International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 38 (2001) 735744

Technical Note
Likelihood statistic for interpretation of the stability graph for
open stope design
F.T. Suorineni
a,
*, P.K. Kaiser
a
, D.D. Tannant
b
a
Mirarco/Geomechanics Research Centre, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont., Canada P3E 2C6
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Mining and Petroleum Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.,
Canada T6G 2G7
Accepted 20 May 2001
1. Introduction
The stability graph method for open stope design is an
empirical method, and its interpretation is highly
subjective. Subjective interpretation of the stability
graph has resulted in unknown risks from human bias
and inherent errors. Users of the stability graph method
for open stope design are for example, given the wrong
impression that if a stope plots in the stable zone, that
stope is denitively stable and its performance in service
presents no risk of instability. Statistical tools exist that
can be applied to interpret the stability graph and
signicantly minimize the subjectivity in the stability
graph method without making it seem more rigorous
than it is currently perceived. This paper identies the
Baysian likelihood method as a powerful tool for a
statistical interpretation of the stability graph, and uses
the extended database based on the Potvin [1] calibrated
stability graph factors to illustrate the method and its
benets. Mathews and his co-workers [2] in Golder
Associates introduced the stability graph method of
open stope design in 1980. The stability graph is a plot
of a stability number N against a shape factor HR. The
stability number and shape factor are dened in Eqs. (1)
and (3) respectively:
N
0
Q
0
ABC; 1
Q
0

RQD
J
n
J
r
J
a
J
w
; 2
where Q
0
is the modied tunnelling quality index [2]. Q
0
is obtained from Barton et al. [3] rockmass quality index
Q by setting the stress reduction factor SRF to 1 as
shown in Eq. (2). The water reduction factor J
w
is often
set to one in Canadian conditions (dry hard rock
underground mines). In other mining environments,
where this is not the case, the relevant J
w
values should
be applied. The parameters A, B and C are the stress
factor, joint orientation factor and gravity factor
respectively. The shape factor HR is dened as the
hydraulic radius:
HR
Area
Perimeter
: 3
Fig. 1 is the stability graph. The stability graph is
divided into three zones labeled stable, unstable and
caving zones. These zones were originally dened by
visually tting boundaries between clusters of data
points representing stable and unstable stope surfaces,
and between the unstable and caved stope surfaces. The
zone enclosed by the boundaries is the transition zone.
The transition zone contains a mixture of stable,
unstable and caved stopes. A stope surface that plots
in this zone may be stable, unstable or cave in service.
The transition boundaries in Fig. 1 are eye-balled.
The problem with visual demarcation of zones is their
subjective nature and reproducibility in future analysis
and the unknown risk associated with inherent errors.
Since 1980, the boundaries originally dened by
Mathews et al. have changed considerably (see [4]).
The changes are ascribed to the following factors:
*
accumulation of more data with time,
*
re-denition of the stability number by various
authors,
*
calibration of the boundaries to specic local mine
site conditions,
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-705-675-1151; fax: +1-705-675-
4866.
E-mail address: fsuorineni@mirarco.org (F.T. Suorineni).
1365-1609/01/$ - see front matter r 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 5 - 1 6 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 3 - 8