International Conference on Management Science and Management Innovation (MSMI 2014)

Improving the Geomechanics Conditions for Effective Ground Control;

A Case Study of Chibuluma South Mine, Zambia

Pardon SINKALA1,a, Radhe KRISHNA2,b

1,2
University of Zambia, School of Mines, PO Box 32379, Lusaka Zambia
a
[email protected], [email protected]

Keyword: Rockmass, Characterization, Classification, Design methods, Ground control.

Abstract. Statistical studies at Chibuluma South mine have indicated that 70% of the falls of
ground were recorded in the decline, orebody drives, access crosscuts and longhole stopes from the
year 2009 to 2013. This study was therefore carried out to propose a strategy that will improve the
performance of ground stabilization at Chibuluma South mine in order to ensure a safe and cost-
effective extraction of ore. To review and improve the ground support installed at the mine, various
stages of the support design process were followed. These were; data collection, rockmass
characterization, rockmass classification, empirical and analytical design methods, numerical design
methods, ground support monitoring and finally the design of reviewed ground support system. A
number of software tools were used in the study. These were; (1) RocLab, for determination of rock
strength parameters, (2) Dips, for analysis of joints, (3) Phase2, for Insitu and induced stress
analysis (4) Unwedge, for determination of potential unstable wedges around excavations and
support pattern design. The objective of this study was met, and ground support recommendations
were also made in the study.

Introduction
This study was conducted at Chibuluma south mine which is on the Zambian Copperbelt
province. The mine is located on latitude 12°53' S, longitude 28°05' E, lies at an elevation of
1250m above the sea level and is approximately 300km north of the capital city, Lusaka. The main
objective of this study was to propose a strategy that would improve the performance of ground
stabilization at Chibuluma south mine in order to ensure safe and cost-effective extraction of ore.

Fig. 1 Site of research shown by the arrow

© 2014. The authors - Published by Atlantis Press 379

Methodology and the rock support design process
The data collected consisted of geological and geotechnical data. The modes of data collection
used were underground joint survey and borehole core logging. Data was collected and analyzed at
each of the various stages of the design process shown below;

Fig. 2 Support design process

Data analysis and discussion

The rockmass at Chibuluma south mine was characterized by Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
and classified using Geomechanics classification system (Bieniawski’s RMR) and the NGI Q –
System classification.

Q Values RMR
Values
1.4 1.3 1.23 60
1.18 49 50
1.2 50 45 45 45
1 0.91 39
0.74 40
0.8
0.59 30
0.6
20
0.4
10
0.2
0 0
360ml 370ml 450ml 488ml 514ml 541ml 360ml 370ml 450ml 488ml 514ml 541ml

Levels Levels

Fig. 3 Comparison of Q values Fig. 4 Comparison of RMR values

Empirical and analytical analyses

Many empirical equations were used to determine the support parameters of Chibuluma South
mine [4,5]. This approach was used to come up with a guide of what is likely about the required
support design. Below is an empirical equation (refer with: Eq. 1) that was used to calculate the bolt
spacing assuming a square grid pattern of support.

380
 (1)

Where; FS = Design factor of safety

The determination of rockmass parameters using RocLab is based on Hoek – Brown and Mohr –
Coulomb failure criteria.

Analysis of induced stresses using Phase2 software

Fig. 4 Distribution of strength factors at 541ml

Table 2. Induced stress analysis – summary

Level Maximum major Virgin stress Global Strength Minimum
principle stress 0.027MPa/ meter depth Strength Factor
360mL 18.80MPa 9.72MPa 15.658MPa 0.78
541mL 24.00MPa 14.61MPa 17.040MPa 0.95
From this analysis, it was shown that higher stresses act on the backs of excavations while low
stresses act on the sidewalls. This indicates a reduced demand for support in the sidewalls as
compared to the roof. Fracture zones around excavations are caused by a combination of induced
stresses and blast damage. The failure mode at Chibuluma south mine is stress induced, structurally
controlled and gravity assisted failure mode. Below are photographs depicting the rock failure mode
at Chibuluma south mine, (refer with: Fig. 5, Fig 6)

Fig. 5 342 metre level room crosscut Fig. 6 488 metre level mining drive west sidewall

381
Structural analysis
The stereographic plot below (refer with: Fig. 7) represented the major joint sets for 541metre
level, southern access from gathering drive to 551 access intersection B7932 and was used as an
input data for UNWEDGE software to display the potential unstable wedges around the excavation
as shown (refer with: Fig. 8) before any support was added to the excavation and after and after
adding support to the excavation (refer with: Fig. 9). Once the factor of safety rose to 1.5 which was
the design factor of safety, the support design was taken to be adequate. The support design shown
(refer with: Fig. 10) was for 541 metre level. This was done for several other sites at the mine and
various support designs were obtained, each design for each site.
Input data – Stereographic plot from Dips software

Fig. 7 Stereographic plot

Analysis results before support using UNWEDGE Analysis results after support at a
factor of safety of 1.5

Fig. 8 Unsupported excavation Fig. 9 Supported excavation

The plan and section view of support design at a factor of safety of 1.5

382
 Fig. 10 Plan and section view of support design

For potential unstable wedges in the rockmass, the shape, size, orientation and apex height
depend on the orientation and persistence of the planes of weakness (discontinuity). However, there
is always a limit on the maximum apex height of the potential unstable wedges depending on the
mine structure. For instance, at Chibuluma south mine, the average thickness of the crown pillar is
10m, which implies that the maximum apex height of a roof wedge is 10m. Therefore, in a case
where UNWEDGE determined the apex height to be more than 10m, there was need to correct the
height, the volume, the support pressure and hence the factor of safety. The formula below (refer
with: Eq. 2) was derived to calculate this adjusted factor of safety.

Adjusted FS= (2)

Where Initial factor of safety provided by UNWEDGE and

Initial height of wedge provided by UNWEDGE
(The above equation was derived by the author, Pardon Sinkala)

Conclusion
A detailed study using available Geological and Geotechnical information from drill cores and
underground mapping was made to determine the likely behaviour of the rockmass and stability of
the excavations. Bieniawski’s Geomechanics classification system showed that the ground
condition ranges from fair to good at Chibuluma South mine. Care was taken on the major factors
affecting the accuracy of model prediction of ground conditions. These factors were the excavation
geometry and material properties as input data. Therefore, there is need for periodical reviews on
laboratory testing of rock samples so as to obtain updated data on strength properties of the
rockmass and the excavation geometry as input data should be as close as possible to the actual
mine excavation. In order to achieve a more proactive hazard alleviation in terms of safety and
economics, there is need for an intensified geotechnical data collection and support design, which
implies that a mine must have an adequate workforce which is competent, and must also have
proper ground control instruments in place. Fractures in the rockmass at Chibuluma mine were
caused by induced stresses and blast damage. Blast damage is unavoidable with conventional drill
and blast mining methods [3]. However, minimal blast damage can be achieved by using controlled
drilling and blasting. Using Numerical and Analytical design methods, ground support was
reviewed and improved for the access crosscuts, orebody/footwall drives and room crosscuts. The
proposed support designs were adequate and cost effective.

383
References
[1] Bandis, S. C.Barton, N.R and Christianson, M. (1985) Application of a new numerical model
of joint behaviour to rock mechanics problems, Fundamentals of Rock Joints.
[2] B.H.G. Brady and E.T. Brown (2005), Rock Mechanics for underground mining, 3rd Edition,
USA, pp. 312-338.
[3] E. Hoek and E.T. Brown (1982), Underground Excavation in Rock, Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, London.
[4] E. Hoek, P.K. Kaiser, W.F. Bawden (1989), Support for Underground excavation in Rock,
Brookfield, U.S.A.
[5] J.N. de la Vergne (2003), Hard Rock Miner's Handbook, Ontario, pp. 13-34.
[6] Krishna, R. & Chanda, M. Rock Mechanics Lecture notes. University of Zambia. Mining
Engineering Department.
[7] M.L. Geremic, A.A Balkema (1987), Ground Mechanics in Hard Rock Mining. Rotterdam,
Netherland.
[8] Richard E. Goodman; “Introduction to Rock Mechanics”, 2 nd Edition, New York, 1989, pp. 221-
291.
[9] William G. Pariseau., (2007), Design Analysis in Rock Mechanics, Taylor and Francis/ Balkema,
Netherland, pp. 175-226.

384