The adjective ‘catch’ or ‘safety’ is often added in front of the term in either area.

   Berm (North America) = windrow (Australia). Rock piles placed along the toe of a bench face to increase rockfall catchment and/or along the crest of benches to prevent personnel and equipment falling over the face below. Note the potential confusion with the use of the term ‘berm’ for a horizontal surface.

   Bench stack. A group of benches between wider horizontal areas (e.g. ramps or wider berms left for geotechnical purposes).

Note that the bench face angles are defined between the toe and crest of each bench, whereas the inter-ramp slope angles between the haul roads/ramps are defined by the line of the bench toes. The overall slope angle is always measured from the toe of the slope to the highest crest (Fig. 1.13).

Another aspect of terminology that can cause confusion is the definition of slope orientations. Slope designers usually work on the basis of the direction that the slope faces (dip direction), because this is the basis of kinematic analyses. On the other hand, mine planning programs usually require input in terms of the wall sector azimuth, which is at 180° to the direction that the slope faces; that is, a slope facing/dipping towards 270° has an azimuth of 090° (inset, Fig. 1.13). It is therefore important that the convention adopted is clearly understood by all users and is applied consistently.

Figure 1.13 Slope design terminology (source: Read and Stacey 2009).

1.3.2   Instability

The increased ability to detect small movements in slopes and to manage instability gives rise to a need for greater precision in terminology. Previously, significant movement in a slope was frequently referred to in somewhat alarmist terms as ‘failure’ (e.g. failure mode), even if the movement could be managed. It is now appropriate to be more specific about the level of movement and instability, using the definitions that recognise progression of slope movement in the following order of severity.

1.3.2.1   Unloading response

Initial movements in the slope are often associated with stress relaxation of the slope as it is excavated and the confinement provided by the rock has been removed. This type of movement may be linear elastic. It occurs in every excavated slope and is not necessarily symptomatic of instability. It is typically small relative to the size of the slope and, although it can be detected by instruments, does not necessarily exhibit surface cracking. The deformation often slows or stops when mining is suspended. In itself, unloading response does not lead to instability or large-scale movement.

1.3.2.2   Movement or dilation

This is considered to be the first clear evidence of instability, with associated formation of cracks and other visible signs, such as heaving at the toe (base) of the slope. The movement generally results from sliding along a surface or surfaces, which may be formed by geological structures (e.g. bedding plane, fault), or a combination of these with a zone of weakness in the material forming the slope.

Slope dilation may take the form of a constant creep in which the rate of displacement is slow and constant. More frequently, there can be acceleration as the strength on the sliding surface is reduced. In certain cases, the displacement may decrease with time as influencing factors (slope configuration, groundwater pressures) change. Even though it is moving, the slope retains its general original configuration, although there may be varying degrees of cracking.

Mining can often continue safely if a detailed monitoring program is established to manage the slope performance, particularly if the movement rates are low and the causes of instability can be clearly defined. However, if there is no intervention, such as depressurisation of the slope, modification of the slope configuration or cessation of mining, the movement can lead to eventual failure. This could occur as strengths along the sliding surface reduce to residual levels or if additional external factors, such as rainfall, negatively affect the stress distribution in the slope.

1.3.2.3   Failure

A slope can be considered to have failed when displacement has reached a level where the intended function cannot be met, such as when ramp access across the slope is no longer possible, or it is no longer safe to operate.

The terms ‘failure’ and ‘collapse’ have been used synonymously when referring to open pit slopes, particularly when the failure occurs rapidly. In the case of a ‘progressive failure’ model, failure of a pit slope occurs when ‘the displacement will continue to accelerate to a point of collapse (or greatly accelerated movement)’ (Call 1992). During and after failure or collapse of the slope, the original design configuration is normally completely destroyed. Continued mining almost always involves modification of the slope configuration, either through flattening of the wall from the crest or by stepping out at the toe. This typically results in increased stripping (removal) of waste and/or loss of ore, with significant financial repercussions.

The application of a consistent terminology such as that outlined above is essential to establish a more precise explanation of the condition of a slope for non-practitioners such as management and other stakeholders.

1.4   Design implications

The descriptions given in previous sections highlight the characteristics of weak rocks that can potentially lead to issues for slope designers and pit operators. It is clear from these descriptions that the behaviour of weak rocks results in slope performance that may differ significantly from the performance of slopes in strong rocks. Table 1.1 summarises the primary characteristics of each weak rock type that can influence pit slope behaviour.

The Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design (Read and Stacey 2009) describe in detail the design process. One of the key elements is the geotechnical model, which is developed using four component models, namely:

   the geological model

   the structural model

   the rock mass model (material properties)

   the hydrogeological model.

When developing the geotechnical model, it is necessary to consider both past and potential future failure modes to ensure that key geotechnical processes that could influence pit slope stability are identified. The approaches involved for each of the model components are similar to those outlined in detail in the 2009 Guidelines, although the emphasis is different. A requirement to have a robust geological model that describes the morphology and distribution of the various lithological units and alteration types remains a key foundation block to the geotechnical model for weak rocks. Although weak rocks may not contain multiple joint sets like strong rocks, major geological structures such as faults can often still play a significant role in controlling the stability of weak rock slopes. These geological structures often take the form of thin pre-sheared surfaces or contacts and relict structures. Joints, where present, typically have strength properties similar to those of the rock mass.

An additional complexity to the geotechnical model is the role of geomorphology in controlling the shear strength of the weak rocks. Ancient paleo-channels and deep weather rocks are often a source of surprise when forming pit walls because they are often localised, have weak shear strength and behave as soil rather than rock.

A key factor and major challenge in the design of weak rock slopes is the identification of the critical failure mechanism/s and definition of material characteristics that influence design (shear strength peak/residual, strain weakening/hardening, undrained/drained shear strength, unsaturated/saturated, etc.). The behaviour of these materials typically falls on the boundary between rock and soil and hence often requires novel approaches to predict stability.

Representative or ‘undisturbed’ sampling of weak rocks for the purposes of defining material characteristics of weak rocks can pose unique challenges in a field investigation program. Conventional diamond drilling processes can lead to excessive core-loss, introduce moisture and drilling fluids and cause loss of confinement/disturbance, resulting in a less than representative sample. Sampling and exploration techniques are discussed further in detail in Chapter 2.

Table 1.1: General ground types encompassed by the term weak rocks and characteristics that influence the behaviour of pit slopes.

Note: Pore pressures can play a significant role in slope behaviour in all material types.

Typically, shear strengths in weak rocks are highly dependent on geological history, pore pressures and mineralogy, as is discussed in detail in Chapter 3. The shear strength is usually described using a linear Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope. Such envelopes developed from laboratory tests often show a cohesion intercept. In strong rocks, this cohesion intercept is much larger than is found in weak rocks, often differing by an order of magnitude, and is typically classed as ‘true cohesion’. In weak rocks, the cohesion intercept in laboratory tests can result from chemical bonding (calcium CaCO3, iron oxide, etc.), chemical attraction, partial saturation and geometric interlocking. When using the failure envelopes developed from laboratory tests on weak rocks, it is extremely important to establish if the cohesion is an artefact of the testing methodology or is an intrinsic strength component that can be relied on over the life of the pit wall.

Weak rocks show wider variations in hydraulic properties than strong rocks, reflecting the contributions from porous media flow and fracture flow controls, respectively. The more porous weak rocks (soft iron ores, cemented gravels, etc.) can exhibit high hydraulic conductivity, whereas clay-rich materials such as saprolites and mudrocks can have extremely low and highly anisotropic permeability, as discussed in Chapter 4. Further, in areas of high rainfall, the potential slakeability and erodibility of the weak rocks places significant emphasis on the requirements for surface water control measures as an integral part of the slope designs.

The rationale for applying design acceptance criteria such as Factors of Safety to a weak rock mass, that could be subject to time-dependent or strain-dependent behaviour and the evolution of pore pressures with time, is not straightforward. This phenomenon has long been recognised in soils engineering, where acceptance criteria, particularly Factors of Safety, are often increased to reflect this uncertainty. One approach that is often proposed to reduce the risks associated with low Factors of Safety is Peck’s Observational Method (Peck 1969). While the Observational Method can reduce risks, it requires well thought out monitoring programs and detailed contingency plans for implementing changes should the instrumentation indicate unacceptable risks. In a mining environment, monitoring of the key parameters linked to judging the risks can be challenging (e.g. maintaining piezometers during a pushback). The difference in design acceptance criteria between strong rocks and weak rocks is discussed in detail in Chapter 5, as part of the overall design process for weak rock slopes.

The process involved in the design of weak rock slopes, which is described in detail in Chapter 5, generally differs from the process for strong rocks in that the ‘capacity’ or strength/behaviour of the rocks is often the controlling factor in the design and that structural fabric often plays a subservient role, if it is involved at all. In consequence, the basic design configuration is the stability of the larger scale slopes – generally the overall slope, but occasionally the inter-ramp slope sectors. This is illustrated in Fig. 1.14, which provides a general flow chart for the design of weak rock slopes.

For most weak rock slopes, the process involves a determination of the overall, or at least the inter-ramp, slope angles that will meet the design acceptance criteria for stability (i.e. the required Factor of Safety or probability of failure). This involves consideration of the weak rock strength, major structures and pore pressures as the controlling factors. This process differs from the typical approach taken with strong rock slopes, where structural fabric (joints and minor shears, etc.) play a major role in the definition of the bench configuration, which is the basic unit in the slope design process as outlined in the Guidelines (Read and Stacey 2009).

For weak rock slopes, where the controlling factor is the overall or inter-ramp slope stability, the resulting slope angles are generally sufficiently shallow that the bench configurations can be accommodated into the overall slope configuration.

In the following chapters, the characteristics that should be considered when developing a geotechnical model for pit slope designs for the respective categories of weak rocks are highlighted.

Figure 1.14 General flow chart for the design of weak rock slopes.

The process outlined in Fig. 1.14 is generally applicable through the various design stages of a project development as defined in the 2009 Guidelines, namely:

   conceptual study (Level 1)

   pre-feasibility (Level 2)

   feasibility (Level 3)

   design and construction (Level 4)

   operations (Level 5)

   closure (Level 6).

The mine planning requirements for slope design at each of these levels is discussed in Chapter 12.

1.5   Design implementation

In many other aspects, the design and implementation of pit slopes in weak rocks follows similar procedures to those described in detail in the 2009 Guidelines. In consequence, these procedures will only be noted here for the sake of completeness with discussion of any variations required to consider the lower material strengths or other properties.

Typically, weak rocks do not respond well to pre-shear blasting, and other controlled blasting methods are required to minimise blast damage to the slopes. Similarly, alternative excavation measures to those used in strong rock mines are required to establish acceptable slopes. These factors are discussed in detail in Chapter 12.

Monitoring programs for weak rock slopes must be tailored to the anticipated failure modes, which can vary from brittle (and therefore extremely rapid) in the case of collapsible materials such as soft iron ores, to the creep displacements that are normally associated with mudrocks and argillically altered rocks. The monitoring requirements for weak rock slopes are also discussed in Chapter 12.

2

FIELD DATA COLLECTION AND METHODOLOGY

Peter Stacey and Derek Martin

2.1   Introduction

The weak rock geotechnical model, with its four components (the geological, structural, rock mass and hydrogeological models), is the cornerstone of open pit slope design in weak rocks (Fig. 2.1). The development of this model follows the same requirements outlined by Read and Stacey (2009).

‘Populating the geotechnical model with relevant field data requires not only keen observations and attention to detail, but also strict adherence to field data gathering protocols from day one in the development of the project. In this process, it is expected that the reader will be aware of the wide variety of traditional and newly developed data collection methods available to the industry. Nonetheless, it cannot be emphasised enough that those who are responsible for project site investigations must be aware of the mainstream technologies available to them, and how and when they should be applied to provide a functional engineering classification of the rock mass for slope design purposes. For geological and structural models these technologies can range from direct or digital mapping and sampling of surface outcrops, trenches and adits to direct and indirect geophysical surveys, rotary augering and core drilling. For the rock mass model they can include a plethora of field and laboratory tests. For the hydrogeological model they can include everything from historical regional hydrogeological data, to the collection of hydrogeological data ‘piggy-backed’ on mineral exploration and resources drilling programs and routine water level monitoring programs in specifically installed groundwater observation wells and/or piezometers.’

Chapter 2 of the Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design (Read and Stacey 2009) presents site investigation techniques and data collection methods for rock masses where the shear strength of the rock mass is dominated by geological structure. In weak rocks, although geological structures can remain important, the material itself often controls behaviour, including the shear strength. In many weak rocks, such as those with a high porosity, the cohesion component of the shear strength will be relatively small and, to quantify this strength component, it is important to collect undisturbed samples. One of the main challenges related to site investigations in weak rocks is the extreme variability that is often encountered and the difficulty in obtaining good recovery of undisturbed material for laboratory testing.

Figure 2.1: Slope design process and the geotechnical model.

Figure 2.2: Comparison of methodologies used to establish the strength of strong and weak rocks.

Providing an exhaustive list of every technology that can be used in a site investigation program is beyond the scope of this book. The focus of this chapter is to highlight the technology needed for characterising weak rocks. The overall objective of the geotechnical model is to develop the shear strength of the rock mass needed for the design model. In strong rocks, the strength is usually empirically derived based on rock mass classification systems such as Rock Mass Rating (RMR) and Geological Strength Index (GSI). In weak rocks, there is a much greater reliance on laboratory testing to establish the design strengths (Fig. 2.2). This aspect of the role of empirical classification systems in the design model for weak rocks is discussed further in Chapter 3. In this chapter we focus on the site investigation methodologies needed to establish the shear strength and other properties for weak rocks relevant to the design of open pit slopes.

2.2   General field descriptions

2.2.1   Field estimate of strength

The Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design outline the field methods that are commonly used to describe a rock mass. These field descriptions were designed for typical strong rocks where the focus is the description of the intact strength and the joints. Application of these methods to weak rocks is a forced fit and may not capture the relevant characteristic of the weak rock that is of importance to slope design. Weak rocks may consist of more soil-like materials than rock, and field descriptions must capture the characteristics of both material types.

Field identification of the intact strength can be described qualitatively using the ISRM (1978) descriptors in Table 2.1. Note in Table 2.1 the overlap of the weak rock strength with the stiff and hard clay. This implies that, although the field strength may be classed as R0/R1, the behaviour may be classed as very stiff or hard clay (S5/S6). Hence, for weak rocks there is a need to capture both the strength and behaviour.

Studies in Brazil in association with the soft iron ores and weathered country rocks have indicated that the weak and very weak rocks falling into the R1 and R2 categories should be sub-divided, and have developed physical and visual characterisation procedures, as discussed in Chapter 10. Although this approach is now common practice in Brazil, it has yet to be adopted elsewhere.

Table 2.1: Field description of soils and rock strength (after ISRM 1978).

2.2.2   Weathering and alteration

The standardised field descriptors of alteration associated with either weathering or hydrothermal alteration developed by ISRM (2007) are shown in Table 2.2a and 2.2b, respectively.

2.2.3   Moisture-sensitive weak rocks

One of the challenges encountered during field investigations of clay-rich weak rocks is their sensitivity to moisture. When clay contents exceed 10%, weak-rock cores can quickly degrade if not immediately sealed and protected from the natural humidity. Figure 2.3 illustrates this degradation process and the consequences to the core. In its severe form, this process is easy to recognise. However, when the process occurs over weeks it is not easy to recognise unless the core is revisited, but the consequences can have a significant effect on laboratory testing programs. A simple test that can help identify whether the clay-rich weak rocks may be susceptible to this process is to submerse a core sample in water and observe the process, referred to as ‘slaking’, as described in Section 2.5.2.5.

Table 2.2a: Effect of weathering on fresh rock (ISRM 2007).

Table 2.2b: Effect of alteration on fresh rock (ISRM 2007).

Figure 2.3: Differential responses of mudrock to water and weathering – from total disintegration to mud, to no reaction (source: left figure adapted from Santi 1998).

If clay-rich rocks are encountered, the samples must be sealed and protected immediately if they are to be used in a laboratory strength-testing program, as discussed in Section 2.4.4.4.

2.2.4   Residual soils and weathered rocks

Residual soils and weathered rocks develop a particular fabric, grain structure and grading in place, which make them fundamentally different from transported soils. Consequently, the field description and investigation methods developed for transported soils may need to be modified when these weak rocks are encountered (Wesley 2010b). The factors affecting the strength of residual soils and weathered rocks are given in Table 2.3, and the field investigation must be carried out with these factors in mind. In addition to these requirements, the variability that can be encountered in residual soils and weathered rocks must also be considered (see Fig. 2.4). Consequently, the site investigation program relies strongly on visual descriptions.

As indicated in Fig. 2.4, there is significant variability expected when residual soils and weathered rocks are encountered. Although this variability can be quite important in foundation engineering, the impact of the variability on rock slopes may not be as important. During the 1990s, there was significant effort in establishing guidelines for describing residual soils and weathered rocks. This effort resulted in the recommendations of the Tropical Residual Soils Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party Report (Fookes 1990) and The Description and Classification of Weathered Rocks for Engineering Purposes by Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party Report (Norbury et al. 1995). These reports highlighted the need to describe the soil/rock matrix and the soil/rock mass.

Table 2.3: Factors affecting the strength of residual soils and weathered rock (modified from Brenner et al. 2012).

Figure 2.4: Generalised diagram of residual soils and weathered rocks (modified from Deere and Patton 1971).

As with all weak rocks, the challenge in establishing the rock mass strength is defining the cohesion of the rock mass. In general, the residual soil is characterised using traditional soil testing procedures, while the saprock is described using the ISRM Suggested Methods for intact rocks and joints. The reports by the Working Parties provide overall guidance on the methods that can be used in the field to describe the saprolites. Table 2.4 notes relevant references for field investigations and description methods for the residual soils and weathered rocks. These aspects are described in detail in Chapter 7.

Table 2.4: General references for describing the various grades for residual soils and weathered rocks.

2.3   Field mapping

Even where the main focus of the open pit is the unweathered fresh rock, the mapping of exposures of the weathered rocks close to surface should be an integral part of the mine geotechnical engineering program. For pits centred on weak rocks (e.g. mudrocks and soft iron ores), a good field mapping program is essential.

For weak rocks, the main focus of the mapping program will often be on the characteristics of the rocks and alteration products, but any major structures and relict fabric should not be neglected. In this regard, it may be necessary to modify the field mapping data sheets used for fresh rock, or establish a specific mapping system for the weak rocks that are being exposed.

Because many weak rock types degrade rapidly after exposure, it is good practice to map bench faces as soon as possible after excavation. Where mapping takes place some time after exposure, including natural outcrops, consideration must be taken of any degradation that has taken place.

2.4   Core logging, sampling and sample preservation

Core logging and handling are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of the Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design (Read and Stacey 2009). The following points relate specifically to the logging and sampling of weak rocks.

Planning and scoping the objectives of a core drilling program should include the quality of materials expected to be intercepted. When weak materials are expected, particularly those that would be subject to rapid degradation, triple-tube core barrels with an inner PVC sleeve, such as those produced by Drillwell Ltd from the UK, and face discharge bits should be used. Details of coring equipment should also be kept, as well as the rate of advance, flushing medium, loss of water, drill response, and so on.

2.4.1   Core boxing and photography

Weak rocks can quickly deteriorate once in a core box. Hence, it is important that core boxing be carried out to rigorous standards to develop complete core and photographic logs as soon as practical after retrieving the core. In weak rocks, it is preferred to photograph the core in the core barrel and again when it is placed in the core box. For most weak rocks, the photographic log will be the only accurate visual record of how the core appeared when first recovered (see Fig. 2.3).

Figure 2.5: Example of core boxing for weak rocks in preparation for core photographs.

Figure 2.6: Example of core boxed using the procedures outlined in Fig. 2.5.

Figure 2.5 illustrates a core boxing method used to facilitate a high-quality photographic record. In this method, depth marker blocks are prepared beforehand with the depths written in increments of 1 m or 1.5 m, depending on the core box length. The entire core is place in the box relative to those depth markers. A Styrofoam™ block, cut to fit the space at the end of the core tray to hold the core tightly in place, is placed at the right hand end of the core (Fig. 2.5). Any core loss is replaced with red Styrofoam blocks cut to the length of the missing core and placed at the best estimate of the core loss. Because samples of weak rocks for laboratory testing need to be collected immediately after coring, white Styrofoam blocks are used to replace the samples taken. In addition, small wooded blocks are used to signify the end of the run with the depth marked or to note the location of a particular feature. If these procedures are used, core box photographs display a complete high-quality detailed visual log (Fig. 2.6).

In addition to the core boxing procedure outlined above, each core box should be labelled with the hole number, date, depth from and depth to, as well as Box ‘x’ of ‘y’.

2.4.2   Core logging

Core logging is one of the fundamental techniques used to obtain geotechnical information and should only be carried out by engineering geologists, geological engineers or specialist geotechnicians.

Figure 2.7: Core log developed specifically for weak rocks (courtesy of SRK and Newmont Boddington Gold).

The suggestions for the description of weak rocks are also valid for core logging of these materials. Logging of the general conditions of the length recovered (rock mass description) should be followed by detailed description of the materials and discontinuities.

The logger should record the total core recovery for each run together with the description. This should be indicative of how representative the logged material is. Core lost will likely be the weaker material for each run and might be more important than the recovered core.

Drilling-induced breaks tend to be more frequent in weaker materials. These should be noted and also labelled as ‘drilling-induced’. Drilling-induced breaks usually have fresh, rough and uncoated surfaces when compared with naturally occurring fractures. Fractures perpendicular to the orientation of drilling can also be indicative of drilling-induced fracturing.

Core logging and descriptions for clay-rich rocks should follow the standard logging procedures outlined by the ISRM Suggested Method for the Quantitative Description of Discontinuities. An important engineering feature of some clay-rich rocks, such as mudrocks, will be the presence of fissility. Laminations (typical of shaly materials) and bedding should also be noted and described (thickness, colour, changes in textures, etc.). It is important to indicate any signs of previous shearing (e.g. the presence of slickensides or bedding plane shears). Slickensides in clay-rich cored samples can only be observed by breaking apart the core, as illustrated in Fig. 2.8.

Features that should be included in the core logs include:

   depth (from, to)

   rock type

   alteration (Tables 2.2a and 2.2b)

   total core recovery (TCR)

   solid core recovery (SCR)

   rock quality designation (RQD)

   material strength (see Table 2.1)

   discontinuities and fracture, as discussed in Section 2.4.2.

Typically, the above features are captured in the core logging formats that are standard for geotechnical logging of hard rocks. However, where the primary focus of the drilling program is weak rocks, it may be appropriate to develop a specific logging format that includes other features of interest such as plasticity. A core log sheet developed specifically for weak rocks is shown in Fig. 2.7.

2.4.3   Discontinuities and bedding plane shears

Description of any discontinuities or relic structures should follow the ISRM Suggested Method for the Quantitative Description of Discontinuities in rock masses (ISRM 1978). This is based on the description of 10 selected parameters, namely: orientation, spacing, persistence, roughness, wall strength, aperture, filling, seepage, number of sets and block size. Details on the Suggested Methods for describing each parameter are out of the scope of these guidelines, and the reader is directed to ISRM (1978).

Weathering of discontinuities is treated under the ‘wall strength’ and ‘filling’ parameters in the Suggested Methods of ISRM (1978). Based on these methods, description of weathering of discontinuities should start with changes in colour. Measures of the wall strength (i.e. estimated from needle penetrometer or Schmidt hammer tests) should be compared against fresher material (i.e. from coring samples) when possible. Qualitative descriptions of the ease to break up the wall material with a geologic hammer or by hand are also encouraged, particularly where the level of rock decomposition does not allow for reliable physical testing. Soil-like wall coatings should also be described, and estimates of the areal extent of the coating and its thickness should also be included.

Sampling of these materials for index testing and mineralogy is also encouraged.

In clayey coatings and soil-like materials, the use of a pocket penetrometer should be used wherever the coating thickness allows.

Excavations in bedded deposits that containing thin clay rich layers often produce ‘bedding-plane shear’ (Cooper et al. 2011). These shears are also difficult to identify because they tend to be very thin (<10 mm) and wet-rotary coring can easily remove the sheared material during the drilling process (Fig. 2.8). The shear strength of weak rocks containing either slickensides or bedding plane shears can be very low when compared with the intact rock, and these thin shears can dominate the pit slope design. Identification of these features during field investigations depends on 100% core recovery and careful inspection of the core.

Figure 2.8: Examples of slickensides and bedding plane shear commonly found in clay-rich weak rocks such as mudrocks.

2.4.4   Sampling

2.4.4.1   Sample disturbance

One of the characteristics of weak rocks