...

'1\

An Approach to Hard Rock Pillar Design at the McArthur River Mine

C. J. Schubert Rock Mechanics Engineer, McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd. E. Villaescusa " Professor of Mining Geomechanics, Western Australian School of Mines.

ABSTRACT
'8 This paper describes a methodology for fue design of mine pillars at fue McArthur River Mine. The pillar strength is calculated using a method that accounts for confinement, pillar geometry and intact rack properties. The average pillar stress was calculated using in-situ measurements of vertical stresses at shallow depth and fue tributary afea method in conjunction with numerical modelling. Observations of pillar behaviour indicate that an existing Pillar Stability Graph mar be,!!! ~ conservative and further adjustments to fue local rockmass conditions are needed. The results to date indicate that all mine pillars are stable for a range of mining geometries at McArthur River.

INTRODUCTION
The McArthur River Mine site is located approximately 720 kilometres south-east of Darwin and 100 kilometres inland from fue Gulf of Carpentaria (Logan el al, 1993). Mineralisation within fue mine afea extends approximately 1.5 kilometres northsouth and 1.0 kilometre east-west. The central afea, targeted for selective mining dips between 15 and 20 degrees towards fue east at a depth of 100 to 350 metres. The average thickness of fue currentIy mined 2 Orebody is 3.1 m. The immediate hangingwall to fue room and pillar mine openings consists of a 1.6 m thick bed of unmineralised siltstone overlayed by a mnimal strength, 5 mm thick, cIar tuff bando This cIar band is effectively fue first continuous parallel discontinuity to fue hangingwall of fue mining void. The mine commenced production in March 1995. Over fue last year or so, a rack mechanics program has been developed and implemented in arder to improve safety and fue economical extraction of fue shallow dipping orebodies at McArthur River (Schubert el al, 1997). Current total ore reserves for fue 2, 3/4 and 4 orebodies is 27.0 million tonnes @ 13.9%Zn, 6.2% Pb and 63 g/tAg. GEOTECHNICAL SETTING The mineralisation comprises eight stratiform orebodies, stacked one on top of fue other, each separated by dolomitic siltstone and sedimentary breccias. The 55 m thick sedimentary sequence which hosts fue orebodies is divided up into a series of mechanically continuous layers of rack separated by thin cIar filled tuff bands. These

"

'

.
'0.5 to 1.6 m thick beds have a frequency of ~din,g plane breaks ranging from 3 to 10 breaksj m. Underground exposures show that bedding plane breaks extend up to 3 m in length. The orebody sequence is irregularly offset by tour majar vertical fault sets. Local vertical displacements on faults range from zero to fifteen metres. There is generally no alteration or disruption (drag folds etc.) of fue rack conditions adjacent to fue vertical faults. The faults are usua11y~ghtIy heal~d and infi11 is commonly either dolomite or chlorite. Three prominent jointset orientations have been,identified at McArthur River which are a1l steeply dipping. The joints are frequentIy short and often terminate against cIar tuff bands. Joint spacings are genera1ly large (>2 m ) and fue majority of joint surfaces are unaltered. Intact rack strength values of approximately 157 MPa (average) have been tested. The maximum principal stress (al is oriented sub-horizontally NNE-SS~I along fue strike of bedding and normal to majar NW-SE cross cutting faults. The measured vertical stress (az = 6.9 MPa) is almost twice that expected from the weight of overburden (3.6 MPa).

MINING METHOD
Room and pillar mining is fue primary extraction technique at fue McArthur River Mine. Three closely spaced tabular orebodies have been targeted for extraction over fue life of fue mine and due to economics fue lowermost number 2 orebody is being mined first. Five metre wide.:21!9J. dr~c; are driven on an apparent clip to access ore blocks. The roof of fuese drives are positioned on fue hangingwall of fue 2 orebody. The pilot drives are stripped to eight or nine metres wide leaving rib pillars between stripped rooms. The rib pillars are split to forro a series of shorter island pillars (See Figure 1).

8
Tuff bands 2 orebody Extractionsequence 1. driving 2. stripping 3. Pillar splitting

Figure 1. Schematic cross section of room and pillar mining sequences at McArthur River Mine.

ROCK REINFORCEMENT
The immediate hangingwall to 2 orebody at McArthur River consists of a 1.4 to 1.6 m thick bed of intact siltstone. ~be~ is bound on its hangingw~l1 h~T 1"te!-=Yy " continuo,!s clav filled. weakened ruff band " It is critical to fue stability of the roof tnat fue integri"ty of fue exposed hangingwall is maintained. Systematic rack bolting increases fue tensile and shear strength of the bedding planes within this beam to maintain a strengthened roof for fue pilot drive and expanded room geometry .

.
.1

Rock reinforcement at fue McArthur River Mine consists of fue mechanised support of each development cut by Secoma PIntan 30 Rockbolters installing friction coupled bolts in conjunction with weld mesh. ~..!!1l!@wum hpight of dpvplo12ment drive headings at McArthur River Mine ~ limited bv fue bolter boom length. ~ need to reduce footwall dilution demanded a rPd11C'tion thp pyC'~v~tion hpight in (Figure 1). A shortening of bolt length from 2.1 m to 1.8 m allowed a reduction in bolter ~ length and hence achieved a lower mining profile. A series of in-situ pull tests were conducted to determine fue holding capa~ity of fue 1.8 m long bolts and it was found that cement grouted friction coupled bolts were likely to provide up to three times fue strength ofungrouted bolts (Villaescusa and Wright, 1997).The revised ground support design consists of five 1.8 m long, 47 mm diameter friction coupled bolts (inserted into 44 mm holesY'iStaIled across fue five metre wide drive on 1.2 m ring spacings (Figure 2). If fue hangingwall red is overbroken or undercut then fue bolts are cement grouted in an attempt to limit fue delamination of fue ~confined 8 bedding planes. Initially, in an attempt to pre-support fue stripping cut, 6 m long !!-ingle strand Qulbed cablf'~ bolts were installed as shown in Figure 2. A monitored field trial of fue revised support design was conducted at McArthur River Mine to validate fue roof span design principIes and support system performance. ~e field trials suggested that ~ voussoir beam was formed within fue hangingwall arresting any vertical movement of fue roof. The weight of fue rack beam is transferred to fue pillars va the arching process and there is no need for deep anchored suEEt (Schubert et al, 1997).

.4, .l1li(

cob/e bohs Frldlon groullng coup/ed opllono/ bohs

opbono/

8
unsupported

2.
1.
.f--++ -+ -+ +

Figure 2. Current reinforcement design at fue McArthur River Mine. PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION Underground pillar design at McArthur River Mine is based on a relationship that 1inks pillar strength to pillar loado Pillar strength is estimated using fue 'Confinement

"'

.(.

..
Formula' (Lunder, .1994).The 'ConfinementFormula' (Equation .1)grades fue strength of fue final mine pillar as a function of fue unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of fue intact rock pillar material (50 mm sample) and fue average pillar confinement. Ps ~ (K.UCS).(Cl+(C2.k)) where: Ps K UCS Cl, C2 k (.1)

= = = = =

Pillar strength (MPa) ... Pillar strength size factor = 0.44 Unconfined Compressive Strength ofpillar material Empirical rock mass constants (0.68, 0.52 respectively) . kappa,mine pillar friction term (See Equation 2)

The pillar strength in Equation .1is driven by fue mine pillar friction term, "kappa" as defined in Equation 2. "kappa" is a function of fue applied and confining stresseson the pillar (Lunder, .1994). k= tan[ACOS((l-Cpav)/(l+Cpav))] where: k Cpav (2)

= =

kappa,mine pillar friction term Average pillar confinement

A This modified strength formula (Equation 1) resembles fue Mohr-Coulomb strength as~(/fR,.t'"' r criteria in fue way it assessesfue strength of fue rock m-assas a function of fue applied b fvnci C'*"\ and confining stresses. Two-dimensional elastic boundary element modelling <:'ie..-.$ ~SfvLl~performed by Lunder (1994) suggested that a relation exists between fue pillar 9 t 11Ct;j' width/height ratio and a term called fue 'average pillar confinement'. The average 4f / CA c>. pillar confinement is defined as fue ratio o( fue average minor pillar stress (0"3 and fue average major pillar stress 0"1).These values are measured at fue mid -height of fue modelled pillar. Equation 3 relates fue pillar width/ height ratio to fue average pillar confinement. The value of coeffis a function of fue extraction ratio in the vicinity of fue pillar. For typkalextraCtion ~a1iosof 70 -90%, a value of 0.46 was recommended for coeff(Lunder,1994) CpClV f 1 ;::

(3)
where: Cpav coeff 'U) h

Cpav = coeffx [log(wjh+O.75)](1.4j(wjh

'

tl

I~

cr-~ = = = = Average pillar confinement Coefficient of pillar confinement ( = 0.46) Pillar width (m) Pillar height (m) ---~

The above relationship assumes an average rock mass strength for a pillar and does not consider majar structural features such as bedding parallel clay filled tuff bands. Experience has shown that fue confining stress transmitted through fue pillar axis maintains a high degree of cohesion on fuese planes. No shear failure has been~

~ ~t':
,

observed on fuese bedding parallel bands. The rack mass strength of fue pillar foundations (roof and fIoor) is similar to fue pillar material therefore foundation failure is not a problem at McArthur River Mine.

The tributary afea method Average pillar loads can be estimated in several different ways, including fue tributary afea theory and numerical modelling methods: The theory of ~ tributary afea method assumes fue verticalIDad originally carried by a certain afea of rack ~ tributa area multi lied b the vertical Id stressaz= 6.9 MPa) is transferred to fue pillar when fue adjacent rack is removed. The pillar load iS assumed to be evenly distributed across fue pillar. A limitation to this technique is fue inability to account for complicated pillar layouts and obliquely oriented stress paths generated through fue pillars. Stress path orientations and concentrations mar also be inf1uenced by fue direction of fue principal stress axes and interactions with fue removal of overlying orebodies. ..Further work at McArthur River needs to include detailed analysis of mining ,. geometries using numerical modelling techniques to determine detailed stress distributions through mine pillars. Table 1 compares t11~pillar strenRth as defined by fue 'Confinement Formula' to fue pillar load determined ~ using fue trib~ afea method for a series of 2 orebody pillars at McArthur River Mine. The Pillar Stability Graph Equations 1 to 3 were programmed on an EXCEL~adsheet: The input parameters included pillar width, pillar height and UCS of fue intact material. The empirical rack mass constants (C1, C2) will be fine-tuned as more data on pillar performance is collected and fue techniqe iS further cali~ted to fue local rack mass conditions at McArthur River. By comparing the.! ~ variables (pillar widthjpillar height and UCS) with fue average pillar stress (determined by fue tributary afea method) an estimate of pillar strength and pillar stability can be made. The pillars listed in Table 1 were plotted on a Pillar Stability Graph (Figure 3). The McArthur River Mine pillars were compared to a large database (178 case histories) of hard rack mine pillar performances compiled by Lunder (1994). Each of fue case histories presented on fue stability graph were grouped by a pillar stability classification. Figure 4 shows fue schematic illustration of fue Lunder (1994) pillar stability classification aIso used to classify fue McArthur River Mine pillars. Class 1 represents a stable pillar in which no sign of stress related fracturing is observed. Oasses 2 to 4 represent unstable pillars. Oass 2 pillars show signs of comers breaking up, while class 3 pillars have fractures rwming across 1/2 fue pillar height (fracture aperture <5mm). of CIass 4 pillars have fractures greater than V2fue pillar height (fracture aperture ranges from 5-10mm). Fina1ly, Class 5 represents failed pillars in which disintegration is experienced. Fractures run through fue pillar core (fracture aperture >10mm), and blocks fall out from fue pillar. Up to date, fue majority of fue McArthur River Mine pillars fall within cIass1 (stable pillars). Lunder (1984) compared fue pillars to empirically determine two factor of safety divisions on fue pillar stability graph (Figure 3). These divisions are based on fue

18

.c

'.",."" ;cr~I'f~""""".,7';~:
,

.~ ":,: .,'
~,,:-

,'

assumption fue line dividing unstable and failed pillars has a factor of safety of 1.0. Using this as a baseline, it was determined fue transition from stable to unstable pillar conditions would have a calcu1ated factor of safety of 1.4. Therefore, fue McArthur River Mine pillars have been designed to have a Factor of Safety greater than 1.4. However, over excavation from development or stripping operations sometimes results in fue final pillars having a reduced factor of safety (seeTable 1).

8,~;

.
>Table 1. Calculated pillar loads and strengths at l'fcArthur River Mine (all fue listed illars are currentl stable. ArJ.f;,/J WT~A . mi
Pillar No. Pillar width I ar height W:H ratio Pillar Strength(MPa) Average Pillar stress (MPa) Safety Factor (Ps/Pillar stress Pillar Classification

2A4/31 2A3/41 2A3/42 2A3/43 2A3/44 2A3/45 2A3/46 2A3/47 2A3/48 2A3/49 2A3/41 O 2A3/411 2A3/412 2A2/71 2A2/72 2A2/73 2A2/74 2A2/75 2A2/76 2A2/77 2A2/78 2A2/79 2A2/71 O 2E1/13 2B3/2a 2B3/2b 2B3/3a 2B3/3b 2B3/3c 2B3/3d 2B3/3e 2B3HH1 2B3HH2 2B3HH3 2B3HH4 2B3HH5 2H93HH1 2H93HH2 2H93HH3 2H93HH4 2H93HH5 2H93HH6 2H93HH7 2H93HH8 212/4e 2E1/4a 2E1/4b 2E1/4c 2E3/13b

4 4 7 4 4 5.5 4 5.5 4 5.5 3.5 4 4 3 5 4 5 3 3 5 4 5 7.5 7 4.5 4 4 4 4 6 4 3 4 3.5 3 3 2.5 3 2.8 3 2.8 3 2.3 3.1 6 3.1 3.2 5.3 5.3

3.5 3.5 3.6 4 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.9 3.8 4.2 3 3.7 3.1 3.7 4.1 3.6 3.8 4.5 4 3.6 3.7 3.5 4.5 3.2 3.16 3.85 3.79 3.76 3.27 3.5 3.6 4.16 4.16 4.42 4.35 3.51 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.6 4 4.5 4.3 4 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.7

1.1 1.1 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.7 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 1.7 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.4

72 72 95 66 72 89 72 80 68 77 72 69 77 59 74 70 77 54 57 80 69 81 88 100 81 68 68 69 74 89 70 56 65 58 55 61 55 59 58 60 55 54 50 58 89 63 62 81 81

58 25 19 30 45 ..1.6 36 29 28 23 26 36 35 35 86 24 37 26 56 55 29 34 25 22 52 34 38 33 32 36 27 27 24 32 22 23 25 93 23 25 57 25 26 49 26 33 48 32 32 31

1.2 2.9 5.0 2.2 2.5 2.5 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 0.7 3.0 1.9 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.7 2.0 3.2 4.0 1.9 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.1 3.2 2.6 2.4 2.0 2.6 2.3 2.4 0.6 2.6 2.3 1.0 2.2 2.0 1.0 2.2 2.7 1.3 2.0 2.6 2.6

stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable unstable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable stable

~'"'~c"~

-"'~

~~

'.

~:i4,' "'1'

".,!,'

,1:::,'

~
\
.,

"

.,

:~r ---;
C/I C/I ~ --'-'"~:~, o -~

."

"..'

f!
-o (/)

-~-'--

--1-

---~-~
-~

'Cc

"

-~I>

-~

--~

2.5 3

0.00 1.00
o 0.5 1 1.5
Pillar width I Height ratio

1> x

Lunder D'base (stable) Lunder D'base (Failed) Unstable

l1 .~M

Lunder D'base (Ulstable) Stable l\I1RM Failed

.l\I1RM

--FS1

FS1.4

Figure 3. The pillar stability graph.

~
8

E;ng ~
Class 1

E;,g ~\/\)E;"g
Class 2 Class 3

=1 fYEmg
Class 4

=~:J~~;"g
Class 5

Figure 4. Schematic illustration o fue pillar stability classificationmethod (from Lunder,1994)

..,

Stability monitoring of an isolated pillar In an attempt to test fue accura of fue assum tions and predictions made by E uation 1 raph (Figure 3) a p~ar loadinp; experiment was conaucted at fue McArthur River Mine. The test was performed in fue 2A4/3 mining block (Figure 5). The pillar was painted white to help highlight any rockmass damage (spalling) that may have occurred due to fue increased load carried by fue pillar .2s fue spans around !!te Eillar were incre~d (Schubert, et al 1997). The pillar ':Vasphotographed at regular intervals to help compare changes in pillar damage over nrne. The aim of fue trial was to see if fue pillar showed signs of deterioration as fue average pillar stress was increased towards an empirical factor of safety of 1 (based on fue Pillar Stability Graph, Figure 3). The pillar, with final dimensions of 3.5 m high by 4 m thick by 7 m long s!!owed no sirns of stres~ TP1;tpli ~p;lljng (Figure 5). This field trial indicates Equation 1 and fue 'Pillar Stability Graph' may be slighUy conservtive in their predictions of pillar performance. Further recording ofpillar pertarmance is required at McArthur River to calibrate fue rack mass constants (C1 and C2) used in Equation 1 and fue Factor of Safety divisions in Figure 3. "~

8
Figure 5. Stable pillar in fue 2A4/3 trial mining afea. Final dimensions of 3.5 m high, 4 m thick and 7 m long. Recommended pillar design The recommended minimum width: height ratios for square and rib pillars (where length: width >4) at McArthur River Mine are set to 1:1 and 0.8:1 respectively. Figure 6 shows a current mine design with an array of an echelon 15 m (minimum) long by 3 m wide rib pillars supporting a series of 21m long by 15m wide rooms. The access drive in Figure 6 is protected from fue room and pillar panels by a series of 10m long by 7m wide barrier pillars. As there is no immediate plan to tight fill 2 orebody, all pillars are designed to remain stable for fue life of fue project. One obvious limit to this empirical pillar design is it does not make explicit allowances for blast damage suffered by fue ore that makes up fue pillars. Although current mine pillars show titile evidence of significant blast damage, further work is ~

..
,
required to understand fue effects of current and future blasting practices on mine pillars.

,.
Figure 6. Current working mine design at McArthur River Mining. Numerical analysis of regional stress distribution Numerical modelling has been carried out with fue intention of analysing fue predicted stress conditions around fue current and proposed room and pillar mining ralleIs. The modelling has been done using fue program NFOLD, a displacement ..studies .fue discontinuity program developed by Golder Associates (Bywater el al, 1983). The were designed primarily to determine fue stress transmitted by pillars from hangingwall to footwall for fue different pillar layouts. The model geometry included a continuous 10m wide pillar maintained either side of fue main access decline. This decline pillar creates a regional barrier pillar through fue centre of fue mine and helps protect fue decline accessfrom stress related damage. The predicted stress conditions for fue No. 2 orebody with 72% extraction show that only few pillars are predicted to experience stress levels greater than 50 MPa. Only in fue deepest section of fue mine fue predicted stress levels approached 60 MPa. The maximum predicted stress within fue decline barrier pillar ranged from 30 to 40 MPa. The data presented in Figure 3 shows McArthur River Mine pillars (UCS = 157 MPa) with predicted average pillar stresses of 50 MPa (UCS / Average Pillar Stress = 3.1) and a mnimum w:h ratios of 1:1 will have factors of safety of approximately 1.4. The results for fue numerical analysis indicate fue majority of fue pillars with a 1:1 w:h ratio will not become highly stressed.

..

CONCLUSIONS
An empirical pillar design methodology is being calibrated at McArthur River. Observations of pillar behaviour indicate that fue existing Pillar Stability Graph mar be slighUy conservative and further adjustments to fue local rackmass conditions are needed. To date, aIl pillar geometries at McArthur River appear to be stable. OveraIl (mine-wide) stable conditions for a range of pillar design ~ayoutshave been predicted by numerical modelling. Future rack mechanics work at McArthur River will include additional stress measurements at increased depth, investigations into blast damage of mine pillars, numerical modelling of fue interaction between 2 and fue overlying 4 orebody extraction and an anaIysis of fue dynamic loading of 2 orebody spans due to blasting in overlying orebodies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
8 The authors wish to thank fue management of McArthur River Mining Limited for fue permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES
Bywater, s, Cowling, R and Black, B, 1983. Stress measurement and analysis for mine planning. Proceedings Fifth ISRM Congress, Melbourne Australia. D29-D37. Logan, R G, Leung, K, and Karelse, G J, 1993. The McArthur River Project Praceedings. Int. Symposium -World Zinc, Hobart. .Lunder, J P, 1994. Hard rack pillar strength estimation -An applied empirical approach. Masters Thesis, The University of British Colombia. Schubert, C J, Villaescusa, E and Stewart, C M, 1997. Ground support design and monitoring at fue McArthur River Mine Australia. Proceedings Int. Symposium on Rack Support. Lillehammer, Norway. 329-339. Villaescusa, E and Wright, J, 1997. Permanent excavation support using cement .a grouted split set bolts. Praceedings Int. Symposium on Rack Support. ..Lillehammer, Norway. 660-670.

Abstract for:

Tbe strengtb of bard-rock pillars

..

Intemational Journal ofRock Mechanics and Mining Sciences / 37 (2000) 1239-1246 EIsevier ScienceInc., publisher, all rights reserved C.D. Martin(a),*,W.G. Maybee(b) (a) DepartmentofCivil & EnvironmentalEngineering, University of Alberta, Edrnonton, Alberta, CanadaT6G 2G7 (b) GeomechanicsResearch Centre,Laurentian University, FraserBuilding F21 "7, Ra~sey Lake Road Sudbury,ON, Sudbury,CanadaP3E 2C6 -Summary: Observationsof pillar failures in Canadianhard-rock mines indicate that fue dominant mode of failure is progressiveslabbingand spalling. Empirical formulas developed for fue stability ofhard-rock pillars suggestthat fue pillar strengthis directly related to the pillar wide-to-height ratio and that failure is se1dom observedin pillars where fue widthto-height ratio is greaterthan 2. Two-dimensional finite elementanalysesusing conventional Hoek -Brown parametersfor typical hard-rockpillars (Geological Strength Index of 40, 60 and 80) predicted rib-pillar failure envelopesthat did not agreewith the empirical pillar-failure envelopes.It is suggested that the conventional Hoek -Brown fai1ureenvelopesover predict the strength ofhard-rock pillars becausethe failure process is fundamentallycontrolled by a cohesion-lossprocessin which fue frictional strength 8 componentis not mobilized. Two-dimensional elastic analyseswere c~ed out using the

Hoek -Brown brittle parameterswhich only relies on fue observedempirical failure envelopes. * Correspondingauthor.Tel.: +1-780-492-2332;fax: +1-780-492-8198

t ( ,..,

//

US\J\-~o (ffPG.S~'L '1QfM-,

J

~\b\\.dkc.

dC!:- ~d';:>1~()

-rrJ't:O

~<JI

~ \ ~ \. (0\ Q (c.. dal

~l ~\'\f (ji (!...CfA a( d ((; ( b \ \ 'ra. C c da\

pv ""c.\. pb-( <:fA C~ -='rGJ\ V\.Q.>C ~- 7N Q~r\J(&~4. J [J I.f< ( \ O -:r;:;\o..,e, e.f- ~.

(~~