Mine Health and Safety Council

A handbook on practical design

methodology for spans (bord widths) in
bord and pillar mining on platinum and
chrome mines in the Bush Veld
Complex.

Project leader: S K Murphy

Project reviewer: W C Joughin, Pr Eng
Project team: E J Walls, Pr Sci Nat
Project team: C Zermatten, Cand Sci Nat

Research agency: SRK Consulting (Pty) Ltd (South Africa)

Project number: SIM 15-02-01
Date: March 2016
Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................. 8

Chapter 2 Background .............................................................................................. 10

Chapter 3 Methodology for the design of maximum stable bord width ...................... 12

3.1. Modes of instability ......................................................................................... 12

3.2. Rock mass characterisation (1) ...................................................................... 16

3.3. Rock mass failure (2) ...................................................................................... 17

3.4. Beam Failure (3) ............................................................................................. 24

3.5. Structural failure (4) ........................................................................................ 26

3.6. Intact rock failure (5) ....................................................................................... 31

3.7. Is the bord width stable? (6)............................................................................ 40

3.8. Implementation (7) .......................................................................................... 40

3.9. Monitoring (8 and 9) ........................................................................................ 40

Chapter 4 Conclusions and recommendations ......................................................... 41

2
List of Figures

Figure 1: Methodology for the design of maximum stable bord width (Modified
from Swart and Handley, 2005) ............................................................ 15

Figure 2: Rock stress factor (Hutchinson and Diedrichs, 1996) ........................... 20

Figure 3: Joint orientation factor B (Hutchinson and Diedrichs, 1996) ................. 21

Figure 4: Gravity adjustment factor C (Hutchinson and Diedrichs, 1996) ............ 21

Figure 5: Matthews Method Risk-based stability graph (after Mawdesley 2003). 22

Figure 6: Potvin (1988) Method developed for cable bolt support design (after
Diedrichs and Hutchinson, 1996) .......................................................... 23

Figure 7: Stability of beams along excavation (Stacey, 2001) ............................. 24

Figure 8: Rockfall area cumulative frequency distribution (rockfalls are normalised
per 100 000 m2 mined). ........................................................................ 29

Figure 9: 6 m pillar and 6 m bord model in Map3D .............................................. 34

Figure 10: 14 m bord 10 m pillar k = 1 depth 1 000 m ........................................... 35

Figure 11: 14 m bord 10 m pillar k = 2 depth 1 000 m ........................................... 35

Figure 12: 14 m bord 10 m pillar k = 1 depth 500 m .............................................. 36

Figure 13: 14 m bord 10 m pillar k = 2 depth 500 m .............................................. 36

Figure 14: 6 m bord 6 m pillar k = 1 depth 1 000 m ............................................... 37

Figure 15: 6 m bord 6 m pillar k = 2 depth 1 000 m ............................................... 37

Figure 16: 6 m bord 6m pillar k = 1 depth 500 m ................................................... 38

Figure 17: 6 m bord 6m pillar k = 2 depth 500 m ................................................... 38

3
List of Tables

Table 1: Merensky reef rock mass data (after York et al. 1998) ............................ 19

Table 2: GCD1 Joint characteristics ...................................................................... 28

Table 3: GCD2 Joint characteristics ...................................................................... 28

Table 4: Summary results of statistical keyblock analysis ..................................... 29

Table 5: Summary of average results from UCS tests .......................................... 32

Table 6: Summary of Brazilian indirect tensile tests .............................................. 33

4
List of abbreviations and symbols

° Degrees

ε Strain (millistrain)

σ Stress (MPa)

2D Two Dimensional

3D Three Dimensional

BC Bushveld Complex

CAD Computer-Aided Design

DMR Department of Mineral Resources

ESR Excavation Support Ratio

FOG Fall of Ground

GCD Ground Control District

GPa Gigapascal

JBlock JBlock Software Program

kN Kilonewton

kPa Kilopascal

m Metres

mm Millimetres

m3 Cubed Metres
MHSC Mine Health and Safety Council

MPa Megapascals

MRMR Mining Rock Mass Rating

NGI Norwegian Geotechnical Institute

RMR Rock Mass Rating

RQD Rock Quality Designation

UCS Uniaxial Compressive Strength

SIM Safety in Mines

5
SIMRAC Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee
SRK SRK Consulting (Pty) Ltd (South Africa)

UDEC Universal Distinct Element Code

6
Acknowledgements

The input data obtained from mines on both the Eastern and Western Limb of the
Bushveld Complex, South Africa, formed the foundation of the research project. The
data was vital in conducting an objective and comprehensive analytical review.
Similarly, it facilitated a thorough understanding of the state and extent of current
practices.

The Mine Health and Safety Council and SRK Consulting (Pty) Ltd (South Africa)
extend their gratitude to the mines and personnel that contributed their technical
documents, knowledge, insights and availability during interviews during the course of
the project – namely: Bathopele, Glencore (Kroondal), Impala, Lanxess, Lonmin
(Marikana) on the Western Limb and Booysendal North, Booysendal South (Everest),
Glencore (Mototolo) and Two Rivers Platinum on the Eastern Limb.

7
Chapter 1 Introduction

Several major falls of ground have occurred in the past, at both platinum and chrome
bord and pillar mines in the Bushveld Complex, South Africa. Several of these
incidents have resulted in fatalities. The Mine Health and Safety Council, the
Department of Mineral Resources and industry at large aim to transform the mining
environment and achieve ‘zero harm’.

In understanding the fall of ground (FoG) mechanism, the role of span width and pillar
design are relevant. Pillar design methodologies are well-defined in published
literature; in contrast, methodologies for the design of maximum stable spans (bord
widths) are not as well-defined.

Initial considerations revealed that the most favoured approach for the design of the
bord width appeared to be the use of an approach where the length of support is
designed by specifying a support capacity requirement based on a 95% fall-out height
for different ground conditions or ground control areas. This rule of thumb is taken
from bord and pillar practices in the coal mining industry where the anchor support
pattern, spacing layout, as well as the minimum drilling depth into the roof / hanging-
wall, and thus the length of the anchors, is determined for a given mining area such
that 95% of the potential fallout height is catered for. The rule is empirical / statistical
in nature and requires a good historical sample of fall-out heights (i.e. the depth of the
hole in the roof left after a fall of ground). The anchor support layout is usually on a
square pattern at a spacing that is approximately 75% of the required support height.
This engineering approach is often misused and misinterpreted and does not cater for
the largest rockfalls. Other methodologies have been published (e.g. York et al.,
1998 and Swart and Handley, 2005) but do not appear to be used.

The Mine Health and Safety Council (MHSC) initiated a research project to address
the knowledge gap, in the form of a Safety in Mines (SIM) research project 15-02-01.
SRK Consulting (Pty) Ltd (South Africa) (SRK) was successful in their proposal to the
MHSC to lead the research project. SRK has conducted a great number of platinum
group mineral (PGM) studies in recent years. Additionally, SRK also participated in
the MHSC Project OTH501 into investigating factors governing the stability /instability
of stope panels in order to define a suitable design methodology for near surface and
shallow mining operations.

Subsequently, a research project was undertaken to develop methodologies and

actionable knowledge required for a proper engineering approach applicable to the
design of maximum spans (bord width) for platinum and chrome bord and pillar mines
in the Bushveld Complex, South Africa. The project tasks included mine site visits;
interviews; desktop review of all methodologies and technologies currently in use in
hardrock bord and pillar mines in the Bushveld Complex, collaborative workshops
and computational analyses.

8
It is envisioned that implementation of the outcomes of the research will improve
health and safety in the South African Mining Industry by increasing the stability of the
bord, resulting in a significant reduction in exposure to the ground conditions typically
associated with rockfalls and collapses.

9
Chapter 2 Background
No universally adopted method exists for the design and / or evaluation of maximum
span length of underground excavations, as affirmed by Swart and Handley (2005) in
that ‘very few mines design stope panels according to a systematic design procedure
or methodology’. This prompted the formulation of a design methodology for the
design of conventional stope spans in the Bushveld Complex.

Stable roof spans in underground mining excavations are typically designed using
empirically-based techniques (Swart, 2005 and Esterhuizen et al., 2011) and these
may be supplemented by analytical (mathematical) methods. It appears that modified
approaches, combination of approaches or hybridised versions of different
approaches for different excavation environments (e.g. tunnelling, stoping etc.) are
utilised in designing the span for bord and pillar mining. The most common design
approaches are listed as follows:

• Empirical design methods using:

o Observations and / or past experience

o Rock mass classification systems

o Stability graphs

• Analytical [computational] design and / or validation methods using:

o Numerical modelling

o Beam analysis

Although variations of the design approaches identified above are being implemented
(albeit haphazardly) at different operations, ‘a spate of fall-of-ground accidents’ in the
bord and pillar mining areas of platinum / chrome sector of South Africa’s mining
industry has occurred (Singh et al., 2010). The accidents prompted the MHSC to
assemble a team of experts from academia and industry during the year 2010, with
the purpose of investigating the large collapses, the cause of the FoG incidents and
subsequently to identify mechanisms for the prevention of further FoG incidents
(where large collapses are considered those measuring larger than either 10.0 m 2 in
area or 5.0 m3 in volume) (Singh et al., 2010).

The panel of experts considered various aspects that may influence the stability of
the hanging-wall in platinum mines (irrespective of the type of mine – conventional,
mechanised or combination thereof). The panel concluded, amongst other
information, that:

10
 1. There is an incomplete understanding of the characteristics of the Bushveld
Complex.
2. Adverse geology, as well as ‘low angled, dome-like joints’ ‘between 30°-60°’
(Singh et al., 2010) contributed significantly to the large FoG incidents.
3. Preliminary analysis of available accident statistics revealed that unfavourable
structures in the rock mass and / or unfavourable situations were not identified
correctly and / or were not treated correctly.
4. Issues regarding skills and capacity of mining and rock engineering personnel
were also an important factor during unsafe operations.

The findings reported by the panel of experts are relevant in that they set out the
context, challenges and key structures (i.e. low angled joints) that need to be
addressed with additional care and attention, during the design of maximum stable
bord widths.

Several authors have also commented and / or criticised that desired roof span
dimensions or underground excavations are largely predetermined by equipment and
operational requirements. The consequent design is intended to ensure stability of
these required geometries under prevailing rock conditions (e.g. Swart, 2005; Hoek,
2008 and Esterhuizen et al., 2011).

In 2013, a Bord and Pillar Task Team was established by the Department of Mineral
Resources (DMR) Principal Inspector of the North West Region, to determine current
industry best practice for bord and pillar mining (Platinum Task Team, 2013). It was
found that there was a variation in the methodologies used to design bord widths but
the majority of operations used the Voussoir beam theory to determine stable spans.

It is imperative that an appropriate engineering approach / design methodology is

utilised to design stable spans and identify support requirements. Furthermore, the
development of a proper engineering approach for the design of maximum stable
bord widths should be holistic and consider all types of failure mechanisms that may
occur, i.e. intact rock mass, structural, beam and rock mass failure. The methodology
therefore needs to represent a synergy of the existing elements employed by various
mines selectively in parts and / or at different stages of the design process.

11
Chapter 3 Methodology for the design of maximum stable
bord width

The approach to the design and evaluation of underground mining excavations, with
regards to stability, follows a straight-forward path. Stacey (2001) describes the
journey and considers important aspects, such as the purpose of the excavation and
the stability of the excavation in relation to the quality of the rock mass.

The purpose of the excavation determines its geometry and size, for example:

• The mining extraction excavation geometry is dictated by the orebody shape

and, within the context of this book, bord and pillar mining method is the
chosen method.

• The practicality and stability of the excavation must then be evaluated in

relation to the quality of the rock mass in which it is located.

• Is it, or will it be, stable?

• What is the mode of identified instability, if any?

• Can the instability be overcome by modifying the geometry and location of the
excavation?

• What support, if any (quantity and type), is necessary to ensure that the
desired stability is achieved?

In the context of bord and pillar mining method, the attributes regarding the purpose
of the excavation are well-decided. In contrast, the practicality and stability of the
excavation require confirmation and have been used to guide the design approach in
the current research project for determining maximum bord width.

12
 3.1. Modes of instability
Haile and Jager (1995) identified six different modes of failure in pillar-supported hard
rock mines within the Bushveld Complex. An additional two were identified during
this project. These modes are categorised below into four types of failure.

Rock Mass Failure

o Unravelling failure: Occurs when the hanging-wall of the stope contains a
prominent joint set of uniform dip and dip direction and the hanging-wall
span between pillars exceeds a certain critical limit.
Beam Failure
o Buckling failure: When the hanging-wall beam buckles and failure is not
defined solely by joint geometry.
o Beam shear failure: Failure occurs due to slip on widely spaced and
subvertical planes of weakness or initiated as fractures close to pillars or
abutments.

Structural Failure

o Keyblock failure: Where two or more mutually intersecting joints are

present in the bord hanging-wall and create unstable block geometry.

o Wedge failure: Where two major planes of weakness intersect in the stope
hanging-wall. The areal extent of the failure is generally far greater than
that of keyblock failure.

o Cooling dome / low-angled joints / ramp fault failure: Failure is initiated

due to fallout on shallow-dipping structures on the periphery of a convex
(upward-curving) basin shaped block of rock. Domes are approximately
circular in shape and vary in size from a few square metres to several
hundred square metres. They are common across the whole of the
Bushveld Complex.

Intact rock failure

o Tensile failure: This type of failure is driven by a potential tensile dome

existing in the hanging-wall of a stope. This may occur at shallow depths in
a bord and pillar environment.

o High horizontal stress: Failure associated with high horizontal stress has
been identified at shallow to intermediate depths. (Esterhuizen et al., 2011,
Watson 2003).

13
As introduced in Chapter 2, the development of a proper engineering approach for
the design of maximum stable bord widths should be holistic and consider all types of
failure mechanisms that may occur i.e. intact rock mass, structural, beam and rock
mass failures. Swart and Handley (2005) developed a methodology for stope panel
spans in shallow mining operations, which was adapted for use with the design of
stable bord widths in the research project SIM 15-02-01. The methodology identifies
the inputs required, as well as, the analysis to be carried out and is illustrated in
Figure 1. Each of the analyses, linked to a failure mechanism, is described in further
detail in the paragraphs that follow. It is important to note that the approach is to be
tailored for the specific mining operation especially where low-angled joints are
present in the rock mass of the specific site.

The methodology has a reiterative component namely: performance of the rock

engineering environment must be continually monitored, managed and included in
the development of the design. Additionally, as the geotechnical database is
expanded, the new information must be used to update and inform the design
process.

14
Figure 1: Methodology for the design of maximum stable bord width (Modified from
Swart and Handley, 2005)

15
 3.2. Rock mass characterisation (1)
The design process for maximum stable bord width, as for pillar design, is reliant on
technical information from the rock mass database. To this end, a rock mass
database must be compiled, made available for use and updated as new information
becomes available. The database must record all geotechnical aspects relevant to
ground support and stability assessments, including:

1. Rock type

2. Rock strength

3. Discontinuity type

4. Discontinuity persistence (dip and strike)

5. Discontinuity orientation relative to the excavation

6. Spacing between and trace length of discontinuities

7. Discontinuity characteristics (profile, thickness of infill, type of infill)

8. Weatherability of the intact rock

There is no prescription on how the information must be collected. Common

techniques include mapping and borehole core logging. The use of cameras in
boreholes is increasingly useful in identifying low-angled joints (where professional
experience and discussion, as well as Singh et al., 2010 reveal that low-angled joints
are those joints 0°- 60°, measured from the horizontal).

16
 3.3. Rock mass failure (2)
Background

Swart et al. (2000) identified four rock mass classification systems for evaluating the
stability of stope spans in the Bushveld Complex, namely:

1. The Geomechanics classification or Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system

developed by Bieniawski in 1973.
2. The Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) rock quality index or Q-system
developed by Barton et al. in 1974.
3. The Modified Rock Mass Rating (MRMR) system originally developed by
Laubscher in 1974.
4. The modified stability graph method through the use of the modified stability
number, N’, originally developed by Mathews et al. in 1980.
An empirical assessment based on practical experience that caters for a variety of
mechanisms is useful to address the potential for unravelling failure, which is not
catered for in mechanistic approaches. The poorest rock quality (as per the rock
mass classification) can be expected to unravel.

Esterhuizen et al. (2011) notes that empirical methods based on rock mass
classification are used extensively to obtain an initial indication of ‘likely’ dimensions
of stable spans under given rock mass conditions, such as Bieniawski (1989); Barton
et al. (1974); Laubscher (1990) and Mathews et al. (1980). Such classifications are
also used to produce an estimate of the span and corresponding support
requirements.

On the basis of an evaluation of a large number of case histories of underground civil

engineering excavations (most of which were supported) Barton et al. (1974) of the
NGI, proposed the Q-system rock mass classification for the determination of rock
mass characteristics and tunnel support requirements. Q can be calculated using
Equation 1:

Q = RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja x Jw/SRF Equation 1

Where:

RQD Rock Quality Designation

Jn Joint set number

Jr Joint roughness number

Ja Joint alteration number

Jw Joint reduction number

SRF Stress Reduction Factor

17
 Barton et al. (1974) show that the maximum unsupported span can be estimated
using Equation 2:

Maximum Span Maximum Span (unsupported) = 2 ESR Q0.4 Equation 2

Where:

ESR (Excavation Support Ratio) is a value that is assigned to an excavation in terms

of the degree of security that is demanded of the installed support system to maintain
the stability of the excavation (Barton et al., 1974).

The modified rock quality index (Q’) (Mathews et al., 1980) can be calculated using
Equation 3:

Q = RQD/Jn x Jr/Ja Equation 3

The general Matthews stability chart is then used to estimate stability for unsupported
spans. Potvin (1988) and Nickson (1992) studied supported cases where the spans
had been stabilised with cable bolts (Hutchinson and Diederichs, 1996). The
modified stability number (N’) specified by Potvin (1988) is calculated using
Equation 4:

N’ = Q’ x A x B x C Equation 4

Where:

A Is the ratio of intact rock strength to induced stress.

B Is a measure of the relative orientation of dominant jointing to the excavation

surface.

C Is the influence of gravity on the stability of the face being considered.

18
Application

This method of assessment is suited to a jointed rock mass when the hanging-wall of
the bord contains one or more prominent joint sets of uniform dip and dip direction
and / or cooling dome / low-angled joints / ramp faults. Then if the hanging-wall span
between pillars exceeds a certain critical limit unravelling will occur.

For example, Merensky reef rock mass data was extracted from York et al. (1998)
according to Impala Mines’ adaptation of the ‘NGI Tunnelling Quality Index’, Table 1.

Table 1: Merensky reef rock mass data (after York et al. 1998)
Union-1 Amandel- Lebowa-1 Amandel- Amandel- Amandel- Lebowa-2
Parameter 1 rating rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating rating
rating
RQD 44 57 82 100 89 98 100
Jn 6 6 12 6 12 6 12
Jr 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1.5
Ja 8 4 4 2.5 4 4 4
Q' 0.46 2.38 1.71 6.67 1.85 4.08 3.13

In the room and pillar environment, a systematic support system is used to primarily
provide reinforcement to the immediate hanging-wall and to protect against small
discontinuities and blasting damage. This is usually done using tendons such as
resin or cement grouted bolts or swellex type bolts. In the bord and pillar
environment this can be considered to be similar to the stoping environment support.
Therefore within the context of this example the bord is always supported with some
form of tendon support. Q’ was calculated for the data, using Equation 3.

In order to assess stability using a modified stability chart the Hydraulic Radius (HR)
of the bord width is calculated using Equation 5. However, in the case of a bord with
an infinite length (as with a bord and pillar layout) the HR will be approximately half
the width of the bord.

HR = Area (m2) / Perimeter (m) Equation 5

Next, the modified stability number N’ is calculated using Equation 4, where A B and
C are obtained from the charts shown in Figure 2 to Figure 4.

19
Figure 2: Rock stress factor (Hutchinson and Diedrichs, 1996)

20
Figure 3: Joint orientation factor B (Hutchinson and Diedrichs, Figure 4: Gravity adjustment factor C (Hutchinson
1996) and Diedrichs, 1996)

21
 For the rock stress factor (A), where the k-ratio (σh / σv) is approximately 1, and a
depth of 500 m, it can be assumed that for an almost horizontal excavation, where
the intact rock strength is in excess of 200MPa, the A value will be 1.
In this example, two cases were chosen from Table 1, namely Union-1 as the worst
case and Amandel-4 as the best case. For the dip of the most critical joint at Union1,
a low-angled joint of 40° was chosen and for Amandel-4, the critical joint was chosen
to be 70°. In bord and pillar mining where the dip is usually less than 10°, and using
Figure 3, the B value for Union-1 is 0.2 and for Amandel-4 is 0.8.

The gravity adjustment factor C for the hanging-wall with a dip of 10° is 2.

Results

Results are presented in Figure 5 and Figure 6 where it can be seen that for
Amandel-1 the standard support system is sufficient to cater for stability; however at
a 12 m span the probability of failure is 5%. In contrast, for Union-1 for the span
between 6 m and 12 m will require additional cable bolting / long anchors.

Figure 5: Matthews Method Risk-based stability graph (after Mawdesley 2003).

22
 Figure 6: Potvin (1988) Method developed for cable bolt support design (after Diedrichs and
Hutchinson 1996)

Conclusion

This methodology appears to identify the problems that are associated with
flatdipping joints and the potential for unravelling. The unravelling that occurred at
Union-1 site resulted in a measured closure of 340 mm when 35 mm elastic closure
occurred (York et al., 1998).

It also indicated that when low-angled joints are encountered the probability of failure
is extremely high in whatever bord width is being used and cable anchors / long
anchors will be required. The length of these cable bolts would be dependent on the
bord width and the angle of the flat-dipping discontinuity. Assuming the flat-dipping
discontinuity (say 60°) intersects the bord adjacent to the pillar then for a 12 m bord
the length of the cable anchor would need to be in excess of 6 m to adequately
anchor the support above the height of the potential fall.

23
 3.4. Beam Failure (3)
Background

Elastic beam theory is useful in explaining the deformation and failure of a bord in
stratified and pseudo-stratified deposits. However, in the Bushveld Complex, the
existence of sub-vertical jointing is commonplace, which results in the tensile
strength of a rock beam being zero. A stable rock beam in a bord will occur if a
compressive arch (Voussoir arch) can develop. Notably, the Codes of Practice of
several of the mining operations visited during the research project mention that that
a Voussoir arch methodology was being used.

Diederichs and Kaiser (1999) describe an iterative solution system to determine the
stability and the deflection of a Voussoir arch by calculating the buckling limit, the
factor of safety for the crushing at midspan and at the abutments, the factor of safety
for sliding at the abutments, and the midspan deflection. A buckling parameter of
35% has been determined (Hutchinson and Diederichs, 1996) as a limit above which
a beam should be considered as unstable. This design limit corresponds to a
midspan deflection of 10% of the beam thickness. Therefore, in a Voussoir arch
stability analysis when the mid span displacements reach approximately 10% of the
beam thickness, arch collapse is imminent. Additionally, arch stability can be
assessed by monitoring the displacement at mid-span (Swart et al., 2000).

Application

When considering the strength of the hanging-wall in the Bushveld Complex and
using the chart shown in Figure 7, it can be seen that for a beam thickness of 0.5 m,
a 20 m span would be stable.

Figure 7: Stability of beams along excavation (Stacey, 2001)

24
It must be noted that this methodology is only applicable to areas where there are no
flat-dipping joints (0° to 60°). Also potential wedges formed by joints in the beam
and weathering will prevent the rock beam performing as an arch.

Conclusion

Beam failure is an important assessment but typical bord and pillar layouts will “pass”
such a test, as demonstrated in the example above. It is only in locally poor ground
conditions that the span may fail the Voussoir arch stability test.

25
 3.5. Structural failure (4)
Background

Structural failures that can be assessed using statistical stability analysis are
keyblock, wedge and “cooling dome” / low-angled joints / ramp fault failure. It has
been observed that many of the large rockfalls that occur in bord and pillar layouts
are joint bound. Natural joints in the rock mass form keyblocks that vary in size from
very small blocks to extremely large blocks depending on how the joints interact to
form the block. Some of the blocks will be naturally stable, while others will be
unstable due to unfavourable joint orientations and / or low joint shear strength and
will require tendon support and pillars to keep them in place. The JBlock software
program has been used to identify keyblocks and probabilistic failure potential
(Esterhuizen, 1996). Probabilistic risk evaluation for support design, model
validation and case studies by Joughin et al. (2012a, 2011b) and Walls et al. (2013)
provide a method utilising JBlock and RiskEval as part of a programme for risk based
support design in underground mines in the Bushveld Complex.

Application

The software program JBlock is capable of simulating the formation of many

thousands of blocks and testing the stability of each block. Block formation is based
on mapped joint data for a given ground control district (GCD). Typical ground
conditions for a particular GCD are therefore represented. JBlock allows for the
span between pillars, as well as the type and length of bolts to be designed in such a
way as to minimise the risk of rockfalls and by association, minimise injuries.
Furthermore, JBlock can simulate mining layouts, different support patterns and
types of support. The risk of large rockfalls can then be assessed on a comparative
basis.

Results

By way of example, two GCDs (GCD1 and GCD2) were simulated. The joint
characteristics are summarised in Table 2 and Table 3. GCD1 has only three joints
sets, but includes a parting plane with a mean distance of 0.9 m above the
hangingwall contact and a standard deviation of 0.2 m. GCD2 has four joints, but the
fourth joint set is flat-dipping (20°). Note that the maximum trace lengths in GCD1
are much larger than in GCD2.

Two mining layouts were compared, each with a chequerboard pillar pattern, one
with a 12 m bord width and the other with a 6 m bord width. In both cases resin bolts
were simulated in 1.5 m x 1.5 m pattern. A tensile strength of 20 kN and a bond
shear strength of 400 kN/m was used. For the 6 m bord width, 1.5 m long resin bolts
were simulated and for the 12 m bord width, a simulation was carried out with 1.5 m
bolts and another with 3.0 m bolts. The objective of the analysis was to compare
spans and bolt lengths.

26
The results of the statistical key-block analyses are presented in Table 4 and Figure
8. It is apparent that reducing the bord does mitigate the rockfall risk by reducing the
percentage of blocks that fail and the rockfall sizes. Increasing the length of the bolts
is equally effective in GCD1, but not in GCD2.

27
 Table 2: GCD1 Joint characteristics
Orientation Strength Spacing (m) Length (m)

Dip (°) Dip Direction (°) Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (°)
Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum
Standard Standard Standard Standard
Joint sets Mean Mean Mean Mean
Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation
Set1 80.0 5.0 202.0 13.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 5.0 1.3 9.1 0.5 10.0 10.0 6.0

Set2 82.0 4.0 279.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 5.0 0.7 3.9 0.5 5.0 10.0 0.5

Set3 83.0 4.0 240.0 86.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 5.0 2.6 9.9 0.4 5.0 10.0 0.5

Table 3: GCD2 Joint characteristics

Orientation Strength Spacing (m) Length (m)

Dip (°) Dip Direction (°) Cohesion (kPa) Friction angle (°)
Mean Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum
Standard Standard Standard Standard
Joint sets Mean Mean Mean Mean
Deviation Deviation Deviation Deviation
Set1 66.0 4.8 356.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 31.0 18.0 0.7 4.4 0.5 2.7 2.8 2.5

Set2 73.0 4.7 175.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 35.0 7.0 0.9 5.3 0.5 3.1 10.0 1.8

Set3 74.0 5.3 266.0 10.1 0.0 0.0 34.0 16.5 1.3 5.6 0.5 2.4 3.6 1.8

Set4 20.0 1.0 278.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 33.0 1.0 10.0 30.0 0.5 2.4 2.8 2.1

28
Table 4: Summary results of statistical keyblock analysis
Failed Failed Block Maximum Maximum Maximum
Blocks Area Volume Area Height
(%) (%) (m3) (m2) (m)

GCD1 Span 12m Tendons 3m 0.06 0.08 8.8 9.3 1.4

GCD1 Span 12m Tendons 1.5m 0.08 0.12 19.9 13.5 2.9

GCD1 Span 6m Tendons 1.5m 0.05 0.08 13.1 10.2 1.3

GCD2 Span 12m Tendons 3m 1.69 1.86 5.1 5.5 2.3

GCD2 Span 12m Tendons 1.5m 1.79 2.07 5.1 5.0 2.3

GCD2 Span 6m Tendon 1.5m 0.91 0.92 4.8 5.0 2.3

Figure 8: Rockfall area cumulative frequency distribution (rockfalls are normalised per
100 000 m2 mined).

29
Conclusion
The two different GCDs produce very different results. Note that the maximum
rockfall size is much greater in GCD1 than in GCD2 - this is due to the large trace
lengths in GCD1. Conversely, the rockfall frequency in GCD2 is much greater due to
the number of joint sets and the flat-dipping joints. Many very small rockfalls (<1.0
m3) occur in GCD2, while few small rockfalls occur in GCD1. In JBlock, the larger
rockfalls invariably fail due to block rotation, while the small rockfalls fall out
inbetween support. This is representative of the actual situation underground.

It should be noted that reducing the span does not eliminate the occurrence of large
or small rockfalls and additional measures will therefore be required to manage the
risk. The frequency of large rockfalls can be further reduced by introducing longer
and stronger bolts, such as 38 tonne cable anchors. However, since these large
rockfalls are infrequent, it will invariably be more cost effective to implement an
effective monitoring programme (e.g. borehole camera or ground penetrating radar)
and only install the additional support when it is required. The small rockfalls in
GCD2 can be mitigated by barring or introducing areal support such as mesh.

30
 3.6. Intact rock failure (5)
Background

It has been suggested (Nyungu and Stacey, 2014) ‘that large zones of tensile strain
may occur around Bushveld Complex (BC) excavations where the magnitude of the
extension strain exceeds the critical value determined during laboratory testing. The
predicted orientations of these models correspond with observed geometry of
spalling in excavations. The implication is that there are likely to be substantial
zones surrounding BC mine excavations that may be prone to spalling conditions
and perhaps more significant failure’. This coupled with extension fractures
observed at varying depths by Watson (2003) in the BC and potential extension
stress failure observed at a major fall of ground in a bord and pillar mine at a depth
of 1 200 m indicates that as the bord and pillar mining in the Bushveld progress
deeper extension failure may need to be included as part of bord stability design.

Therefore, a numerical assessment is useful in assessing the intact rock failure

associated with tensile stress or high horizontal stress under modes of instability.
The software program Map3D allows for visualisation of three-dimensional models,
using a built-in Computer-Aided Design (CAD) functionality (Map3D, 2015). A
methodology described by Stacey (1981) was used to assess the potential of
extension strain failure initiation in brittle rock which is particularly applicable in areas
of low confining stress. These areas occur around underground excavations and this
criterion may be suitable for the prediction of the extent of fracturing around the
excavation and thus provide input for both support design and the design of
appropriate maximum spans in bord and pillar mines.

Application

This type of modelling will be useful to determine:

• The height of the tensile zone.

• Stress failure in areas where high horizontal stresses can be expected
(around potholes etc.).
• The potential height of failure that may be expected as the depth of the bord
and pillar mining increases.

Numerical modelling and criterion

In considering Map3D numerical modelling using an extension strain criterion, the

input parameters for the Bushveld Complex rocks were obtained from a published
paper detailing both uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) test results and Brazilian
indirect tensile tests (Nyungu 2013; Nyungu and Stacey, 2014), shown Table 5 and
Table 6.

31
Table 5: Summary of average results from UCS tests

Spotted Spotted
Mottled Mottled Anorthositic Spotted Mottled
Rock type anorthositic Pyroxenite Norite anorthositic
Anorthosite anorthosite norite anorthosite anorthosite
norite norite

Code (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I)
Sample
diameter, D 36.30 36.30 36.30 36.30 36.30 36.30 36.30 36.30 36.30
(mm)
Sample length,
80.74 84.79 81.66 81.13 83.71 82.87 80.99 81.03 80.98
L (mm)
L/D ratio 2.23 2.34 2.25 2.24 2.29 2.28 2.23 2.23 2.23
Sample mass,
231.41 254.20 270.30 230.93 261.32 248.10 253.48 237.80 232.32
M (g)
Sample
density, ρ 2769.46 2898.71 3198.41 2750.49 3016.40 2892.39 2990.22 2832.12 2772.17
(kg/m3)
Failure load,
180.60 139.40 129.80 140.50 96.00 154.60 114.00 159.60 182.20
(kN)
UCS, σc (MPa) 744.51 134.70 125.42 135.76 92.76 149.38 110.15 154.22 176.05
Elastic
Modulus, E 44.60 33.32 35.49 39.01 30.90 40.65 37.90 42.64 45.31
(GPa)
Poisson's ratio,
0.20 0.21 0.17 0.28 0.19 0.21 0.15 0.22. 0.19
v
Long term
90.20 61.80 56.50 59.75 53.50 75.60 83.60 103.33 125.75
strength (MPa)
% of UCS 57.00 46.00 44.00 44.00 57.00 51.40 72.40 67.00 68.75

33
Table 6: Summary of Brazilian indirect tensile tests

Average Average Average Average Average

Sample Sample Sample
Sample load at BIT elastic Strain at time-to-
Rock type diameter, thickness, t/D ratio mass, M failure P Modulus, failure
ID strength failure
D (mm) t (mm) (g)
(kN) α (MPa) E (GPa) (millistrain) (s)
Mottled
Anorthosite DBA 36.30 19.27 0.53 54.26 8.19 7.46 46.72 0.16 220.71
(A)
Spotted
anorthositic DBB 36.30 18.88 0.52 55.46 6.84 6.35 33.32 0.19 205.72
norite (B)
Pyroxenite (C) DBC 36.30 18.97 0.52 62.67 7.43 6.89 35.4 0.19 206.77
Mottled
anorthosite DBD 36.30 18.77 0.52 53.84 6.83 6.38 39.01 0.16 138.02
(D)
Norite
(E) 36.30 18.36 0.51 57.67 6.92 6.62 30.9 0.21 160.35
DBE
Spotted
anorthositic DBF 36.30 18.61 0.51 55.24 8.27 7.76 40.65 0.19 138.17
norite (F)
Anorthositic
norite DBG 36.30 17.65 0.49 56.31 7.71 7.65 37.9 0.2 203.85
(G)
Spotted
anorthosite DBH 36.30 17.59 0.48 51.29 7.11 7.1 42.64 0.17 213.83
(H)
Mottled
anorthosite DBI 36.30 17.06 0.47 48.93 6.82 7.04 45.31 0.16 214.03
(I)

33
The numerical models for this exercise were built in Map3D using fictitious force
elements to represent the bords. Numerical models were run for a bord width of 6 m
and a pillar width of 6 m (Figure 9) and for a pillar width of 10 m and a bord width of
14 m.

Figure 9: 6 m pillar and 6 m bord model in Map3D

These models were run at depths of 500 m and 1000 m with k-ratios of 1 and 2 for
each of the options. The criterion used for the height of failure that would need to be
catered for, as shown in Equation 6, is where the fracture of brittle rock will initiate
when:

ε3 > εc Equation 6

Where εc is the critical value of extension strain and ε3 is the minimum extension
strain (Stacey, 1981).

In this instance, the critical value was taken as 0.16 millistrains, which is the lowest
value obtained in the Brazilian indirect tensile tests. The fractures will form in planes
normal to the direction of minimum extension strain (ε3), which corresponds to the
direction of minimum principal stress (Stacey, 1981).

The results are shown in Figure 10 to Figure 17.

34
 Figure 10: 14 m bord 10 m pillar k = 1 depth 1 000 m

Figure 11: 14 m bord 10 m pillar k = 2 depth 1 000 m

When assessing the 14 m span at 1 000 m the potential failure is related to stress
failure that may have occurred at a mine where the fallout thickness was 2 m to 3 m.
With k = 2, the fallout height is approximately 7 m. This fallout height does not
appear to have occurred at any of the mines visited and therefore it appears that a k-
ratio of 2 does not exist at the platinum or chrome mines visited with depths of 1 000
m.

35
 Figure 12: 14 m bord 10 m pillar k = 1 depth 500 m

Figure 13: 14 m bord 10 m pillar k = 2 depth 500 m

Figure 13 shows potential stress failure to a height of 3.5 m on the edges of the bord
only and it appears that a major collapse could be prevented with the usual support
(1.3 m to 1.5 m) that would have contained the centre portion of the bord. However,
for a k of 2 it appears that the fallout height is almost 5 m. This type of stress failure
has not been identified on any of the mines mining these spans and it may be that a
k-ratio of 2 in these areas is an over estimation.

36
 Figure 14: 6 m bord 6 m pillar k = 1 depth 1 000 m

Figure 15: 6 m bord 6 m pillar k = 2 depth 1 000 m

The 6 m bord being mined at 1 000 m depth does not show major failure associated
with stress and it appears that this type of failure is being contained by the support
system and a k-ratio of 2 is an over estimation of the stress field.

37
 Figure 16: 6 m bord 6m pillar k = 1 depth 500 m

Figure 17: 6 m bord 6m pillar k = 2 depth 500 m

The height of failure shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17 is contained by the support
installed at mines operated at this depth and no evidence of stress failure was
identified.

38
Conclusion

The following conclusions can be drawn from the modelling exercise:

1. The height of potential stress failure agrees with observations and data
obtained during the site visits.
2. This method appears to be useful in the determination of the height of stress
related failure that may occur especially in a brittle rock mass regime where
high horizontal stress exists.
3. A k-ratio of 2 at depth appears to be an over estimation of the field stresses
when relating the failure that has been observed to the modelled results. It
would therefore be expedient to carry out stress measurements where bord
and pillar mining is to be carried out.

39
 3.7. Is the bord width stable? (6)
The methodology described thus far will have yielded a result that now needs to be
assessed and checked against the original functional requirements, specifications
assumptions and constraints. A comprehensive understanding of all relevant
interrelating issues is now needed to ensure proper evaluation of the result. If the
assessment reveals potential instabilities or indicates more promising alternatives,
loop back to the modes of failure / stability analysis stage.

3.8. Implementation (7)

Conclusions and recommendations are results of the implementation process. They
will provide a concise statement of the required solution, identify the limitations and
indicate how the solution can be successfully implemented. The conclusions and
recommendations then need to be communicated effectively to transmit the technical
knowledge and put the plan into action.

3.9. Monitoring (8 and 9)

The objective of the monitoring process is twofold. The first objective is to ensure
that the design is performing as expected and there are no significant variations from
the input parameters used for the design. The second and probably most important
objective of monitoring is to identify low-angle features, potential weak layers and
any form of deformation that may be occurring. Monitoring is usually done by rock
engineering personnel using the following:

• Camera with boreholes.

• Digital radar in borehole (experimental stage).
• Ground Penetrating Radar (useful where chrome stringers need to be
identified).
• Mapping of rock mass conditions where necessary.
• Additional lighting to assist in the identification of weak areas.
The crux of the matter is to ensure that sufficient geotechnical information is obtained
and available at all times.

During the research completed for this project for this project, it emerged the
systematic use of borehole cameras appears to be the most efficient methodology
utilised to identify problematic joints, including low angled (Esterhuizen, 2014 and
mine-specific information).

Finally if potential design failure is identified, the methodology must be revisited and
redesigned.

40
Chapter 4 Conclusions and recommendations

The proposed design methodology should be used during all stages of the mining
process, from prefeasibility to final design and implementation, and when compiling
codes of practice to combat rockfall accidents.

The development of a proper engineering approach for the design of maximum

stable bord widths should be holistic and consider all types of failure mechanisms
that may occur, i.e. intact rock mass, structural, beam and rock mass.

Although most FoG incidents / accidents are associated with failure along geological
structures, most mines do apply a design methodology based on structural analysis
for bord and pillar operations.

Bord stability is dependent on the identification of low angle features, potential weak
layers and deformation. Additional support is required to contain potential failure
associated with these rock mass instabilities.

In a few cases, complicated numerical analysis programs are used on an ad hoc

basis to assess structurally controlled panel stability.

Bord width must be tailored to the specific rock and engineering environment, taking
into account joint orientation, strain (depth) and notably the potential hazards
associated with low-angled (≤ 60°) joints. A succinct description of the solution must
be provided including any limitations or restrictions associated with the proposed
method.

There is no definitive rule to guide the maximum width of a bord. Experience has
shown that even in a 3 m to 6 m span, a major rockfall with a fallout height in excess
of the width of the excavation can and does occur.

It should be noted from the structural analysis that reducing the span does not
eliminate the occurrence of large or small rockfalls and additional measures will
therefore be required to manage the risk. The frequency of large rockfalls can be
further reduced by introducing longer and stronger bolts, such as 38 tonne cable
anchors. However, since these large rockfalls are infrequent, it will invariably be
more cost effective to implement an effective monitoring programme (e.g. borehole
camera or ground penetrating radar) and only install the additional support where it is
required.

Beam failure is an important assessment but the typical bord and pillar layouts will
“pass” such a test. It is only in locally poor ground conditions that the span may fail
the Voussoir arch stability test.

41
Elastic numerical modelling has proven to be useful to determine the height of stress
related failure that may occur especially in a brittle rock mass regime where high
horizontal stress exists.

42
References

Barton, N, Lien, R and Lunde, J 1974, Engineering classification of rock masses for
the design of tunnel support, Rock Mechanics, vol. 6, No. 4, pp 189-236.

Bieniawski ZT 1989, Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley, New York.

Brady BHG and Brown ET 1993 Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, second
edition. London: Chapman & Hall, pp1-571.

Brown ET 1985. From theory to practice in rock engineering. Transactions of the

Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, vol. 94, pp. A67-A83.

Daehnke, A, Anderson, LM, De Beer, D, Esterhuizen, GS 1998 Stope face support

systems. SIMRAC Report GAP 330. Pretoria: Department of Minerals and Energy.

de Frey FSA, Handley MF and Webber RCW 2002 Examine the criteria for
establishing the small span small pillar concept as a safe mining method in deep
mines - Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee - GAP 828, pp1-72.

Diederichs, M.S. and Kaiser, P.K. 1999. Stability of large excavations in laminated
hard rock masses: the voussoir analogue revisited. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences. Vol. 36, pp. 97-117.

Diederichs MS, Coulson A, Falmagne V, Rizkalla N, and Simser, B 2002,

‘Application of rock damage limits to pillar analysis at Brunswick Mine’ in
NARMSTAC 2002, Hammah (ed), University of Toronto, pp. 1325-1332.

Esterhuizen, A. 2014. Unique fall-of-ground strategy implemented at Two Rivers

Platinum Mine. The Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
vol. 114, pp 785 - 790.

Esterhuizen, GS, Dolinar, DR, Ellenberger, JL, and Prosser, LJ 2011 ‘Pillar and Roof
Span Design Guidelines for Underground Stone Mines, Department of Health and
Human Services Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Information Circular/2011
IC9526’, pp1-64.

Esterhuizen GS 2000 ‘Jointing effects on pillar strength’ . Proceedings of the 19 th

International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, West Virginia,
University of West Virginia, pp. 286-290.

Esterhuizen GS 1996 JBlock User’s Manual and Technical Reference, Pretoria.

Evans WH 1941, ‘The strength of undermined strata’, Transactions of the Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 475–532.

43
Gale WJ 1999 ‘Experience of field measurement and computer simulation methods
of pillar design,’ Second International Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and
Design, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, IC 9448, pp. 49-61.

Gerber RJ 2013 ‘Pillar Dimensions And Hanging-wall Support For Room And Pillar
And Hybrid Breast Mining - Everest Extension Project (Confidential report to Client)’,
p7.

Goodman RE and Shi G 1965 Block theory and its application to rock engineering,
Prentice Hall.

Handley MF 2013 ‘Report On Independent Rock Engineering Assessment Of Fall Of

Ground At Bathopele Mine On 20 July 2013. Legally privileged document, Report
Reference Number: REP2013/003/MFH’, p9.

Hofmeyer T 2002 ‘Geotechnical aspects – Waterval stope design. Confidential report

to Client’, p1.

Hoek, E, Carranza-Torres, C, Diederichs, MS and Corkum, B 2008 Integration of

geotechnical and structural design in tunnelling. Proceedings of the University of
Minnesota 56th Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conference. Minneapolis, 29
February 2008, pp1-53.

Hoek, E, Kaiser, PK and Bawden, WF 1995, Support of Underground Excavations in

Hard Rock. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Hutchinson, DJ and Diedrichs, MS 1996. Cablebolting in underground mines.

BiTech Publishers Ltd: Canada. pp406. lannacchione AT 1999 ‘Analysis of pillar
design practices and techniques for U.S. limestone mines’ Transactions of the
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. (Section A: Min. lndustry, 108, September-
December pp. A 152-A 160.

Impala Mine 2014 ‘Mandatory Code Of Practice To Combat Rock Fall And Rock
Burst Accidents In Tabular Metalliferous Mines, Reference No: 10.34.00.00’, p101.

ITASCA 2015 UDECTM version 6.0 – Distinct-element modelling of jointed and blocky
material in 2D ; webpage http://www.itascacg.com/software/udec; date accessed 16
September 2015.

Jeremic ML 1987 Ground Mechanics in Hard Rock Mining. A.A. Balkema,

Rotterdam.

Joughin W.C.; Jager A.; Nezomba E. Rwodzi L A risk evaluation model for support
design in Bushveld Complex underground mines part 1 description of model SAIMM
Journal vol 112 2012a

44
Joughin W.C.; Jager A.; Nezomba E. Rwodzi L A risk evaluation model for support
design in Bushveld Complex underground mines part 2 Model validation and case
studies SAIMM Journal vol 112 2012b

Krauland N and Soder PE 1987 ‘Determining pillar strength from pillar failure
observations’, Eng. Min. Journal, vol. 8, pp. 34-40.

Kroondaal Mine 2001 ‘Mandatory Code Of Practice To Combat Rock Fall And Rock
Burst Accidents In Tabular Metalliferous Mines, DMR MINE CODE: 0748’, p23.

Laubscher DH 1990 ‘A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock

mass in mine design’. The Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, vol 90, no. 10, pp257–273.

Laubscher D and Taylor H 1976 ‘The importance of geomechanics classification of

jointed rock masses in mining operations’. Proceedings of the Symposium on
Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg, pp. 1- 119.

Lunder PJ 1994 "Hard Rock Pillar Strength Estimation an Applied Approach," MSc.
Thesis, Department of Mining and Mineral Process Engineering, University of British
Columbia.

Lunder PJ and Pakalnis R 1997 ‘Determining the strength of hard rock mine pillars’,
Bulletin of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol. 90, pp. 51-55.

Mathews, KE Hoek, DC Wyllie, DC and Stewart, SBV 1980 ‘Prediction of stable

excavation spans for mining at depths below 1000 metres in hard rock’. Report to
Canada Centre for Mining and Energy Technology (CANMET), Department of
Energy and Resources; DSS File No. 17SQ.23440-0-90210. Ottawa.

Mawdesley, C, Trueman, R and Whiten, WJ 2001 ‘Extending the Mathews stability

graph for open stope design’, Trans. Instn Min Metall., Section A: Min Technol., 110,
pp. A27-A39.

Melo M, Pinto CLL, and Dutra JIG 2014 ‘Potvin stability graph applied to Brazilian
geomechanic environment’, R. Esc. Minas, Ouro Preto, vol 67, no. 4, p 413-419.

Milne D, Pakalnis R and Lunder P 1996 ‘Approach to the quantification of

hangingwall behaviour’, Transactions of the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol.
105, pp. A69-A74.

Nickson, S.D. 1992. Cable support guidelines for underground hard rock mine
operations. M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. Mining and Mineral Processing, University of
British Columbia, 223 pp.

45
Nyungu, D. (2013). Effect of time on the tensile strength of several Bushveld
Complex rock types. MSc. Eng dissertation, Faculty of Engineering and the Built
Environment, University of the Witwatersrand.

Nyungu, D and Stacey, T.R. (2014). Time-dependent tensile strengths of Bushveld

Complex rocks and implications for rock failure around mining excavations. The
Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, vol 114, pp
765772.

Obert L, and Duvall WI 1967 Rock Mechanics and the Design of Structures in Rock.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 650 p.

Pakalnis R and Vongpaisal S 1993 Mine design an empirical approach. In Bawdin

and Archibald (eds.), Innovation in Mine Design for the 21st Century. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp.455-467.

Platinum Task Team 2013 Bord and Pillar Task Team Report, 5 September 2013.
11p.

Potvin Y 1988 Empirical open stope design in Canada, PhD Thesis. University of
British Columbia, pp1-343.

Rocscience 2015a, Examine3D, webpage

https://www.rocscience.com/rocscience/products/examine3d; date accessed 16
September 2015

Rocscience 2015b, Unwedge, webpage

https://www.rocscience.com/rocscience/products/unwedge; date accessed 16
September 2015

Rocscience 2015c, RocSupport, webpage

https://www.rocscience.com/rocscience/products/rocsupport; date accessed 16
September 2015

Singh N, Murphy S, Rymon-Lipinski W, Malan F, van der Merwe N, Fernandes N,

Johnson R and Tsele P 2010 Review of Falls of Ground Accidents in the Platinum
Sector, pp30.

Stewart PC and Trueman R 2003 Applying the Extended Mathews Stability graph to
stress relaxation, site-specific effects and narrow-vein stoping. Proceedings of the 1st
AGCM Conference, Ground Control in Mining Technology and Practice, p 55-61.

Swart AH 2005 Investigation of factors governing the stability of stope panels in hard
rock mines in order to define a suitable design methodology for shallow mining
operations, M. Eng dissertation, Faculty of Engineering, Built Environment and
Information Technology, University of Pretoria.

46
Swart AH and Handley MF 2005, ‘The design of stable stope spans for shallow
mining operations, The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, vol. 105, pp. 275-286.

Von Kimmelman MR, Hyde B and Madgwick RJ 1984, "The use of computer
applications at BCL Limited in planning pillar extraction and the design of mining
layouts," In Design and Performance of Underground Excavations, Int. Soc. Rock
Mech. Symposium, Brown and Hudson, eds., Brit. Geotech. Soc., London, pp. 5363.

Walls EJ, Maduray C, Govender D, Baoduo AP, Joughin WC, Singh N and Naidoo K
2013, Outcomes Of The Technology Adoption Programme For Risk Based Support
Design In Bushveld Platinum Underground Mines, Proceedings of MineSafe 2013,
22–23 October 2013, Emperors Palace, Johannesburg, pp10.

Wilson, AH., 1972, "An hypothesis concerning pillar stability," The Mining Engineer,
vol. 131, pp. 409-417.

York, G, Canbulat, I, Kabeya, KK, Le Bron, K, Watson, BP and Williams, SB 1998

Final Project Report: Develop guidelines for the design of pillar systems for shallow
and intermediate depth, tabular, hard rock mines and provide a methodology for
assessing hangingwall stability and support requirements for the panels between
pillars. Safety in Mines Research Advisory Committee GAP 334, 180p.

Zhang, Y, Hughes, R and Mitri, HS 2011 ‘Modified Stability Graph Method With a
New Rock Stress Factor’, Proceedings of the 45th U.S. Rock Mechanics /
Geomechanics Symposium, 26-29 June, San Francisco, California, pp7.

47