I

FUNDAMENTALS OF SLOPE
DESIGN
Peter Stacey

1.I

Introduction

For an open pit mine, the design of the slopes is one of the
major challenges at every stage of planning and operation.
It requires specialised knowledge of the geology, which is
often complex in the vicinity of orebodies where structure
and/or alteration may be key factors, and of the material
properties, which are frequently highly variable. It also
requires an understanding of the practical aspects of
design implementation.
This chapter discusses the fundamentals of creating
slope designs in terms of the expectations of the various
stakeholders in the mining operation, which includes the
owners, management, the workforce and the regulators. It
is intended to provide a framework for the detailed
chapters that follow. It sets out the elements of slope
design, the terminology in common usage, and the typical
approaches and levels of effort to support the design
requirements at different stages in the development of an
open pit. Most of these elements are common to any open
pit mining operation, regardless of the material to be
recovered or the size of the open pit slopes.

1.2

Pit slope designs

The aim of any open pit mine design is to provide an

optimal excavation configuration in the context of safety,
ore recovery and financial return. Investors and operators
expect the slope design to establish walls that will be stable
for the life of the open pit, which may extend beyond
closure. At the very least, any instability must be
manageable. This applies at every scale of the walls, from
the individual benches to the overall slopes.
It is essential that a degree of stability is ensured for the
slopes in large open pit mines to minimise the risks related
to the safety of operating personnel and equipment, and
economic risks to the reserves. At the same time, to address
the economic needs of the owners ore recovery must be

maximised and waste stripping kept to a minimum

throughout the mine life. The resulting compromise is
typically a balance between formulating designs that can be
safely and practicably implemented in the operating
environment and establishing slope angles that are as steep
as possible.
As outlined in Figure 1.1, the slope designs form an
essential input in the design of an open pit at every stage of
the evaluation of a mineral deposit, from the initial
conceptual designs that assess the value of further work on
an exploration discovery through to the short- and
long-term designs for an operating pit. At each project
level through this process other key components include
the requirements of all stakeholders.
Unlike civil slopes, where the emphasis is on reliability
and the performance of the design and cost/benefit is less
of an issue, open pit slopes are normally constructed to
lower levels of stability, recognising the shorter operating
life spans involved and the high level of monitoring, both
in terms of accuracy and frequency, that is typically
available in the mine. Although this approach is fully
recognised both by the mining industry and by the
regulatory authorities, risk tolerance may vary between
companies and between mining jurisdictions.
Uncontrolled instability, in effect failure of a slope, can
have many ramifications including:
Safety/social factors
+ loss of life or injury;
+ loss of worker income;
+ loss of worker confidence;
+ loss of corporate credibility, both externally and
with shareholders.
Economic factors
+ disruption of operations;
+ lossofore;
+ loss of equipment;
+ increased stripping;

Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

Mineral

Increase
Ieve I

Recycle

designs
I

design
I

Reject

Review

Accept

(&
Figure 1.1: Project development flowchart

cost of cleanup;
loss of markets.
Environmental/regulatoryfactors
+ environmental impacts;
+ increased regulation;
+ closure considerations.
+
+

1.2.1

Safety/social factors

Safe operating conditions that protect against the danger

of death or injury to personnel working in the open pit are
fundamental moral and legal requirements.
While open pits have always been prone to wall
instability due to the complexity of mining environments,
since the adoption of formal slope design methodology in
the early 1970s the number of failures has generally
decreased. Even so, in recent years there have been several
large failures in open pits around the world. Tragically,
some of these have resulted in loss of life; most have had
severe economic consequences for the operation. These
failures have attracted the attention of regulators and the
public. Consequently, it is becoming increasingly common
for management (including executives) and technical staff
to face criminal proceedings when mining codes are
violated, in either the design or the operation of a mine.
While the major failures attract wide attention, it is the
smaller failures, often rockfall at a bench scale, that
typically result in the majority of deaths and injuries. For
the mining industry to be sustainable, safety is a prime

objective and must therefore be addressed at all scales of

slope stability.

1.2.2

Economic factors

The main economic incentive in most open pits is to

achieve the maximum slope angle commensurate with the
accepted level of stability. In a large open pit, steepening a
wall by only a few degrees can have a major impact on the
return of the operation through increased ore recovery
and/or reduced stripping (Figure 1.2).
In some instances, 'operating slopes' in initial
expansion cuts may be flatter than the optimum, either to
provide additional operating width or to ensure stability
where data to support the designs are limited. However,
this flexibility, which must be adopted with the
understanding and consent of all stakeholders, almost
always has negative economic consequences.
The impact of slope steepening will vary depending on
the mine but, for example, it has been shown that an
increase in slope angle of 1" in a 50" wall 500 m high
results in a reduction of approximately 3600 m3 (9000 t) of
stripping per metre length of face.
Increasing the slope angle will generally reduce the
level of stability of the slope, assuming that other factors
remain constant. The degree to which steepening can be
accomplished without compromising corporate and
regulatory acceptance criteria, which usually reflect the
safety requirements for both personnel and ore reserves,

Fundamentals of Slope Design

Steepened Slope

Current Slope

Figure 1.2: Potential impacts of slope steepening

must be the subject of stability analyses and ultimately risk

assessments.
It is often no longer sufficient to present slope designs in
deterministic (factor of safety) terms to a mine planner
who accepts them uncritically. Increasingly, the
requirement is that they be proposed within the framework
of risk levels related to safety and economic outcomes for a
decision-maker who may not be a technical expert in the
mining field. The proposed design must be presented in a
form that allows mine executives to establish acceptable
levels of risk for the company and other stakeholders. In
this process the slope designers must play a major role.

provincial mining codes in Canada and state regulations

in Australia.
The regulations related to open pit slopes vary
considerably between jurisdictions, as do the degrees of
flexibility to modify slope configurations from those
specified in the codes. However, regardless of the type of
code, in most if not all jurisdictions it is the ultimate
responsibility of the registered Mine Manager to maintain
the standard of care and regular reviews by a competent
person that are required.
Levels of requirements in codes can be summarised as
follows.

1.2.3

1 Duty of Care, e.g. Western Australia, which place

Environmental and regulatory factors

Most open pits are located in jurisdictions where there are

mining regulations that specify safety and environmental
requirements, including those for mine closure. The
regulations may be federal, as in the case of the Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in the USA
and the SNiP Codes in Russia, or local, for example the

accountability on the registered Mine Manager to

maintain appropriate design levels and safe operating
procedures.
2 General Directives, e.g. MSHA, which are general in
nature and do not specify minimum design criteria,
although they may include definitive performance

1 3

Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

criteria for catch benches and stable bench faces. Mines

Inspectors enforce these regulations and are therefore
responsible for approving the operation of a pit in
terms of slope performance.
General Guidelines, e.g. 'Geotechnical Guidelines in
Open Pit Mines - Guidelines', Western Australia,
which outline the legislated background for safety in
the context of the geotechnical factors that must be
considered in the design and operation of open pit
mines.
Defined General Criteria, e.g. British Columbia,
Canada, which define minimum bench widths as well
as maximum operating bench height, both of which are
related to the capacity of the excavating equipment.
Detailed Criteria, e.g. the Russian SNiP Codes, which
define methodologies to be used at different project
levels for investigation and design of excavations.
In most jurisdictions it is possible to obtain
authorisation for variations from the mining code, e.g. the
use of multiple bench stacks between catch berms,
provided that a clear engineering case can be presented
and/or precedence for such a variation in similar
conditions can be shown. For slope design practitioners,
this means staying abreast of regulatory changes.
Mine closure considerations depend on regulatory
requirements, company standards and/or other
stakeholder interests.

1.3 Terminology of slope design

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.

below. Note the potential confusion with the use of the

term 'berm' for a flat surface.
Bench stack. A group of benches between wider
horizontal areas, e.g. ramps or wider berms left for
geotechnical purposes.
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), as 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, i.e. a slope facing/dipping toward 270" has an
azimuth of 090" (inset, Figure 1.3). It is important that the
convention adopted is clearly understood by all users and
is applied consistently.
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 topmost crest
(Figure 1.3).

1.3.2

Instability

Increased ability to detect small movements in slopes and

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.
Unloading response.

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 Figure 1.3. The terms relevant to
open pit slope design as used in the manual are given in
the Glossary.
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 flat
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

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 lifted. This
type of movement is linear elastic deformation. 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 is generally responsive to mining,
slowing or stopping when mining is suspended. In itself,
unloading response does not lead to instability or largescale movement.
Movement or dilation.
This is considered to be the first clear evidence of
instability, with associated formation of cracks and other
visible signs, e.g. heaving at the toe (base) of the slope. In
stronger rock, the movement generally results from

Fundamentals of Slope Design

Bench
Height

Crest

1BENCH DETAIL

Benches

,Inter

Ramp Angle
(bench-toe to-toe)

Sector Azrmuth 360

Overall Angle
(wall crest-to-toe)

Sector
Azimuih 090

Sector
Azimuth 270

Sectarhimuth 180

EXPLANATION OF
WALL SECTOR AZIMUTH
Figure 1.3: Pit wall terminology

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.
Failure.
A slope can be considered to have failed when
displacement has reached a level where it is no longer safe
to operate or the intended function cannot be met, e.g.
when ramp access across the slope is no longer possible.
The terms failure and collapsehave 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
et al. 2000). 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

1 5

Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

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 will also help to establish a more
precise explanation of the condition of a slope for nonpractitioners such as management and other stakeholders.

1.3.3

Rockfall

The term rockfall is typically used for loose material that

either falls or rolls from the faces. As such it is primarily a
safety issue, although it could possibly be a precursor to
larger-scale instability.
Rockfall can be a symptom of poor design
implementation, i.e. poor blasting and/or scaling practices.
However, it may also result from degradation of the slope
as a result of weathering or from freeze-thaw action.

1.4

Formulation of slope designs

1.4.1

Introduction

The process of pit slope design formulation has been

developed over the past 25 years and is relatively standard,
although some of the methodologies vary between
practioners. This section presents the general framework
as an introduction to the detailed methodologies, which
are discussed in the chapters that follow.
The basic process for the design of open pit slopes,
regardless of size or materials, is summarised in Figure 1.4.
Following this approach, the slope design process at any
level of a project essentially involves the following steps:
formulation of a geotechnical model for the pit area;
population of the model with relevant data;
division of the model into geotechnical domains;
subdivision of the domains into design sectors;
design of the slope elements in the respective sectors of
the domains;
assessment of the stability of the resulting slopes in
terms of the project acceptance criteria;
definition of implementation and monitoring requirements for the designs.
The resulting slope designs must not only be
technically sound, they must also address the broader
context of the mining operation as a whole, taking into
account safety, the equipment available to implement the
designs, mining rates and the acceptable risk levels.
The designs must be presented in a way that will allow
the mine executives, who are ultimately responsible, and
the operators, who implement the designs, to fully
understand the basis and any shortcomings of the designs,
as well as the implications of deviation from any

constraints defined by the designer. In this context, a key

element in the designs is the acceptance criteria against
which the designs are formulated. These must be clearly
defined by management working in consultation with the
slope designers and mine planners.
As discussed in the following section, the available data
and hence the level of confidence in the resulting designs
generally improve with each successive stage in the
development of an open pit mining project. However, the
basic design procedures are essentially the same for all
projects, with minor modification depending upon such
factors as geology, groundwater conditions and proposed
mine life.
The following points describe the basic elements of
each step. They are discussed in following chapters, cited
in parentheses.

1.4.2

Geotechnical model

The geotechnical model (Chapter 7), is the fundamental

basis for all slope designs and is compiled from four
component models:
the geological model;
the structural model;
the rock mass model (material properties);
the hydrogeological model.
These models also have applications for other aspects
of the mining operation, for example in ore reserves and
mining operations. However, particular aspects of each are
critical for the slope design process.
There are other aspects of the geotechnical model that
can be important in specific cases, for example in situ
stress, particularly in relation to very high slopes, the
presence of extensive underground openings and
seismic loading.
Methods for collecting the data for each model are
discussed in detail in Chapter 2.
Geological model (Chapter 3)
The geological model presents a 3D distribution of the
material types that will be involved in the pit walls. The
material type categories can relate not only to lithology but
also to the degree and type of alteration, which can
significantly change material properties, either positively
(silicification) or negatively (argillisation).
In some deposits, notably those located in the tropics,
geomorphology may also play a significant role in slope
designs.
It is important to understand the regional geological
setting and the genesis of the mineralisation. This often
involves an appreciation that differs somewhat from that
required by the mine geologists, who typically focus
primarily on the mineralisation. Slope design studies must
take a broader view of the geology of the deposit, including
1.4.2.1

Fundamentals of Slope Design

1 7

Ceotechnical
Model

MODELS

1
Ceotechnical
Domains
Strength

DOMAINS

Structure

Design Sectors

1
Bench
Configurations

DESIGN

Inter-Ramp
Angles
Mine Plannin

ANALYSES

-7

Overall Slopes

Groundwater

Final
Designs

Blasting

Closure

Design Model

Figure 1.4: Slope design process

the surrounding waste rock, focusing on the engineering

aspects.
As pit slopes become higher, the potential for impact by
in situ stresses, particularly acting in combination with the
high stresses created at the toe of the walls, must be
considered. In situ stress assessment must be included in
the geological model.
1.4.2.2

Structural model (Chapter 4)

A structural model for slope designs is typically developed

at two levels:

major structures (folds, inter-ramp and mine scale

faults);
structural fabric (joints, bench scale faults).
This differentiation relates largely to continuity of the
features and the resultant impact with respect to the slope
design elements. Major faults are likely to be continuous,
both along strike and down dip, although they may be
relatively widely spaced. Hence they could be expected to
influence the design on an inter-ramp or overall slope
scale. On the other hand, the structural fabric typically has
limited continuity but close spacing, and therefore

Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

becomes a major consideration in design at a bench scale

and possibly for inter-ramp bench stacks.

r
Ore Reserve:

1.4.2.3 Rock mass model (Chapter 5)

The properties of the materials in which the slope will be
excavated define probable performance and therefore the
design approach. In strong rocks, structure is likely to be
the controlling factor, even in relatively high slopes. In
weaker materials and for very high slopes, the rock mass
strength could be expected to play an important role,
either alone or in combination with structures.
In defining the material properties, consideration must
be given to the possible changes in behaviour with time.
This particularly applies where there has been argillic
alteration involving smectities (swelling clays) or in
clay-rich shales, since the strength properties and
behaviour of the material can change after exposure.
In determining the material properties, the slope
designer can also provide important data for other aspects
of the mining operation, for example in blast designs
(Chapter 11, section 11.3).This should not be overlooked
when designing the testing programs.
Back-analysis of failures and even of stable slopes can
play a significant role in the determination of material
properties. Detailed records of the performance of phase
slopes and the initial stages of ultimate slopes can provide
large-scale assessments of properties that can normally
only be determined through small-scale laboratory tests
during the feasibility and earlier stages of design. This is
discussed in detail in Chapter 12.
1.4.2.4 Hydrogeology model (Chapter 6 )
Both the groundwater pressure and the surface water flow
aspects of the hydrogeological regime may have significant
negative effects on the stability of a slope, and must
therefore be fully understood.
These aspects are usually the only elements in a slope
design that can be readily modified by artificial
intervention, particularly at a large (inter-ramp and
greater) scale. However, dewatering and depressurisation
measures require operator commitment to be
implemented effectively, and usually need significant
lead time for design and implementation. Identification
and characterisation of the hydrogeological regime in
the early stages of any project are therefore of
paramount importance.

1.4.3

Data uncertainty (Chapter 8)

With the move towards probability-based slope design

methodology the need to define the reliability of the data in
the geotechnical model has increased significantly. At the
early stages of project development the available data are
limited and hence the reliability of various model aspects
will be low. This frequently leads to a situation where the

Level 1
Level 2

Probable

Proved

Level 3
Level 4
Level 5

Figure 1.5: Geotechnical levels of confidence relative to the

IORC code

uncertainties dominate the probabilistic results and a more

deterministic approach must be used.
A high degree of uncertainty can exist even at the
feasibility level, particularly where high (greater than
500 m) slopes are involved and the only available data are
from drill holes and surface exposure. In this situation,
either additional information obtained to reduce the
uncertainties or the potential impacts must be made clear
to the decision-makers.
In parallel with the introduction of codes for reporting
exploration results, mineral resources and ore reserves in
several countries (e.g. JORC in Australia, SAMREC in South
Africa and 43-101 in Canada), the increased need to define
data reliability has generated a requirement for a
geotechnical reporting system related to the slope designs
for the pits that define the reserves. Accordingly, a system of
reporting the level of uncertainty in the geotechnical data is
discussed in Chapters 8 and 9. The system is linked to the
levels of effort at the various stages in the life of an open pit,
outlined in section 1.5 and Table 1.2. It uses terminology to
describe the different levels of uncertainty equivalent to the
inferred, indicated and measuredlevels of confidence
used by JORC (2004) to define the level of confidence in
mineral resources and ore reserves (Figure 1.5).

1.4.4

Acceptance criteria (Chapter 9)

The definition of acceptance criteria allows the

stakeholders, normally management or regulators, to
define the level of performance required of a slope against
instability and/or failure. The criteria were initially
expressed in terms of a factor of safety (FoS), which
compared the slope capacity (resisting forces) with the
driving forces acting on the slope (gravity and water
pressures). More recently, the probability of failure (PoF),
i.e. the probability that the FoS will be 1 or less, has been
introduced as a statistically based criterion.
The level of acceptance in either term may vary,
depending upon the importance of the slope. For example,
pit slopes that have no major facilities (ramps, tunnel
portals, crushers) on the wall or immediately behind the

Fundamentals of Slope Design

1 9

Table 1.1: Typical FoS and PoF acceptance criteria values

Acceptance criteriaa

Slope scale

Consequences of failure

Bench

Low-highb

Inter-ramp

Low

FoS (min)
(static)

FoS (min)
(dynamic)

1.I

NA

1.I 5-1.2

1.0

25%

1.2

1.0

20%

Moderate
Overall

PoF (max)
P[FoS < I]

25-50%

High

1.2-1.3

1.I

10%

Low

1.2-1.3

1.0

15-20%

1.3

1.05

10%

1.3-1.5

1.I

5%

Moderate
High
a: Needs to meet all acceptance criteria
b: Semi-quantitatively evaluated, see Figure 13.9

crest might have an acceptable FoS of 1.2 or 1.3, or a PoF in

the 10-15% range. For more critical slopes these values
might be raised to 1.5 and less than 5%, respectively.
Typical values are shown in Table 1.1.
Neither approach to stability assessment takes into
account the consequences of instability or eventual failure
or, conversely, the impacts of mitigative measures. Riskbased designs, which combine the PoF with the
consequences (section 9.5), allow management to assess a
slope design in terms of acceptance criteria that can easily
incorporate risk in terms of safety and economic impacts,
as well as societal views and legislated requirements.

1.4.5

Slope design methods (Chapter 10)

The formulation of slope design criteria fundamentally

involves analysis against the predicted failure modes that
could affect the slope at bench, inter-ramp and overall
scales. The level of stability is assessed and compared with
the acceptance criteria nominated at the various levels by
the owners and/or regulators for safety levels and
economic risk.
The process of slope design starts with dividing the
geotechnical model for the proposed pit area into
geotechnical domains with similar geological, structural
and material property characteristics. For each domain,
potential failure modes are assessed and designs at the
respective scales (bench, inter-ramp, overall) are based on
the required acceptance levels (FoS or PoF) against
instability.
Once domains have been defined, their characteristics
can be used to formulate the basic design approach. This
involves evaluating the critical factors that will determine
the potential instability mode(s) against which the slope
elements will be designed. A fundamental division relates
to the rock properties in that, for stronger rocks, structure
is likely to be the primary control, whereas for weaker
rocks strength can be the controlling factor, even down to
the bench scale.

Where structure is expected to be a controlling factor,

the slope orientation may exert an influence on the design
criteria. In this case a subdivision of a domain into design
sectors is normally required, based upon kinematic
considerations related to the potential for undercutting
structures (planar) or combinations (wedges), or toppling
on controlling features. The sectorisation can reflect
controls at all levels, from bench scale, where fabric provides
the main control for bench face angles, up to the overall
slope, where particular major structures may be anticipated
to influence a range of slope orientations with a domain.
For pits in weak rocks, where the rock mass strength is
expected to be the controlling factor in slope designs, the
design process commences with analyses to establish the
overall and inter-ramp slope angle ranges that meet the
acceptance criteria for stability. These angles are then
translated down in scale into bench face configurations.
The type of stability analysis performed to support the
slope design depends on several factors, including:
the project stage (available data);
the scale of slope under consideration;
the properties of the materials that will form the
slopes.
The main analysis types used for design include:
kinematic analyses for bench designs in strong rock;
limit equilibrium analysis applied to:
+ structurally controlled failures in bench and
inter-ramp design,
+ inter-ramp and overall slopes where stability is
controlled by rock mass strength, with or without
structural anisotropy;
numerical analyses for assessing failure modes and
potential deformation levels in inter-ramp and overall
slopes.
It should be stressed that stability analyses are tools
that help formulate slope designs. The results must be

10

Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

evaluated in terms of other factors before they are

finalised. These other factors include the mining
methods and equipment that will be used to excavate the
slopes, as well as the operators' capability to consistently
implement such aspects as controlled blasting, surface
water control and slope depressurisation.
The inter-ramp angles are normally provided to mine
planners as the basic slope design criteria. Only when
ramps have been added does the overall slope angle
become apparent. Thus, for initial mine design and
evaluation work, an overall slope angle involving the
inter-ramp angle, flattened by 2-3" to account for ramps,
may be used for Whittle cone analyses and other similar
studies. This is discussed further in section 11.2.

1.4.6

Design implementation (Chapter 11)

Incorporating the slope design into the mine plan and

implementing it requires clear understanding between
all involved parties. This involves careful communication
of the assumptions inherent in the design, plus the
uncertainties and anticipated constraints on the
construction of the slope. For the communication
to be effective, the slope designer must understand the
requirements and constraints influencing the other
parties.
1.4.6.1 Mine planning (section 11.2)

The requirements from a slope design into the mine

planning process, including the level of accuracy, depend
on the project stage. At the early stages of evaluation,
inter-ramp or overall angles suffice but as the project
advances into the feasibility study and detailed design,
more information about bench configurations and
operating considerations are required. This is discussed
further in section 1.5 of this chapter.
It is important at all stages that the slope designer and
mine planner understand such aspects as the basis of the
design, the level of accuracy, constraints and terminology.
It is critical that there be regular communication between
the two parties and that the slope designs be fully
documented.
1.4.6.2 Operational aspects

Implementation of the slope designs typically requires the

use of operating procedures that ensure minimum risk in
terms of safety of personnel and recovery of reserves,
including:
the consistent application of effective controlled
blasting (section 11.3);
excavation control and face scaling (section 11.4);
artificial support (section 11.5).
These requirements should be a fundamental part
of the design definition and must be within the
capability of the operators who will implement the design.

It may also be necessary to consider the potential

impact on production factors such as mining rate and
excavation efficiency.
Where specific operating practices are required for
implementing the slope design, it is critical that additional
costs be incorporated into the budgets and recognised in
terms of associated potential benefits to the overall revenue.
For example, a mine superintendent will have little interest
in implementing a controlled blasting program that allows
steeper slopes unless corporate management recognises that
the associated costs will be more than offset by reduced
stripping costs or increased ore recovery.
The application of artificial support, either as part of
the design or to stabilise a moving slope, has been in use
for several decades. At a bench scale, rock bolts, mesh,
shotcrete, straps and dowels are used to ensure stability
or reduce degradation of the faces. Support also has a
significant application where a pit slope is being mined
through underground workings. These methods have
largely been adapted from the underground mining
environment, where the technology is well-developed.
Cable bolts have been used successfully for inter-ramp
slopes up to approximately 100 m in height. However, the
30 m practical length of cables is a major restriction and
there have been several instances near the limit where the
support has simply acted to tie together a larger mass,
which subsequently failed. It is therefore important that
any artificial support is carefully designed to the
appropriate acceptance level, which will be partly
dictated by the intended life of the supported slope and
its overall importance.

1.4.7 Slope evaluation and monitoring

(Chapter 12)
The performance of the slope during and after excavation
must be monitored for unexpected instability and/or the
potential for significant instability. Monitoring programs,
which must continue throughout the life of the slope and
often into closure, typically involve:
slope performance assessment (section 12.1);
slope displacement detection and warning (section
12.2);
ground control management plans (section 12.3).
Assessment of slope performance focuses on validating
the design model and ensuring that the operational
methods for implementing the designs are appropriate and
consistently applied.
It is important to validate the design model through
geotechnical mapping and evaluating slope performance,
particularly during the initial stages of mining. When the
slope designs have been formulated on the basis of drill
hole data alone, validation should include confirmation of
the continuity of structures and the interpolation of
geological data between holes.

Fundamentals of Slope Design

Slope displacement monitoring is particularly

important where instability exists and is being managed as
part of the ongoing operation. A monitoring program may
still be required after completion of mining, particularly if
the open pit void is to be used for other purposes such as
industrial (e.g. waste landfill) or recreational, where the
public will have access to or below the slopes.
The ground control management plan for a pit should
define responsibilities and outline the monitoring
procedures and trigger points for the initiation of specified
remedial measures if movement/instability is detected. It
should form an integral part of the slope engineering
program and the basis for the design of any required
remedial measures.

1.4.8

Risk management (Chapter 13)

Certain degrees of safety, economic and financial risk

have always been implicit in mining operations. In open
pit mines, slope instability is one of the major sources
of risk, largely due to data uncertainties, as well as the
generally modest levels of stability accepted for the
designs.
Factor of safety determination, which originated in the
field of soil mechanics, is the traditional and widely
practised slope design criterion. The uncertainty and
variability of geology and rock mass properties led to
increasing use of probability techniques rather than the
deterministic FoS method; these provide the advantage of
a linear scale for interpretation of the risks associated with
slope designs. However, the concept of probability in a
geotechnical sense is not easily understood by nontechnical persons.
With the increasing requirement for management to be
involved in the decision-making process for slope designs,
a requirement for the quantification of risks has
developed. To address this, risk assessment and
management processes have been applied to slope designs.
Risk assessment methods range from qualitative failure
modes and effects analysis (FMEA) to detailed quantitative
risk/consequence analysis, depending on the level of
definition favoured by management, regulators or
practitioners. A fundamental requirement of all methods
is that management defines acceptable levels of corporate
risk against which the slope designs can be assessed. The
assessment process can then be operated retroactively,
with a design reviewed in relation to the acceptance
criteria. Alternatively, the slope designer can proactively
design a slope to meet the corporate risk profile, and the
potential impacts of design variations can be assessed in
terms of economic impact.
The objective of risk-based design is to provide
management with quantitative information for:
defining acceptable risks in terms of safety and
economics;

assessing relative risk levels for different slope

configurations;
benchmarking risks against industry norms and the
corporate mission statement.
The risk-based design approach has been successfully
applied to the design of slopes in several large open pit
mines.

1.4.9

Closure (Chapter 14)

Current legislation in many jurisdictions requires mines to

be designed with a view to closure and that a closure plan
be in place before a mining permit is issued. Discussing
the environmental aspects of closure as they relate to
factors such as pit lake chemistry is outside the scope of
this book, but is a critical consideration in closure.
In open pits, the closure plan should include long-term
stability, particularly if the public is to have direct access to
the area, for example as a recreational lake. Alternatively, if
a pit lake is to be formed with outflow through a
controlled surface channel, the potential for slope failures
to cause waves that would overtop the channel and create a
downstream flood must be considered. Other factors
include aesthetics, particularly where the pit is located
close to populated areas.
Stability during the closure process, for example while
the pit lake is forming, could also be an issue that requires
consideration and continued monitoring, particularly if
slope stability has been achieved through an active slope
depressurisation program. In this case, rapid
repressurisation of the slopes relative to the formation of
the lake could result in wall instability. This can generally
be prevented by maintaining the depressurisation system
until equilibrium is established.
Monitoring of slope stability can be expected to
continue through the initial closure and in many cases on
a continuing basis post closure, particularly if the public
has access to the open pit area.

1.5 Design requirements by

project Ieve I
Guidelines for the typical level of investigation and design
effort expected at various stages of project development
are presented in this section. It should be noted that the
actual required effort can vary significantly, depending on
the degree of complexity in the geotechnical model and
the level of risk assurance required by the owner (sections
1.4.3. and 1.4.4).

1.5.1

Project development

There are six main levels in the development and

execution of a mining project at which slope design input
is required. These are:

l1

12

Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

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 at these levels, which
are discussed in detail in section 11.2, can be summarised
as follows.
At the conceptual study level, various mining methods
are assessed. At this early stage the viability of open pit
mining may be based on judgment or experience in similar
environments. Cost estimates and slope designs are at the
order of magnitude level.
At the pre-feasibility level, preliminary slope designs
are required to determine if the ore body is technically and
economically viable to mine so that reserves and
associated mining method can be defined.
The feasibility level is typically used to establish a clear
picture of the anticipated costs of mine development and
operation. At the completion of the study alternative
interpretations may be possible, but in the view of a
competent person these would be unlikely to affect the
potential economic viability of the project. To achieve this
level of accuracy, overall slope designs in the order of f 5
are necessary.
At the design and construction level, the ore body has
been shown to be potentially economic and financing has
been secured for production. Confidence in the pit slope
design should be increased at this stage, particularly for
open pits with marginal rates of return. This stage may be
skipped and initial mining may be based upon the
feasibility level slope designs.
During the operations level, pit slope optimisation may
be possible, based on additional data collected from the pit
walls and incorporating operating experience with slope
performance to refine the geotechnical model and provide
revised slope design criteria for future cutbacks.
Increasingly, the slope designs must also address
long-term stability associated with landforms required at
closure and potential uses of the open pit void. Closure
designs should be established during the operating phase,
when mine staff will have experience of slope performance
that may not be available post closure.

1.5.2

Study requirements

Most mining companies have specific requirements for the

level of effort required to achieve the mine design at
various project levels. Table 1.2 presents a summary of
suggested levels of effort from the Level 1 conceptual stage
through to operations (Level 5). Mine closure (Level 6) is
addressed in Chapter 14. Requirements vary between

companies and even between projects, therefore the table

is only a guide.
The responsibility for collecting, compiling and
analysing the data to establish the slope designs depends
on the in-house capabilities of the mining company and
on the project level. In larger companies the initial level
evaluations and slope management in operating
mines are typically performed by in-house staff. For
larger studies (Level 3 ) , and for most work in smaller
mines, consultants play a significant role. There is an
increasing requirement for independent review at the
pre-feasibility and subsequent project levels
(discussed further in section 1.6).

1.6 Review
1.6.1

Overview

Slope designs are increasingly subject to formal reviews,

both prior to commencement of mining and during the
operating phase. These reviews, which may be undertaken
by in-house specialists, an external review consultant or a
board of specialists, are conducted for a number of
reasons. At the feasibility and mine financing stages, a
review gives management and potential financiers
confirmation of the viability of the proposed project. At
the operating stage a review, which may involve a board
addressing all geotechnical and hydrogeological aspects of
the mine, gives management an independent assessment
and additional confidence in the designs and the
implementation procedures.
If a board is to be used, Hoek and Imrie (1995)
suggested the following guidelines.
A Review Board should be composed of a small
number of internationally recognised authorities in
fields relevant to the principal problems encountered
on the mine. The purpose of the Board should be to
provide an objective, balanced and impartial view of
the overall geotechnical activities on a mine. The
Board should not be used as a substitute for normal
consulting services since members do not have the
time to acquire all the detailed knowledge necessary
to provide direct consulting opinions.
The function of the Board should be to act as the
technical review agency for the Mine Management.
Ideally, a Board should ask the geotechnical team and
associated mine planning staff have you considered
this alternative? rather than be asked to respond to a
request such as please provide recommendations on
a safe slope angle.
In my experience, the most effective Boards are
very small (2 to 4 members) and are carefully chosen
to cover each of the major disciplines involved in the

Table 1.2: Levels of geotechnical effort by project stage

PROJECT STAGE
Project level
status

Conceptual

Pre-feasibility

Feasibility

Design and
Construction

Operations

Geotechnical
level status

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

Geological model

Regional literature;
advanced
exploration mapping
and core logging;
database
established; initial
country rock model

Mine scale outcrop

mapping and core
logging, enhancement
of geological database;
initial 3D geological
model

lnfill drilling and

mapping, further
enhancement of
geological database
and 3D model

Targeted drilling and

mapping; refinement
of geological
database and 3D
model

Ongoing pit
mapping and
drilling; further
refinement of
geological
database and 3D
model

Structural model
(major features)

Aerial photos and

initial ground
proofing

Mine scale outcrop

mapping; targeted
oriented drilling; initial
structural model

Trench mapping; infill

oriented drilling; 3D
structural model

Refined interpretation
of 3D structural
model

Structural
mapping on all pit
benches; further
refinement of 3D
model

Structural model
(fabric)

Regional outcrop
mapping

Mine scale outcrop

mapping; targeted
oriented drilling;
database established;
initial stereographic
assessment of fabric
data; initial structural
domains established

lnfill trench mapping

and oriented drilling;
enhancement of
database; advanced
stereographic
assessment of fabric
data; confirmation of
structural domains

Refined interpretation
of fabric data and
structural domains

Structural
mapping on all pit
benches; further
refinement of
fabric data and
structural
domains

Hydrogeological
model

Regional
groundwater survey

Mine scale airlift,

pumping and packer
testing to establish initial
hydrogeological
parameters; initial
hydrogeological
database and model
established

Targeted pumping and

airlift testing; piezometer
installation;
enhancement of
hydrogeological
database and 3D
model; initial
assessment of
depressurisation and
dewatering
requirements

Installation of
piezometers and
dewatering wells;
refinement of
hydrogeological
database, 3D model,
depressurisation and
dewatering
reauirements

Ongoing
management of
piezometer and
dewatering well
network;
continued
refinement of
hydrogeological
database and 3D
model

Intact rock
strength

Literature values
supplemented by
index tests on core
from geological
drilling

Index and laboratory

testing on samples
selected from targeted
mine scale drilling;
database established;
initial assessment of
lithological domains

Targeted drilling and

detailed sampling and
laboratory testing;
enhancement of
database; detailed
assessment and
establishment of
geotechnical units for
3D geotechnical model

lnfill drilling, sampling

and laboratory
testing; refinement of
database and 3D
geotechnical model

Ongoing
maintenance of
database and 3D
geotechnical
model

Strength of
structural defects

Literature values
supplemented by
index tests on core
from geological
drilling

Laboratory direct shear

tests of saw cut and
defect samples selected
from targeted mine
scale drill holes and
outcrops; database
established ;
assessment of defect
strength within initial
structural domains

Targeted sampling and

laboratory testing;
enhancement of
database; detailed
assessment and
establishment of defect
strengths within
structural domains

Selected sampling
and laboratory
testing and
refinement of
database

Ongoing
maintenance of
database

Geotechnical
characterisation

Pertinent regional
information;
geotechnical
assessment of
advanced
exploration data

Assessment and
compilation of initial
mine scale geotechnical
data; preparation of
initial geotechnical
database and 3D model

Ongoing assessment
and compilation of all
new mine scale
geotechnical data;
enhancement of
geotechnical database
and 3D model

Refinement of
geotechnical
database and 3D
model

Ongoing
maintenance of
geotechnical
database and 3D
model

14

Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design

project. For example, in the case of a large open pit

mine, the board members could be:

A geologist or engineering geologist with

experience in the type of geological conditions
that exist on the site. This is particularly important
when unusual or difficult geological conditions
such as very weak altered rocks or major faults are
likely to be encountered.
A rock engineering specialist with experience in
rock slope stability problems in the context of
open pit mining.
A mine planning engineer with a sound
understanding of rock mechanics and a strong
background in scheduling, blasting and mining
equipment characteristics.

Recent experience has suggested that a hydrogeologist

can also play an invaluable role where large open pit slopes
are concerned, since slope depressurisation is usually
required.
In large projects, it is important that the reviewers be
involved from the early stages and be given regular updates
on progress and changes. This should avoid complications
during final presentation of the design.

1.6.2

Review levels

There are three levels at which reviews are commonly

performed.
1 Review at discussion level - at the discussion level the
reviewer is not provided with all the relevant reports
and data required for an independent assessment or
independent opinion. Generally, only selective
information is presented, often in meeting presentation
form, and there is insufficient time to absorb and
digest all the pertinent information and develop a
thorough understanding of all aspects relating to the
design, construction and operation. The reviewer relies
on information selected by the presenter and
substantially on the presenters observations,
interpretation and conclusions.
2 Review level - at this level the reviewer generally
examines only key documents and carries out at least
reasonableness of results checks on key analyses,
design values and conclusions. The reviewer generally
relies on representations made by key project
personnel, provided the results and representations
appear reasonable and consistent with what an
experienced reviewer would expect. This level of review

is appropriate for all levels of project development

beyond the conceptual (Level 1).
3. Audit level - an audit is a high-level review of all
pertinent data and analyses in sufficient detail for an
independent opinion on the general principles of
design, construction and operations, and on the
validity and accuracy of the key elements of the design
analyses, construction control and operating methods.
This level of review is often appropriate at the
feasibility (Level 3) stage of investigation.

1.6.3

Geotechnically competent person

Unlike the codes in use in different countries to support ore

reserve estimates (JORCin Australia, 43-101 in Canada),
there is no standard definition of geotechnical competence
to assess and sign off slope designs for use in reserve
estimate pits. However, for slope designs it is anticipated
that a definition of a geotechnically competent person and/
or reviewer for slope designs will be established in the near
future to complement the equivalent standards for the
presentation of ore reserves. Until such a definition becomes
available, the basic criteria could include:
an appropriate graduate degree in engineering or a
related earth science;
a minimum of 10 years post-graduate experience in pit
slope geotechnical design and implementation;
an appropriate professional registration.

1.7 Conclusion
The following chapters expand on the design of large open
pit slopes within the general framework outlined above. It
must be a basic design premise that a slope design
addresses the requirements of all stakeholders, from the
owners through the operators to the regulators.
In delivering a design, technical soundness is the
foundation. The slope designer must build on this,
responding to the varying conditions in each phase of the
mines life. The safety of personnel and equipment is of
paramount importance in all phases, and acceptable risk
levels must be carefully assessed and incorporated into the
designs.
By presenting the slope designs in a manner that enables
mine personnel, from executives to operators, to fully
understand the basis and shortcomings of the designs,
practitioners provide the means of discerning the risks
associated with deviation from those designs. With greater
understanding, better and safer decisions can be made.