Excavation Simulation of Opencut

Mining Slope Containing Goaf Based On

Refined Three-Dimensional Geological
Model With SURPAC and FLAC3D

Jiang Xue-liang1,2,a, Yang Hui1,b, Wen Chang-ping1,c

1
School of Civil Engineering and mechanics, Central South University of Forestry
and Technology, ChangSha 410004 China
2
School of Civil Engineering, Hunan City University, Yiyang 413000, China
a
e-mail: iamjxl@tom.com
b
e-mail: yanghui-dd@163.com
c
e-mail: urbanwen@163.com

ABSTRACT
The stability of slope and goaf are controlled by many influence factors and their excavation
processes are a key factor under certain circumstances. Although the studies of slope or cavern
stability have achieved many research findings, the interaction of slope and goaf has rarely
researched. FLAC3D is a three-dimensional explicit finite difference program and it is very fit
to solving nonlinearity and large deformation problems. SURPAC is a mine software system
which can build refined three-dimensional geological model through its own modeling tools. In
this paper, the SURPAC-FLAC3D coupled model of slope and goaf was built through own
compiled connection program. According to the strength reduction principle, the safety factor
of model was defined and a failure criterion of slope and goaf was proposed. In safety factor
calculation, the dichotomy in optimization theory was adopted. The goaf A of Wenfu
phosphorite mine was regarded as research example and the interaction mechanism and
stability of goaf and slope was analyzed in slope excavation process. The results of these
analyses show that the SURPAC-FLAC3D coupled model and strength reduction technique
work together quite effectively.

KEYWORDS: Excavation simulation; Interaction of open-cut mining slope and goaf;

Refined three-dimensional geological model; Coupled model of SURPAC and FIAC3D;
Strength reduction principle and technique

- 345 -
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 346

INTRODUCTION
The underground cavern and slope stability analysis is a important research field of
prevention and reduction engineering disaster. In China, with the capital construction development,
more and more construction objects which must consider the interaction of underground cavern and
slope appear, such as the interaction between goaf and open-cut mining slope when the under-
ground mining converts to open-cast mining under special circumstances and the interaction
between tunnel and slope of tunnel mouth. Many factors influence the stability of slope and cavern.
In these factors, the excavation is a key factor. Currently, the effect of cavern on slope or the effect
of slope on cavern has some research findings [1-7], but the studies of the reasonable
construction parameters and the stability in construction are less [8]. In this paper, the goaf A of
Wenfu phosphorite mine was regarded as a research object and the refined three-dimensional
geological model was built through SURPAC and the interaction mechanism and stability of goaf
and slope was analyzed and the influence of slope construction was studied through the
coupled SURPAC-FLAC3D model.
FLAC means fast Lagrangian analysis of continua and it is a explicit finite difference
program. Compared with implicit method in finite element program, FLAC have many own
characteristics. Its calculation amount is smaller and it needn’t distinct numerical damping in
solving dynamic problems and needn’t iteration calculation in nonlinear constitutive relation and
it has no limit in bandwidth and is suitable to solving large deformation problem[9-12].
FLAC3D is a universal software system and it can build three-dimensional models of rock, soil
and structure and it can realize the numerical simulation and design of complicated geotechnical
engineering which is very difficult to simulate with finite element software. FLAC3D embeds a
programming language FISH which can realize the function of secondary development and build
the contact with other software, such as SURPAC.
SURPAC is a mine software system developed by Australia national software company and it
can apply to all stages of mine life cycle include resources assessment, mine planning,
production planning management and reclamation design. SURPAC has a important merit that it
can build refined three-dimensional geological model through its own modeling tools. The refined
model can veritably correspond the stratum, lithological character and geological structure. In
SURPAC, basic model includes solids modeling and block modeling [11].
In existing research findings, many scholars had built three-dimensional geological model and
analyzed slope or cavern’s stability with FLAC3D, but these three-dimensional models were
rougher compared with refined three-dimensional geological model with SURPAC. So building
coupled model with SURPAC and FLAC3D is a good research method through integrating the
refined modeling capability of SURPAC and the powerful calculation capability of FLAC3D.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 347

REFINED THREE-DIMENSIONAL GEOLOGICAL MODEL

OF GOAF
WenFu phosphate mine is located in Fuquan city of Guizhou province in China. With the
underground mining, there are many complicated tunnels and goafs and there are several surface
subsidence. In 2006, underground mining transforming into surface mining was put forward. In
order to study the interaction between goaf and slope, the refined three-dimensional geological
model of goaf was built.
The host rock series are made of phosphorite, dolostone and silicalite. The phosphorite is
divided two layers. The upper layer was named layer a and the nether layer was named layer b.
there is a interlayer between layer a and layer b. The thickness of host rock series is 36.52～83.48
meters and the average thickness is 57.93 meter.
In order to build refined geological model, the engineering geological survey and goaf
detection were carried out. The engineering geology could not be elaborately discussed here for
lack of space. The goaf of layers a and b are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
The modeling process of refined three-dimensional geological model for goaf included several
steps as following[11]：
(1) The prospecting line profile map of number 16，17，18，19 were drawn with Autocad
software.
(2) The three-dimensional model of earth's surface was built through two-dimensional
profile map of earth’s surface importing SURPAC.
(3) The three-dimensional ore body model was built through two-dimensional profile map of
ore-body importing SURPAC.
(4) The three-dimensional goaf model was built through two-dimensional profile map of goaf
importing SURPAC.
(5) The block models of Wenfu phosphorite mine were built through the model coordinate.
(6) The three-dimensional or two-dimensional model was exported from SURPAC through
combining the solids modeling and block modeling according to the calculation needs.

Cross-section of prospecting line

The cross-section of prospecting line is the base of building model with SURPAC.
The cross-sections of number 16, 17 were shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 348

Figuure 1: crosss-section off prospecting line for nuumber 16 Figure

F oss-section of
2: cro
prosspecting linne for numbeer 17

Goaf plan
The goaf pllans were drrew accordinng to the gooaf general chart
c of layeer a and b for
f Lacai
mouuntain. The goaf
g plan of laayer a was shhown in Figuure 3 and the goaf plan of layer b was shown
s in
Figuure 4.

11
84
.3
02
斜坡

11
81
.8
02
11
81
.4
02

11
90
.3
19
11
82
.1
11

11
92
.3
48

12
19
.1
86
塌陷 区

12
16
.9
18
12
00
.6
97
11
93
.5
9

12
18
.8
39
12
21
.5
06
12
12
.8
05
11
82
.4
29
塌陷区

12
18
.2
43
12
19
.6
01
11
95
.4
94
斜坡

12
12
.9
21
危险 区

12
10
47
.
2
斜坡

12
09
.8
12
02
.4
59

12
09
.5
66
11
83
.0
01

12 03
10
.9
16

12
15
.9
87
12
03
.2

12
14
.5
26
12
02
.9
4

12
15
.1
32
斜坡

12
19
.7
斜坡

12
08
.7
09
斜坡 斜坡

12
19
.3
12
11
.6
63
11
84
.0
96

12
12
.4
12
13
.4
94

12
17
.2
15
斜坡

12
15
.4
34

12
11
.6
12
14
.7
09
11
84
.3
27
斜坡

11
81
.6
5

12
15
.3
17

12
14
.8
61
11
97
.5
43
斜坡

11
98
.8

12
08
.0
43
11
83
.6
98

12
15
.3
17
11
81
.4
2

12
05
.0
12
01
.5
斜坡

12
04
.3

12
15
.9
33
1170.22

12
05
.2
88
8
12
15
.3
17
斜坡

12
06
.5
12
07
.6
72
斜坡

12
05
.7
93
斜坡

12
05
.5
a

12
03
.9
12
11
.2

12
05
.8
12
10
.7

12
05
.1

12
05
.7
12
05
.4
12
05
.5
12
03
.6
12
04
.3
12
01
.0
93

12
05
.7
12
03
.3

12
05
.6
12
03
.7
6
同颖平 硐

Figure 3:
3 goaf plann of layer a Figuree 4: goaf plan of layer b

Solids mod
deling
The solids modeling inncludes holiistic modeliing of minee, ore-body modeling and a goaf
moddeling. The goaf
g solids modeling
m s off goaf a and b were show
wn in Figure 5 and Figurre 6. The
solidds modeling s of ore-boddy a and b aree shown in Figure
F 7 and Figure
F 8.

olids modelinng of goaf a

Figure 5: so Figure 6:
6 solids moddeling of gooaf b
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 349

Figure 7: so
olids modelinng of ore-boddy a F
Figure 8: soolids modelin
ng of ore-boddy b

Blo
ock mod
deling
The block modeling
m cann export the coordinate data
d of modeel and can enndow the terrrane and
ore-body with mechanics
m parrameters. Thhe block moddeling makes the model by y SURPAC in i setting
the FLAC
F softwaare easier. Thhe block moddeling of goaaf, slope and ore-body weere shown in Figure 9
to Figure 12.

Figuree 9: block moodeling of gooaf 1 Figure 10

0: block moddeling of goaaf 2

F
Figure 11: bllock modelinng of 3D sloppe F
Figure 12: block
b modeliing of ore-boody

ST
TRENGT
TH RED
DUCTIO
ON PRIN
NCIPLE AND TECHNI
T QUE

S
Strength reduction princ
ciple
The rock meechanics paraameters of slo ope ( c, ϕ ) were
w divided by a reductioon coefficiennt （ Fs ）
and a set of new mechanics parameters
p ( c ' , ϕ ' ) were obtained.
o Th
he calculationn formula is shown
s in
equaation (1).Thee gotten neww parameters were inputtted into FLA AC program. Through chhange the
valuue of reductioon coefficiennt, the corressponding meechanical ressponses of sllope could bee gotten.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 350

When the slope failed, the corresponding reduction coefficient was the safety factor of slope [8].

c ' = c / Fs 
 （1）
tan ϕ = (tan ϕ ) / Fs 
'

Failure criterion
When the strength reduction method is used to slope stability analysis, whether the solution
is convergent is the failure criterion. That is to say, when the solution isn’t convergent, the
stress distribution can not meet the demand of soil failure criterion and global balance. In this state,
the slope fails. This failure criterion is influence by subjective factors and its
physical significance isn’t clear. In this paper, the plastic zone transfixion of goaf is regarded as the
failure criterion. It’s physical significance is clear and it obeys the numerical analysis principle and
it saves the analysis time and avoids the convergent failure.

Safety factor solving

In fact, the solving of goaf’s safety factor is solving the reduction coefficient when the goaf is
in state of critical failure . It is a optimization problem. If it is solved through gradual reduction
strength, the calculation times by FLAC are very many and sometimes can’t achieve. So the
dichotomy in optimization theory was adopted and its implementation is shown in Figure 13.

FLAC3D ANALYSIS WITH REFINED 3D GEOLOGICAL

MODEL USING SURPAC

Calculation model
Through the own written connection program of SURPAC-FLAC3D, the messages of node and
element for refined 3D geological model with SURPAC were input into FLAC3D. There were
68583 elements and 109515 nodes. The model’s length was 290 meters and width was 100 meters
and height was 271meters. The slope’s height was 138 meters. The refined 3D geological model of
slope is shown in Figure 14. The boundary conditions were that the bottom was vertical
fix constraint and the both sides were horizontal fix constraint and the top was free boundary
[13-16]. The constitutive relationship was Mohr-Coulomb criterion and the initial stress field was
self-weight stress. The calculation convergence criterion was the ratio of unbalanced force met
10-5. The unit of all figures was international standard unit
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 351

Parameter input

FLAC analysis

Yes
plastic zone transfixion

No
Strength reduction 1/2

Strength increase 1/2

No
Fs meets precision

Yes
Fs export

end

Figure 13: Calculation procedure of safety factor

Figure 14: 3D geological refined model of slope

 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 352

Calculation parameters and numerical procedure

In stability analysis of rock engineering, the machanics parameter has very important influence
on calculation results. The mechanics parameters of rock-mass is a difficult research subject in rock
mechanics. Because of the effects of rock-mass discontinuity, water, weathering and external force,
the mechanical behavior varies greatly between rock-mass and rock.. The field test is more rational
than laboratory test in mensuration mechanical parameters, but the field test is very expansive. In
this paper, the mechanical parameters of rock were determined by laboratory test. The rock
parameters of laboratory tests are shown in Table 1. Considered the difference between rock mass
and rock, the mechanical parameters were gotten through reduction rock parameters with
Hoek-Brown method, GSMR method and empirical formula method. The rock-mass mechanical
parameters were shown in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 1: Rock parameters from laboratory tests

compressive elasticity cohesive frictional
tensile strength Poisson's
Rock type strength modulus strength C angle φ
σt(Mpa) ratio μ
σc(Mpa) E(Mpa×10 ) 4 （Mpa） （°）

topwall
2.60 133.38 2.10 0.27 15.50 23.03
dolostone
Underwall
2.66 58.87 1.38 0.29 15.29 48.17
dolostone
ore 2.46 120.53 1.85 0.26 3.60 52.06
sandstone 1.00 46.70 0.46 0.25 3.24 44.90

Table 2: Rock-mass strength after reduction (MPa）

Rock-mass compressive strength Rock-mass tension strength

Rock type
Hoek-Brown Hoek-Brown Model Hoek-Brown Hoek-Brown Model
method(RMR) method(GSI) real value method(RMR) method(GSI) real value

topwall
3.71～18.05 6.74～21.38 15 0.078～0.474 0.172～0.720 0.3
dolostone
Underwall
dolostone 1.27～5.25 2.33～7.19 4.5 0.026～0.130 0.091～0.319 0.1

ore 3.64～13.81 5.89～19.02 12 0.081～0.373 0.106～0.514 0.2

sandstone 0.14～0.52 0.487～1.34 0.5 0.005～0.021 0.011～0.072 0.015
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 353

Table 3: rock-mass cohesive strength and frictional angle after reduction

Rock-mass cohesive strength after reduction C Rock mass frictional angle after reduction φ
（MPa） (°)
Rock type
Hoek-Brown method Georgi Model GSMR empirical Model
method real value method formula method real value
RMR GSI
topwall
0.75 0.97 0.73 0.85 23.25 21.56 22.41
dolostone
Underwall
0.92 1.12 0.72 0.92 49.34 47.36 38.35
dolostone
ore 0.14 0.28 0.17 0.22 52.6 49.64 45.21
sandstone 0.13 0.26 0.15 0.20 45.4 42.81 44.11

The calculations were divided into two steps. At first, the underground goaf of 3D model was
excavated and then the open-cut mining slope was excavated. In numerical simulation, the goaf
excavation finished with one step and the slope excavation finished with five steps. The excavation
sequence diagrams of slope were shown in Figure 15. The section plane whose distance was 50
meters to the 3D model left side was calculated. The monitoring points were installed in goaf and
slope in order to monitor the changes of stress and displacement. The layout diagram of monitoring
points of goaf and slope was shown in Figure 16. In order to consider the influence of goaf, the
responses of slope containing goaf and slope without goaf were analyzed[8-10].

Figure 15: Excavation sequence diagrams of slope

 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 354

Figure 16: layout diagram of monitoring points of goaf and slope

Analysis of calculation results

Stress analysis
Figure 17 is the diagram of maximum principal stress of model after the fifth excavation step of
slope without goaf had been finished. The Figure 18 was the diagram of maximum principal
stress of model after the fifth excavation step of slope containing goaf had finished. From the
Figure 17 and 18, the stress increases from the top down and there is a obvious excavation
stress-release zone between the first step and the second step of slope. The slope surface stress is
mainly tension stress. There are obvious stress concentration around the goaf and the stress is
mainly compression stress. Around the goaf, there is obvious stress jump and it shows that the goaf
separates the stress transmission and immensely changes the stress field around goaf.

Figure 17: diagram of maximum principal stress without goaf Figure 18: diagram of
maximum principal stress containing goaf

Displacement analysis
The Figure 19 was the diagram of horizontal displacement after the fifth step of slope without
goaf had been finished. From the first step to the fifth step, the maximum
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 355

horizontal displacements are 8.0mm ， 9.7mm ， 10.6mm, 10.8mm, 10.9mm. Figure 20 is the
diagram of horizontal displacement after the fifth step of slope containing goaf had been finished.
From the first step to the fifth step, the maximum horizontal displacement are 9.6mm, 10.5mm,
11.2mm，11.4mm，11.5mm. It shows the horizontal displacement increases because of goaf. For
the slope, the horizontal displacement of slope surface is bigger than slope inner and it becomes
smaller and smaller from slope surface to slope inner. In addition, there is obvious horizontal
displacement around goaf and the displacement value of goaf side wall is bigger. Compared to
slope without goaf, the goaf lets the horizontal displacement around goaf markedly increase.
The Figure 21 was the diagram of vertical displacement after the fifth step of slope without
goaf had been finished. From the first step to the fifth step, the rebound displacement of slope
surface are 14.6mm，11.6mm，6.9，5.8mm，5.0mm. The Figure 22 was the diagram of vertical
displace- ment after the fifth step of slope containing goaf had been finished. From the first step to
the fifth step, the rebound displacement of slope surface are 15.3mm, 12.4mm, 8.0mm, 7.5mm,
7.4mm. Comparing the two groups data, it is seen that the goaf lets the vertical displacement
increase and it remarkably changes the vertical displacement field around goaf.

Figure 19: Horizontal displacement Figure 20: Horizontal displacement

without goaf containing goaf

Figure 21: Vertical displacement without Figure 22: Vertical displacement

goaf containing goaf
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 356

Plastic zone
Figure 23 was the diagram of plastic zone after the fifth step of slope without goaf had been
finished. The Figure 24 is diagram of plastic zone after the fifth step of slope containing goaf had
been finished. Compare Figures 23 and 24, for slope without goaf, there are many tension and shear
plastic zones on the first and second slope surface and the plastic zone doesn’t obviously decrease
with excavation. For slope containing goaf, the plastic zone distribution is markedly different and
there are obvious tension zone on slope surface and the plastic zone’s range has decreased with
excavation. There are destruction regions around goaf and the shear destruction regions appear on
the goaf both sides.

Figure 23: diagram of plastic zone of slope without goaf Figure 24: diagram of
plastic zone of slope containing goaf

Safety factor
Figure 25 is the diagram of safety factor of slope containing goaf. The safety factor of slope
without goaf was 1.66. The safety factor of slope containing goaf was 1.58. The goaf lets the safety
factor reduce. Because the distance of goaf to slope bottom is bigger, the reduction of slope safety
factor is smaller.

Figure 25: diagram of safety factor of slope containing goaf

Response analysis of slope monitoring points

 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 357

There were 6 monitoring points on slope and there was 1 monitoring point on slope top (point
1) and there was 1 monitoring point at toe of slope after every step had been excavated (point 2-6).
The diagram of monitoring points is shown in Figure 16.

(1) Displacement
Figures 26, 27, 28 and 29 are the diagrams of relationship between horizontal displacement of
monitoring point and calculation time step. These diagrams correspond to the
dynamic equilibrium process of horizontal displacement for every excavation step. The horizontal
displacement is positive shows the direction is right and the horizontal displacement is negative
shows the direction is left. From these diagrams, the goaf excavation has small effect on slope’s
horizontal displacement and only the monitoring point 6 appears small negative displacement. The
horizontal displacement at toe of slope becomes bigger and bigger with the slope excavation. The
range of variation of horizontal displacement at slope toe is biggest at the time of respective
excavation step.
The figures 30 and 31 were the diagram of relationship between vertical displacement of
monitoring point and calculation time step. The vertical displacement is positive shows the
direction is upward and the vertical displacement is negative shows the direction is downward.
From Figure 30 and 31, the goaf excavation has small effect on slope’s vertical displacement and
all monitoring points appear small settlement. The rebound displacements become bigger and
bigger with slope excavation. The increase of rebound displacements become smaller and smaller
after every excavation step and it is related to the unloading value of every step.

Figure 26: variation of horizontal displacement for point 1 Figure 27: variation of
horizontal displacement for point 2
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 358

Figure 28: variation of horizontal displacement for point 4 Figure 29: variation of
horizontal displacement for point 4

Figure 30: variation of vertical displacement for point 1 Figure 31: variation of vertical
displacement for point 2-6

(2) Stress
Figures 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 are the diagrams of relationship between stress of monitoring
point and calculation time step. The tension stress is positive and the compression stress is
negative. From these diagrams, the variation of stresses for monitoring points is very small except
point 5 and 6 in the goaf excavation process. In the slope excavation process, the point 1 is in the
tension stress state and the tension stress is 3 MPa afer the first excavation step finished, but the
other steps have small effect on stress of the point 1. The stress of point 2 and 3 remarkably increase
in their own excavation step, but the variation is small in other steps. The points 4,5 and 6 are in
compression-shear state. Because of excavation unloading, the stress decreases with excavation
before their own step. The stress remarkably increases in its own step because of
stress concentration. The compression-shear stress decreases with excavation after their own step
because of excavation unloading.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 359

Figure 32: variation of stress of point 1 Figure 33: variation of vertical displacement
of point 2

Figure 34: variation of stress of point 3 Figure 35: variation of stress of point 4

Figure 36: variation of stress of point 5 Figure 37: variation diagram of stress of
point 6

Response analysis of goaf monitoring points

The layout diagram of monitoring points of goaf was shown in Figure 16. The 18 monitoring
points of 3 goafs had been calculated. The variation of displacements and stresses for goaf 1 and 2
had been analyzed.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 360

(1) displacement
Figures 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 are the diagrams of relationship between displacement and
calculation time step. From these diagrams, the goaf excavation has big effect on the horizontal
displacement around goaf. The monitoring points of goaf 1 appear left horizontal displacement and
the points 1,2 and 3 of goaf 2 appear right horizontal displacement and the points 4,5 and 6 of goaf
2 appear left horizontal displacement. The horizontal displacements increase with slope
excavation, but displacement value is small and the maximum horizontal displacement is 0.01
meter. The displacements of point 1,2 and 3 for goaf 1 decrease or is zero after the fifth excavation
step because the elements of monitoring points have been excavated. In the goaf excavation
process, the goaf has remarkable effect on vertical displacement around goaf. The points 1,2 and 3
appear settlement and the points 4,5 and 6 appear rebound displacement. In the slope excavation
process, the vertical displacements increase and the increments become smaller and smaller. The
maximum vertical displacement of goaf 1 is 0.16 meter and the maximum vertical displacement of
goaf 2 is 0.11 meter. The displacement of goaf 1 is bigger than goaf 2 because the goaf 1 is nearer to
slope than goaf 2.

Figure 38: variation of horizontal Figure 39: variation of horizontal

displacement of point 1-3 for goaf 1 displacement of point 4-6 for goaf 1
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 361

Figure 40: variation of horizontal Figure 41: variation of vertical

displacement of goaf 2 displacement of goaf 1

Figure 42: variation of vertical displacement of Figure 43: variation of maximum principal
goaf stress of point 4 for goaf 1

(2) Stress
The figures 43-49 were the diagrams of relationship between maximun principal stress and
calculation time step. From these diagrams, the goaf excavation has markedly effect on monitoring
points stress. Bacause of stress concentration, the stress of monitoring points abruptly increases and
the value is big. The points 4 and 6 of goaf 1 and the points 1,4 and 6 of goaf 2 are in
compression-shear state in slope excavation and their stress concentrations are obvoius. For point 4
of goaf 1, the stress decreases in the front 3 steps and increases in back 2 steps bacause of
excavation unloading in front 3 steps and excavation surface nearer to goaf 1. The stress of point 5
becomes smaller and smaller in front 3 steps and remarkably increases in back steps. The stress of
point 6 decreases in front 4 steps and increases in the fifth step. The stress of point 1 for goaf 2
decreases with excavation and the stress of point 4 and 6 decreases in front 2 steps and increases in
back 4 steps. The point 5 of goaf 2 is in compression-shear state and the stress markedly increases
in the first step and the changes is small in the second step and the stress increases in back 3 steps.

Figure 44: variation of maximum principal Figure 45: variation of maximum principal
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 362

stress of point 5 for goaf stress of point 6 for goaf 1

Figure 46: variation of maximum principal Figure 47: variation of maximum principal
stress of point 1 for goaf 2 stress of point 4 for goaf 2

Figure 48: variation of maximum principal Figure 49: variation of maximum principal
stress of point 5 for goaf 2 stress of point 6 for goaf 2

CONCLUSION
The refined three-dimensional geological model better simulates the veritable
geological structure of real engineering work. Adopted SURPAC-FLAC3D model and strength
reduction principle and technique, and it was found that the numerical simulation and the safety
factor have been realized with a shorter calculation time.
Compared to the slope without goaf, the goaf which is nearer to the slope has important
influence on slope stability. There are obvious compressive stress concentrations around goaf and
there is obvious stress jump in goaf. The horizontal and vertical displacements of slope containing
goaf are bigger than the slope without goaf. The plastic zone distribution range of slope containing
goaf has decreased with slope excavation and the slope surface appears distinct tension zone.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 363

The goaf excavation has small effect on the displacement of slope monitoring points except the
stress of point 5 and 6 have a few changes. In slope excavation process, the horizontal and rebound
displacements become bigger and bigger and the increment of rebound displacement for every step
becomes smaller and smaller because of excavation unloading. The horizontal and rebound
displacements of points 2, 3, 4 and 5 have increased in slope excavation and the variation value of
horizontal displacement is biggest in respective excavation step. The point 1 remains tension stress
state and the excavation steps except its own step have small effect on stress. The other points
except point 1 remain compressive-shear stress state and the stress becomes smaller and smaller in
excavation steps except their own step. In its own excavation step, the stress of monitoring point
abruptly increases.
The goaf excavation has big effect on the displacements and stress of goaf monitoring points
and the stress of goaf monitoring points remarkably increases. In slope excavation process, at first,
the goaf monitoring points appear left horizontal displacement and then appear right horizontal
displacement and the displacement values increase with excavation. The rebound displacements of
goaf also become bigger and bigger and the vertical displacement of goaf 1 is bigger than the goaf
2. The angular points of goaf remain compressive-shear stress state . The stress of angular points
decreases in front excavation steps because of unloading and then increases in back step because of
excavation surface nearer the goaf.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The research project was supported by national natural science foundation of China
(51204215) and funded by talent introduction project of 2010 Central South University of Forestry
and Technology (104-0155,104-0156 ) and the Hunan provincial education department project of
China (11B133) and the project of ministry of housing and urban-rural development of the people’s
republic of China (2011-k3-15).

REFERENCES
[1] Zhu He-hua, Li Xin-xing, Cai Yong-chang (2005) “3D nonlinear FEM analysis on the stability
of the slope at tunnel face during the construction of the twin tunnels.” Journal of Highway and
Transportation Research and Development 2005;S1:119-122.

[2] Wang Jian-xiu,Tang Yi-qun,Zhu He-hua (2006) 3D monitoring and analysis of landslide
deformation caused by twin-arch tunnel. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering
2006;25(11):2226-2232.

[3] Xu Wei-ya,Luo Xian-qi, Xie Shou-yi (2006) Three dimensional numerical simulation of
underground rock excavation in Maya rock slope for Shuibuya hydropower project. Journal of
Engineering Geology 1999;7(1):89～93.
 Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. B 364

[4] Wan Wen (2006) Effect of underground cavern on slope’s stability. Changsha: Central South
University.
[5] Lan Hang, Li Feng-ming,Yao Jian-guo. Research on surface subsidence of dump slope induced
by mining in open colliery. Journal of China University of Mining andTechnology
2007;36(4):482～486.

[6] Han Fang,Xie Fang,Wang Jin-an. 3-D numerical simulation on the stability of rocks in
transferred underground mining from open-pit. Journal of University of Science and
Technology Beijing 2006;28(6):509～514.

[7] Li Xiao-hong, Jin Xiao-guang, Lu Yi-yu, et al. Study on deformation character of surrounding
rock mass and numerical modeling of Xishanping tunnel through coal and working out area.
Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 2002; 21(5): 667～670.
[8] Jiang Xue-liang, YangHui, Cao Ping, et al. FLAC3D analysis of interaction between goaf and
open-cut mining slope with 3D geological model using SURPAC. Rock and Soil Mechanics
2011;32(4):1234-1240.
[9] FLAC-user’s manual .Minneapolis,MN：Itasca Consulting Group Inc.2005

[10] Liu Bo.Principle, example and application guide of FLAC .Beijing:China Communications
press,2005.
[11] Gemcom surpac user’s manual .Surpac Inc,2006.

[12] Zhou-quan Luo, Xiao-ming Liu, Bao Zhang, et al. Cavity 3D modeling and correlative
techniques based on cavity monitoring. Journal of Central South University of Technology
2008;15(5): 639-644

[13] Kripamoy Sarkar, T. N. Singh, A. K. Verma. A numerical simulation of landslide-prone slope

in Himalayan region-a case study. Arabian Journal of Geosciences 2012;5(1): 73-81.
[14] T. N. Singh, A. Gulati, L. Dontha, V. Bhardwaj. Evaluating cut slope failure by numerical
analysis-a case study. Natural Hazards 2008;47(2): 263-279.

[15] Hang Lin, Ping Cao, Feng-qiang Gong (2009) Directly searching method for slip plane and its
influential factors based on critical state of slope. Journal of Central South University of
Technology 2009; 16(1):131-135

[16] Min Zhang, Xing-hua Wang, Guang-cheng Yang (2011) Numerical investigation of the
convex effect on the behavior of crossing excavations. Journal of Zhejiang University
-Science A 2011;12(10): 747-757.

© 2013, EJGE