Proceedings, Slope Stability 2011: International Symposium on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil

Engineering, Vancouver, Canada (September 18-21, 2011)

1

Optimal Dip Angle for Cablebolting in Open Pits
P.J. Valenzuela PJV, North Beach (Perth), Australia

Abstract
Its a common practice in ground support to set a 5 or 10 dip angle when installing cablebolts to reinforce
unstable blocks in an open pit. Designs are based on estimates of the block weight (W), and a certain
Capacity/Demand ratio, or ultimate tensile strength of the cables divided by the block weight (T/W). However
the actual Safety Factor (SF) achieved using this ratio is not usually calculated.
Technical literature gives formulae to calculate Safety Factors of plane and wedge failures and authors
recommend some dip angles, but an expression to calculate the optimal dip angle has not been published so far.
The optimal dip angle is the one that yields the maximum Safety Factor.
This paper introduces an equation to calculate the optimal dip angle for cablebolts assuming plane failures. The
equation is explicit; it doesnt need iterations to solve it. A series of tables with optimal and practical
installation angles is presented at the end of this paper.
1 Introduction
In order to stabilise loose blocks rock engineers make sure that pit walls are scaled with excavators. If after this
process some wedges or large blocks remain in the wall, then some mines decide to reinforce them using
cablebolts.
Cablebolts design requires specifying their capacity, length, location and orientation, as well as the grouting mix.
Cablebolt installation is much more common in underground mines, few open pits in Australia have an
established reinforcement program for their pit walls. Typically they rely on batter scaling and catch berms to
solve the problem of unstable blocks.
When designing cablebolts a key point is the number of units to use. A quick way to estimate the number of
cables is to compare the weight of the block (W) to the maximum tensile capacity of the cables, T. Some mines
set up a fixed T/W ratio, say 1.5 or 2.0, but that is not the Safety Factor. The actual Safety Factor achieved after
installation depends on the geometry of the block, the strength found in the discontinuities, and the installation
angle.
For a given set of strength parameters and geometry the correct installation angle is critical to ensure stability.
Therefore, a natural question to ask is: what is the optimal installation angle - the one that gives the maximum
safety factor? An equation to calculate this angle is presented in this paper, as well as practical installation
angles.
2 Plane failures: Active case
This problem can be modelled as a plane or a wedge failure. In this paper well assume a plane failure and the
conventions given by Hoek and Bray (1981), see Figure 1.
Its assumed that the blocks weight is W, the tension in the cablebolt is T, and water pressure result in forces U
and V. The strength S is given by the cohesion (c) and friction (|) between the block and the slope surface. The
slope angle is , whereas the installation angle is |. The angle | is the sum of the slope angle and the dip angle
u of the cablebolt: |=+u, as highlighted in Figure 2.





Figure 1. Forces acting on a block free to slide (after Hoek and Bray, 1981).


Figure 2. Beta, slope and dip angles.
The Safety Factor (SF) for the loose block free to slide and the plane failure in case of an active cablebolt is
given by:
[1]

where A the area underneath the block. Assuming no cohesion (c=0) and no water pressures acting on the block
(U=V=0) the SF simplifies to:
[2]

Multiplying the numerator and denominator by 1/W yields:

[3]
Equation 1 is valid if cablebolts are tensioned and they actively lessen the sliding forces. If the anchors are
untensioned, then the force Tcos(|) behaves as a cohesive force, and should be added to the strength or
numerator of the SF equation (Seegmiller, 1981). Thus the SF is:

[4]

Diving the numerator and denominator by 1/W yields:

` [5]
which is the equation when cablebolts are in the passive mode.
Hoek and Bray (1981) suggest the angle | being equal to | (| = |) but that angle gives the minimal tension
required in cablebolts if SF=1, not necessarily the maximum Safety Factor. A number of | angles yield higher
Safety Factors (see Figure 3). Other authors (e.g. Seegmiller, 1981) recommend the optimal angle to be 5
downwards, for average field conditions. This same author used an iterative method to find the optimum angle.
One of the main features of the SF function is that is discontinuous precisely when (See Figure 3). The
gap stems from the change of a passive to an active mode. Then, in order to find the maxima well resort to the
Closed Interval Method (Stewart, 2009), which requires a continuous function and a closed interval.
The way to do this is to narrow the interval of | values to: [|
crit
,+o, 90], being:

[6]

|
crit
is the | value which makes SF = , or, Wsin(
i
) Tcos(|) = 0. o is an infinitesimal angle that ensures that
|
crit
,+o has a corresponding non-infinite SF, lets call it SF
sup
. Thus, the interval [|
crit
,+o, 90] has a range in a
continuous function. The value of o is arbitrary and here it was chosen o = 0.01, but other smaller values could
be selected (see Figure 4).
Notice that most | values in the vicinity of |
crit
yield better SFs as compared to the ones of the passive case. In
the example of Figure 4 SFs in the passive case are bounded by: 1.93SF2.18, as compared to the active mode:
1.23SF. Clearly the greatest SF found in the passive case is less than a range of SFs of the active case, then
finding an expression for an optimal | angle in the passive mode is not necessary.





Figure 3. Safety factor (SF) as a function of | (T/W= 1.5, = 65, |= 30).


Figure 4. Definition of |crit and o for safety factor function.
The Closed Interval Method seeks critical values in the interval (|
crit
+o, 90), that is, | values for which the
derivarite of SF, SF, is equal to zero or does not exist. It is clear, however, that SF<0 as the SF function is
decreasing. Thus no critical values are found within the interval. The second step is to find values at the endpoint
of the interval, this is, at |= |
crit
,+o, and at |= 90. Again, given that SF(|) is decreasing SF(|
crit
,+o)>SF(90).
Then the final step is to find the largest SF from the previous ones; so, it follows that (|
crit
,+o) yields an absolute
maximum (SF
sup
) in the interval [|
crit
,+o, 90].
Therefore an equation to calculate the installation angle that is close enough to the optimal (|
*
) is given by:

[7]

assuming o=0.01. SFs obtained this way are greater than 1000 (SF>1000).
3 Case studies and practical installation angles
Critical | angles for plane failures for a set of values of angles and ratios T/W are plotted in Figure 5. Notice
all curves start at |=90, when the dip of the slope is flat (=0), regardless of the ratio T/W. The value of |
crit

decreases as increases, but the shape of the curve depends on T/W. The greater the ratio T/W, the greater the
angle |
crit
for a given angle. Also notice the greater the ratio T/W, the flatter the shape of the curve.


Figure 5. |crit for a range of and T/W parameters.
The discussion of the optimal installation angle needs to include practical considerations as well. As such a
scenario where |= 30 and 4 ratios T/W= 0.75, 1.00, 1.50 and 2.00 were considered for a plane failure. Practical
angles are suggested in Tables 1 to 4. In these examples we considered the minimum acceptable SF (SF
min
) to be
1.50. Large SFs were written as >1000 to simplify the notations. These tables assume a vertical batter angle
(
f
=90) so that the kinematical condition
f
is met. The criterion to suggest a dip angle u is this:

- Check the kinematical conditions of the block, and assess if it can slide.
- If it can slide, check out the SF without cablebolts. If SF>1.50 installing cablebolts might be over-
conservative.



- If SF<1.50 try u being as close as possible to the optimal u, but making sure the cablebolt is in the active
mode.
- Initially try u to be 10 or 5 degrees downward. If not acceptable, try 60, 45 or 30, or any other dip that
ensures SF>1.50.
- If positive angles (downwards) dont work, then try u= 0, and then upholes (negative angles): u= -5, -
10, -15, etc. until the minimum acceptable SF is reached. Avoid upholes as much as possible.
Table 1. Optimal and Practical installation angles (T/W= 0.75 and |= 30).
OptimalAngle PracticalInstallation
T/W | |- u () Maximum
SF
u () Achieved
SF
Comments
0.75 30 0 90.01 90.01 >1000 >1000 NoCableboltsrequired
5 83.34 78.34 >1000 6.60 NoCableboltsrequired
10 76.62 66.62 >1000 3.27 NoCableboltsrequired
15 69.82 54.82 >1000 2.15 NoCableboltsrequired
20 62.88 42.88 >1000 1.59 NoCableboltsrequired
25 55.71 30.71 >1000 45 5.600
30 48.20 18.20 >1000 45 3.002
35 40.12 5.12 >1000 10 18.016
40 31.02 8.98 >1000 10 4.816
45 19.48 25.52 >1000 10 2.755
50(*) 1.40 48.60 23.807 10 1.908
55(*) 6.30 48.70 5.156 0 1.763
60(*) 11.39 48.61 2.866 10 1.616
65(*) 16.00 49.00 1.963 30 1.687
70(*) 21.00 49.00 1.474 50 1.471 IncreaseT/W
75(*) 26.00 49.00 1.164 50 1.162 IncreaseT/W
80(*) 31.00 49.00 0.946 50 0.945 IncreaseT/W
85(*) 36.00 49.00 0.783 50 0.782 IncreaseT/W
90(*) 41.00 49.00 0.655 50 0.654 IncreaseT/W
(*) |* for =50 to 90 were calculated using a numerical method.


Table 2. Optimal and Practical installation angles (T/W= 1.00 and |= 30).
OptimalAngle PracticalInstallation
T/W | |- u () Maximum
SF
u () Achieved
SF
Comments
1.00 30 0 90.010 90.01 >1000 >1000 NoCableboltsrequired
5 85.010 80.01 >1000 6.60 NoCableboltsrequired
10 80.010 70.01 >1000 3.27 NoCableboltsrequired
15 75.010 60.01 >1000 2.15 NoCableboltsrequired
20 70.010 50.01 >1000 1.59 NoCableboltsrequired
25 65.010 40.01 >1000 45 13.223
30 60.010 30.01 >1000 45 4.385
35 55.010 20.01 >1000 45 2.604
40 50.010 10.01 >1000 10 >1000
45 45.010 0.01 >1000 10 6.599
50 40.010 9.99 >1000 10 3.274
55 35.010 19.99 >1000 10 2.155
60 30.010 29.99 >1000 10 1.586
65 25.010 39.99 >1000 0 1.586
70 20.010 49.99 >1000 10 1.586 Upholes
75 15.010 59.99 >1000 20 1.586 Upholes
80 10.010 69.99 >1000 30 1.586 Upholes
85 5.010 79.99 >1000 40 1.586 Upholes
90 0.010 89.99 >1000 50 1.586 Upholes





Table 3. Optimal and Practical installation angles (T/W= 1.50 and |= 30).
OptimalAngle PracticalInstallation
T/W | |- u () Maximum
SF
u () Achieved
SF
Comments
1.50 30 0 90.01 90.01 >1000 >1000 NoCableboltsrequired
5 86.68 81.68 >1000 6.60 NoCableboltsrequired
10 83.36 73.36 >1000 3.27 NoCableboltsrequired
15 80.07 65.07 >1000 2.15 NoCableboltsrequired
20 76.83 56.83 >1000 1.59 NoCableboltsrequired
25 73.65 48.65 >1000 50 39.540
30 70.54 40.54 >1000 45 11.958
35 67.53 32.53 >1000 45 4.234
40 64.64 24.64 >1000 45 2.549
45 61.88 16.88 >1000 30 3.904
50 59.30 9.30 >1000 10 69.876
55 56.91 1.91 >1000 10 6.025
60 54.75 5.25 >1000 10 3.123
65 52.84 12.16 >1000 10 2.086
70 51.22 18.78 >1000 10 1.546
75 49.92 25.08 >1000 0 1.707
80 48.97 31.03 >1000 10 1.937 Upholes
85 48.39 36.61 >1000 20 2.305 Upholes
90 48.20 41.80 >1000 20 1.671 Upholes

Table 4. Optimal and Practical installation angles (T/W= 2.00 and |= 30).
OptimalAngle PracticalInstallation
T/W | |- u () Maximum
SF
u () Achieved
SF
Comments
2.00 30 0 90.01 90.01 >1000 >1000 NoCableboltsrequired
5 87.51 82.51 >1000 6.60 NoCableboltsrequired
10 85.03 75.03 >1000 3.27 NoCableboltsrequired
15 82.57 67.57 >1000 2.15 NoCableboltsrequired
20 80.16 60.16 >1000 1.59 NoCableboltsrequired
25 77.81 52.81 >1000 60 6.740
30 75.53 45.53 >1000 60 3.309
35 73.34 38.34 >1000 45 7.115
40 71.26 31.26 >1000 45 3.399
45 69.31 24.31 >1000 30 8.041
50 67.49 17.49 >1000 30 3.602
55 65.83 10.83 >1000 30 2.297
60 64.35 4.35 >1000 10 7.549
65 63.06 1.94 >1000 10 3.497
70 61.99 8.01 >1000 10 2.253
75 61.13 13.87 >1000 10 1.642
80 60.51 19.49 >1000 5 1.543
85 60.14 24.86 >1000 10 2.436 Upholes
90 60.01 29.99 >1000 10 1.742 Upholes
4 Discussion and recommendations
From Tables 1 to 4 can be seen that very high SFs are achieved for a range of T/W ratios. As long as there are no
water pressures or additional forces Safety Factors can be that high (>1000) assuming cablebolts are installed
near the optimal dip angle. The rule of thumb of using dip angles of u=5 or u=10 in all cases does not always
result in adequate standards (e.g. SF>1.50), and should be replaced by appropriate calculations.
Increasing the ratio T/W beyond 1.00 does not necessarily increase the SF; however, it decreases the need to
install upholes. Thus over-conservative designs (excessive number of cablebolts) would not necessarily improve
the block stability. On the other hand, the disadvantage of using less cablebolts is the extra time and techniques
required for grouting upholes, which is avoided as much as possible by ground support contractors.
Ratios T/W less than 1.00 are not recommended as they can result in SF<1.00 (See Table 1). For these low ratios
the maximum SF does not reach infinity (see Figure 6).




Figure 6. SF function for T/W= 0.75, = 80 and |=30.
Notice that Equations 6 and 7 are valid only if:

[8]

In case that sin()/(T/W) is out of this range, then Equations 6 and 7 cant be applied. An example of this are
the values highlighted in Table 2. In cases like this |* has to be found using numerical methods. Equation 8 is
satisfied if T/W1.00.
Tables 1 to 4 are intended to show a practical example for plane failures. Each minesite needs to develop their
own tables based on the strength parameters (c and |), the minimum acceptable SF and the ratio T/W they prefer
to use. An expression to calculate the optimal dip angle in wedge failures needs further research.
5 Conclusions
An equation to calculate the optimal installation angle for cablebolts for plane failures has been presented in this
paper. It assumes that discontinuities are cohesionless and no water pressures or additional external forces are
acting on the block. In theory the SF that can be reached tends to infinity, which is achieved by making the
loading forces close to zero. In practice SFs can be very high if the installation angle is close to the optimal,
provided the quality of the reinforcement is adequate.
Equation 7 is an estimate close enough to the actual optimal value, and assumes the cablebolt is in tension or in
an active mode.
The rule of thumb of using dip angles of 5 or 10 for any condition should be avoided as it doesnt always yield
adequate Safety Factors, specially for discontinuities with very steep angles. Finally, bear in mind that setting
up | = | does not deliver the maximum Safety Factor, but the minimum tension T in the cablebolts.

6 Acknowledgements
Id like to acknowledge Mr. George Staite, from New Zealand, with whom I had the first discussions about this
topic. Also Im thankful to Ms. Sarah Weston, from Rocscience Inc., for the kindness of delivering a copy of
SWEDGE.
7 References
Granville, W. (1974). Clculo Diferencial e Integral. Uteha, Mexico.
Hoek, E., Bray, J. (1981). Rock Slope Engineering. Revised 3rd edition. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy. London.
Seegmiller, B. (1981). Artificial support of rock slopes. In Third International Conference on Stability in Surface Mining. 1-
3 June, 1981. Vancouver, Canada.
Stewart, J. (2009). Calculus, 6th Edition. Thomson/Brookes Cole.
Wyllie, D.C., Mah, C. (2004). Rock Slope Engineering: Civil and Mining. Spon Press, London and NY.