For strong rocks, drilling and blasting to fragment material is normally required prior excavation

by the primary loading equipment. The large equipment is very powerful and there is a strong
potential of over digging benches, particularly where there is blast damage. Further, rope
shovels cannot mine efficiently along the crest of benches without a significant overspill.

One method used to control over digging of the bench face is to cut a crest trench with an
excavator (Figure 11.89). This clarifies the limit to which the shovel operator should dig and,
where the bench height is close to the operating limit of the excavating equipment, reduces the
tendency to create an overhang at the crest of the bench.

In large open pits with steep slopes, overspill between concurrently operated expansion cuts on
the same walls increasingly problematic. The requirement for optimum slopes for the respective
phases, combined with high production rates, can result in the catchment on the wall above the
lower cute being filled. This results in a rock fall hazard close to the toe of the wall above the
lower cut. in extreme case, it may be necessary to step out to create a wider bench; this generally
results in a reduction in ore recovery from de lower cut.

Mining procedures have been developed to minimize overspill. These include mining a slot along
the bench on the upper cut, leaving a rib of material along the crest (Figure. 11.90). The rib is
subsequently blasted into the slot and the material along the crest is then mined by an excavator
configured as a backhoe, which can pull the blasted muck back from the crest.

11.4.2. Scaling and bench cleanup

Scaling to remove loose rock from the bench faces, followed by the cleanup of loose material
along the bench toe, should be considered as the final stages of bench excavation on phase and
ultimate walls. This good housekeeping significantly reduces de rock fall hazards.

11.4.2.1. Scaling

Scaling of the bench crest and face following excavation is an important component of the
excavation cycle, but is sometimes overlooked or ignored. Scaling is intended to remove lose
blocks and slabs may from rock falls or small failures, creating potential safety hazards. It is
particularly important where benches are being stacked to a double benched configuration,
since rock fall is a major hazard for the crews drilling and blasting the lower cut. Scaling also
minimizes the amount of debris that collects on the bench following excavation, this preserving
valuable catchment volume.

Primary scaling is usually conducted on a second pass along the face by the shovel or excavator
that removed the original blasted muck. Depending on the nature of the rock mass, the effective
bench height, the size of the shovel / excavator, operator experience and design catchment
berm width, this may be sufficient. However, in many circumstances secondary scaling of the
bench faces using specialized equipment and techniques is required for optimum results.
Secondary scaling of bench faces can be performed from the bench above or by equipment
standing on the bench floor. It must be accomplished before access becomes difficult or is lost,
and before final cleanup at the toe of the bench.

Scaling from the bench above is normally done by chaining the face using a large chain (ship’s
anchor chain) with or without attached dozer track plates (Figure 11.91). The chain can be
dragged along the face by a dozer or backhoe. In no circumstances should the backhoe be used
to scale the face from the bench above, as large rocks may pull the machine off-balance.
Scaling from the bench bellow is generally performed by an excavator configured as a backhoe
(Figure 11.92). Most manufactures offer specialized units equipped with log booms holding
small buckets and/or rock picks.

11.4.2.2. Toe Cleanup

Cleanup of debris that accumulates at the toe of the bench should be done immediately after
scaling, before access to the toe is lost. In some circumstances, supplementary cleaning or
redistribution of debris that has accumulated on the bench may be necessary to maintain
adequate catchment. Supplementary bench cleaning will depend on access and the service life
of the slope. Periodic bench inspections should identify bench sectors that require cleaning. The
cleanup ensures maximum catchment on the bench (Figure 11.93) and should be recorded on
the bench (Figure 11.93) and should be recorded on a bench maintenance plan.

11.4.3. Evaluation of bench design achievement

Several systems are available for evaluating bench design achievement. One such system, which
is modified from work at Chuquicamata in Chile, involves a matrix, which includes:

 Design achievement (Df) for the bench configuration

 Face condition (Fc).

The components of these two sets of parameters are outlined in Table 11.10, together with the
respective ranges of values applied in the matrix.

The total of assigned values for each component in the two factors should be reduced to a factor
between 0 and 1 and plotted in the matrix shown in Figure 11.94.

In general, double-benching with steep bench faces should only be considered if the results of
the controlled blasting at a single bench scale fall within the green area to the upper right in
figure 11,94, where both the design factor and face condition factors are greater than 0.7.

This system is general and should be modified for specific site conditions.

11.5. Artificial support

This section discusses the use of artificial support and construction of stabilizing structures in
open pit mining applications. It briefly describes the basic approaches in determining suitability
of support systems, design considerations and some reinforcement measures.

11.5.1. Basic approaches

The purpose of stabilizing structures and placing artificial support is to increase the forces
resisting slope failure. This can be done by increasing or enhancing the shear strength of the in
situ material, changing the geometry of the slope or providing additional shear resistance along
a potential failure surface.

Artificial support to rock slopes is relatively common practice in civil engineering applications
where excavations are of moderate dimensions and the costs of structures (roads, bridges, high-
rise buildings) are high compared to the excavation and support costs.

Techniques range from the use of diaphragm walling or secant piling (that provide vertical walls
for foundations) to chemical or physical treatment (vibro-flotation, freezing, grouting) of soils
for stabilization of retaining walls. These are practical in civil engineering applications, given the
limited slope heights and the economic value and service life of the infrastructure.
Artificial support in mining presents a different range of issues and challenges from those in civil
engineering. The length and height of slopes in mining applications are often much greater, the
service life is often short (particularly where a number of different cutbacks are involved) and
the economics and practicality of artificial support are affected by the larger volumes of rock to
be supported.

The use of rock support and reinforcement in Australian open pit mines gained momentum
during the 1970s but has now waned. In the 1980s and early 1990s there was a trend to use
cable bolting as a blanket form of support over all final walls. This was to allow the extractions
of more ore by mining steeper slopes than could normally be achieved without rock
reinforcement.

However, it became apparent that large-scale failures were difficult to control with this design
approach. Experience showed that slopes approximately 100 m high were the maximum that
could be supported with 30 m long cable bolts. Beyond that height, failure occurs behind the
supported volume, creating larger deeper–seated masses which are more difficult to control.

This can be understood by looking at an inter-ramp slope of 200 m, a common height in a

medium size pit. For this slope, simple geotechnical analysis of a range of materials would
indicate critical slip circles extending about 50 m into the slope. Placement of support to that
depth is often impracticable unless there is underground access. Further, the magnitude of
forces being generated for such a slope can be significantly higher than the support capacities
of cable bolts (Figure 11.95). The result is that rock reinforcement is now used mostly for
stabilization of batter – scale wedges/blocks of rock or other localized instability within pit walls.

Even though the volume of wall rock being reinforced at individual mines has reduced, it can still
involve large amounts of material. Therefore, it is essential for each rock reinforcement be
designed and installed correctly.

11.5.2. Stabilization, repair and support methods

A distinction needs to be drawn between stabilization, repair and artificial support methods.

Stabilization of rock slopes refers to rock slopes that have experienced movement and may be
approaching or have undergone some failure. The most common method of stabilizing
structures includes placing a graded rock fill buttress at and beyond the toe and providing
drainage behind the buttress.

Repair refers to soil or rock slopes that have undergone some failure and can be repaired by
removing some of the failed material and replacing it with more competent material. Most
methods involve benching slopes through the failure surface and replacement with compacted
competent materials or the provision of a shear key to improve shear resistance.

Artificial support methods may include retaining walls, placement of rock or cable bolts, or
structures such as drilled or cast in place piles, earth and rock anchors, reinforced earth including
the use of geotextile, and protection against erosion. The measures are generally aimed at
preventing instability.
11.5.3. Design considerations

In providing artificial support in large open pits, the engineer has to match the design of the rock
support system and reinforcement to the ground conditions. In general, there is less benefit
from providing a stiff rock. Achieving large and stable slopes with aggressive wall angles trough
global wall reinforcement is difficult.

As with any engineering material, the basic approach to artificial support in open pit mining must
consider the capacity of the support system, the desired factors of safety, the service life of the
support, the service life of the support, the timing for installation and quality control/quality
assurance programs. These are discussed below.

11.5.3.1. Design of support

Design of any support system must take into account the rock properties, the properties of the
support systems, potential failure surfaces and the appropriate factors of safety. Any design
method has to consider:

 The function of the support, e.g. to prevent rock fall, slope failure or rock slide.
 Geological structure in and around the slope.
 In situ rock mass strength
 Groundwater regime.
 Groundwater chemistry.
 Behavior of the rock support or reinforcement system under load
 Rock stress levels and the changes in the rock stress during the life of the excavation.
 The potential for seismic events (earthquake or blasting)

Rock mass strengths can be categorized using RMR, Q or GSI ratings. Geological structures which
create unstable blocks or 3D wedges often need to be defined through field mapping or
commercial digital photogrammetric systems. Given the non-homogenous nature of rock
masses, it is often difficult to define these parameters and statistical properties may be assigned.

In contrast, the behavior and capacity of the artificial support or reinforcement system under
load can be defined through standard engineering calculation. Manufactures of ground support
quote breaking or ultimate tensile strengths of support installations, but the engineer must also
take into account other possible failure modes such as bending, shear or bearing failure.

Many rock engineering design softwares now allow inclusion of support systems such as end
anchored, micro-pilling, soil nails, grouted tiebacks, rock bolts, cable bolts and geotextiles The
engineer needs to specify the capacities of such systems. Ideally, testing of support in field scale
trials would be used for calculating the capacities.

As with any design process, it is vital to check that increasing the shear strength of critical failure
surface does not make another deeper-seated surface, that extends beyond the reinforced
failure surface, approach the critical level.

11.5.3.2. Timing of support installation

In general, the earlier that ground support is installed the more effective it is. The exception is
swelling or squeezing ground where, if support is installed too early, the forces on the support
may cause it to fail; a delay installation would allow the ground to squeeze and redistribute
stresses so that the support capacity is better suited to the ground conditions.
The timing of installation of ground support and reinforcement should be an integral part of the
design implementation, to limit the potential for unravelling of the rock mass. In areas requiring
reinforcement, the delay in installation of ground support should be minimized as far as
reasonably practicable.

In mining, it is recognized that it may take several days from the firing of a blast until the blasted
area is clear of debris and ready for the installation of ground support and reinforcement.
However, extended days (e.g weeks) may jeopardize the effectiveness of the ground control
because of reduced access, and the general loosening (and weakening) of the rock mass.

Ideally, identified wedges or blocks in pit walls that have the potential to daylight or prove
unstable should be secured as mining continues, with the support being installed progressively.

11.5.3.3. Corrosion and service life

Corrosion is an important factor in the design and selection of the rock support and
reinforcement. The influence of corrosion means that virtually none of the conventional forms
of rock support and reinforcement will last indefinitely; they al have a finite design life. Two
causes of corrosion are oxidation of the still elements, and galvanic consumption of iron by more
inert metals, e.g, copper.

Caution must be exercised when installing grouted dowels in highly corrosive rocks or potentially
acid-forming rocks. Care is required around the collars of grouted cable bolts and dowels, where
the sulphides are oxidizing with continual weathering of the surface. In highly acidic rock, the
collars and plates of cable bolts, may have a service life of only months.

11.5.3.4. Quality control

It should be recognized that the various levels of rock support and reinforcement, together with
their surface fittings, combine to form an overall ground support and reinforcement system that
consist of different layers. Each layer makes a unique contribution to the success of the system.
Each layer element/layer of support and reinforcement must be combined in such a manner
that the overall system is well-matched to the ground conditions for the design life of the
excavation.

It is therefore important that mine management develop a quality control procedure that
ensures that the standard of installation and reinforcement elements meets that required by
the design criteria for all ground conditions in the mine.

11.5.3.5. Limitations of design procedures

All engineering design procedures are based on various assumptions that may restrict the
application of a particular design procedure. These limitations must be taken into account when
applying design procedures in geotechnical engineering. By using appropriate design factors of
safety, the limitations can be managed.

11.5.3.6. Alternative to artificial support

A careful study of the geologic structures must be performed to select the proper reinforcement
(i.e. length of bolts or cables, thickness of shotcrete). Rock bolts that are too short will do little
to prevent slope stability problems. In some cases, reinforcement may tie several small failures
together and create a larger failure. Other potential solutions to stop or delay a slope failure are
to build a buttress at the toe or unload the top, dewater or reprofile the slope.
11.5.4. Economic considerations

Whenever artificial support is being considered in open pit mining, economic considerations play
a crucial part in the decision-making process. The cost and timing delays associated with artificial
support must be less than the cost of flattening the batters, dewatering the slope or stepping
out the pit walls, to justify its use.

In determining whether artificial ground support is suitable, the following cost-benefit study
should be carried out:

 The provision and installation cost of the support, together with delays of mining
productivity through allowing access for support installation, are the cost of the system.
 The benefits result from achieving steeper walls and therefore a lesser volume to be
mined, and from increased ore recovery.

The cost-benefit analysis may not be well-defined if ground support is to be used to control short
sections of a wall to allow an overall steeper angle to be achieved, without ‘noses’ developing
in the walls in areas of poorer ground.

Where unstable wedges intersect a pit wall, a cost-benefit analysis should assess the benefits of
removing that wedge against those of supporting the wedge. The study should take into account
the possibility that removing a wedge may affect another part of the wall, possibly destabilizing
or undercutting it.

The economic assessments described above apply to decision-making for pit walls at the design
stage. During excavation, cost-benefit studies may be required if bench scale (or large scale)
failures occur. If the failure is in a non-critical area of the pit, the easiest response may be to
leave the failed material in place. Mining can continue at a controlled rate if the velocity of the
failure is low and predictable and the mechanism of the failure is understood. However, if there
is any question about subsequence stability, an effort should be made to remove the material.
Large scale failures can be difficult and costly clean up.

A mining company may choose to leave a steep-out in the mine design to contain the failed
material and continue mining beneath the step-out. The value of the lost ore needs to be
evaluated against the cost of cleanup to determine if this is a feasible solution. The size of blast
may also need to be reduced, to minimize impacts in the unstable zone. To prevent small-scale
failures from reaching the bottom of the pit, the number of catch benches and their width can
be increased. Catch fences have been installed at some operations to contain falling material.

If allowing the instability to fail is not an option, artificially supporting the failure may be a good
solution. Artificial support can be expensive but if the overall angle of the pit slope can be
steepened and cleanup costs are reduced, the added expense of reinforcement can be justified.

11.5.5. Safety considerations

Installation of artificial support exposes personnel to hazards. Although drilling of rock bolt or
cable bolt holes can be mechanized and the operator remains a reasonable distance away from
the pit wall, this does not apply when pushing the rock bolt or cable bolt into the hole and plating
and tensioning the cable bolt. In that situation, personnel are exposed to rock fall hazards much
greater than usual. These risks may be increased if the working bench is lower than the level
where the cable or rock bolts are being installed. Such work may need to be carried out from
elevated platforms or cage suspended from cranes.
Selective artificial support may target specifically poorer-quality rock such as heavily jointed or
sheared zones, faults and clay-filled gouge. Again, personnel operating in these areas are
exposed to a higher rock-fall risk than in more competent ground.

This does not mean that the risk cannot be managed. As with any hazard, appropriate
management can minimize, isolate or eliminate the risk by employing job safety and hazard
assessment or similar tools, these may include installing support only in dry weather, use of
robotic monitoring, use of personnel as spotters use of cages to protect personnel, and rescaling
faces prior to stalling support.

11.5.6. Specific situations

Artificial support may be justified where localized changes in geology occur along or within a
face slope or where historic underground workings intersect the pit walls.

11.5.6.1 Changes in geology

From a pit design perspective, it is often poor practice to have sudden changes in pit slope angles
over shot lengths of pit slopes. This will result in pit walls becoming locally convex and, in
extreme cases, noses developing in the pit wall. In these areas the rock often losses confinement
and may become unstable. Where a change in geology occurs it is possible to go from a hard
rock or soil-like material very quickly. Appropriate face slopes in the harder rock may be 70°, and
45° in softer rock. The effect of a sudden transition is shown in figure in Figure 11.96. In these
circumstances it is often appropriate to artificially support the local area to sustain steeper
slopes through the weaker material, so as to maintain a uniform wall.

11.5.6.2 Historic Workings

Historic underground workings (stopes) which intersect the pit wall may give rise to local wall
instability. Stopes that were developed by cut and fill methods will result in fill exposure in the
pit wall. The fill will be lower strength that the rock, but confining the rock walls means that the
hanging wall or footwall to the stope should be in a reasonable condition. In this case the fill
should be retained as much as possible but this is difficult if the overall inter-ramp wall angle is
greater than the angle of repose of the fill material. Arching of the fill material between the
stope walls may enhance stability. Artificial support in the form of retaining walls is often needed
to retain the fill material. Where stopes are narrow (e.g. up to 5m) they are significantly easier
to stabilize than are willed fired stopes. It is often more expedient from a geotechnical
experience and more cost-effective at the pit design stage, to minimize intersections with
historic workings and to minimize the width of such intersections where they do occur.

Open stopes that intersect pit walls (Figure 11,97) pose a different set problem. The surrounding
rock is not confined and will probably have loosened. The rock may be stable around the stope
but. By introducing another degree of freedom for movement towards the pit wall excavation,
large areas of the wall may become distressed and unstable. Consideration may need to be given
to filling the voids or supporting the stope walls where they intersect the pit wall.
11.5.7. Reinforcement Measures

In this section, reinforcement measures and artificial support to slopes have been categorized
into four main groups:

 Rock bolting Systems

 Retaining type structures
 Surface treatments
 Buttressing

The may be combinations of these groups. Only a brief description of reinforcement measures
is provided.

11.5.7.1. Rock bolting systems

Rock bolting systems typically fall into three categories: rock bolts, dowels (shear pins) and cable
bolts. Rock bolting systems can be enhanced by connecting individual components by welded
mesh or strapping.

Rock bolts

Rock bolts consist of plain steel rods with a mechanical or chemical anchor at one end and a face
plate and nut at the other end, which can be tensioned. They work mainly in tension but can
also be used to provide shear resistance. They transfer stress to a more competent rock mass
and this confine the rock mass, thereby increasing its strength. The rock bolt can also apply
additional stress on joints or discontinuities to increase friction and resistance to movement.
Rock bolts provide active resistance where the bolt is tensioned in situ (bolts) or passive
resistance where ground deformation places tension on the bolt (dowels).

All bolts or dowels share the same installation specifications:

 Bolts should be installed perpendicular to the wall of the excavation most of the time,
but perpendicular to the rock fabric if the bolts are supporting potential structural
failures.
 Bolts should be long enough to extend long enough to extend into more confined rock
away from the excavation.
 When bolting up blocks, it is important to anchor well past the discontinuities and deep
enough in the competent rock that bolts do not pull out

Commercially available rock bolts include cone and shell, grouted and chemically (resin)
anchored rebar.

Rock dowels

When installation of support can be carried out very close to the excavated face or in
anticipation of stress changes that will occur at a later excavation stage, dowels can be used
instead of rock bolts. The dowel depends upon movement in the rock to activate the reinforcing
action.

The simplest form of dowel in use is in the cement-grouted dowel (Figure 11.98). Other types of
dowel are the friction stabilizer (split set) and Swellex dowels. Different load capacities are given
by these types of support, depending on diameter and length. Resin-grouted and cement-
grouted dowels, if installed correctly, can archive 16- 18 t capacity.