You are on page 1of 10

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability
of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling
Shahriyar Heidarzadeh ⇑, Ali Saeidi, Alain Rouleau
Department of Applied Sciences, University of Quebec at Chicoutimi, Chicoutimi G7H 2B1, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Stress-induced failure is among the most common causes of instability in Canadian deep underground
Received 22 January 2018 mines. Open stoping is the most widely practiced underground excavation method in these mines, and
Received in revised form 23 April 2018 creates large stopes which are subjected to stress-induced failure. The probability of failure (POF)
Accepted 15 May 2018
depends on many factors, of which the geometry of an open stope is especially important. In this study,
Available online xxxx
a methodology is proposed to assess the effect of stope geometrical parameters on the POF, using numer-
ical modelling. Different ranges for each input parameter are defined according to previous surveys on
Keywords:
open stope geometry in a number of Canadian underground mines. A Monte-Carlo simulation technique
Stope stability
Stope geometrical parameters
is combined with the finite difference code FLAC3D, to generate model realizations containing stopes
Probability of failure with different geometrical features. The probability of failure (POF) for different categories of stope
General factorial design geometry, is calculated by considering two modes of failure; relaxation-related gravity driven (tensile)
Numerical modeling failure and rock mass brittle failure. The individual and interactive effects of stope geometrical parame-
Sublevel open stoping ters on the POF, are analyzed using a general multi-level factorial design. Finally, mathematical optimiza-
tion techniques are employed to estimate the most stable stope conditions, by determining the optimal
ranges for each stope’s geometrical parameter.
Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology. This is an open
access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction geometry (shape, size and inclination) on the state of stability,
can be evaluated by using different analytical, empirical and
The stability of underground excavations has become a critical numerical approaches. Numerical methods offer more advantages
issue in the mining industry due to the growing trend of extracting and less drawbacks compared to the other two methods [15],
deeper mineral resources. Open stoping underground excavation therefore they are widely used to analyze the stability of under-
method is the most widely practiced technique in Canadian under- ground open stopes.
ground mines [1–4]. Open stoping creates large underground Numerical evaluation of the effects of stope geometrical param-
openings called ‘‘Stopes” whose level of stability must be assessed. eters on various instability modes has been investigated by several
Maintaining stope stability not only provides safety for the work- important studies. The effect of open stope height on the stability
force and underground equipment, but also contributes to the was studied by Chen et al. [16], Perron [17], Yao et al. [18] and
mines production capacity and profitability by minimizing Henning [19]. These studies indicated that increasing the stope
unplanned ore dilution [4–7]. height results in increasing the overbreak of stope walls and conse-
Although the open stope stability state is significantly affected quently contributes to unplanned ore dilution. The effect of stope
by external parameters such as the applied natural and mining- strike length variations on stability were also studied by Henning
induced stresses, and the surrounding rock mass geomechanical et al. [10], Hughes et al. [20] and El Mouhabbis [21], showing that
characteristics [8–12], the stope geometry plays a key role in defin- longer strike lengths create greater ore dilution compared to
ing the level of stability [3,12,13]. shorter strike lengths, thereby reducing the stability level. Studies
Underground instability and the probable failure conditions, for on the effect of stope span width variations on stability have
open stopes located in deep hard rock, occur as a result of high demonstrated that narrower stopes result in higher dilutions, thus
magnitude mining-induced stresses [14]. Effects of open stope increasing the stope span width provides more stability [21,22].
Many studies also investigated the effect of stope hanging wall
dip on stability (e.g. Henning et al. [10], Yao et al. [18], Hughes
⇑ Corresponding author. [20], El Mouhabbis [21] and Urli [23]), and concluded that a
E-mail address: shahriyar.heidarzadeh1@uqac.ca (S. Heidarzadeh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2018.05.011
2095-2686/Ó 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping
method using numerical modeling. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2018.05.011

single or multiple parameter(s) were evaluated individually. basalt and granite) [3. Therefore. Strength Index (GSI) of the rock mass are defined in accordance ferent modes of stress-driven failure are possible depending on the with the typical rock mass quality of the Canadian Shield. The individual and interac. the aforementioned studies and their corresponding assumptions present a number of drawbacks. Methodology Fig. parameters. the previous studies mainly focused on the effects of individual parameters while not consider- ing the simultaneous variation of other geometrical parameters. are used to calculate the geomechanical rock mass both relaxation-related gravity driven (tensile) failure. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling.org/10. on the stope stability was assessed comprehensively in some studies (e. most previ- ous studies were case specific. hanging wall HR and hanging wall dip. in previous studies. however. The procedure to evaluate the individual and interactive effects of open stope geometrical parameters on the POF.011 . A Monte-Carlo simulation technique combined with the GSI  100 s ¼ exp ð2Þ finite difference code FLAC3D are utilized to simulate a large number 9  3D of stopes. 1 proposes the methodology and the sequential steps we utilize to evaluate the individual and combined effects of stope Table 1 geometrical parameters on the POF. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx shallower hanging wall dip contributes to a larger overbreak extent due to the significant effect of gravity on hanging wall at low incli- nations. by generating a greater extent of overbreak. in previous studies either relaxation-related tensile failure. which are considered to generate the most unstable open stopes.g. Secondly. The POF is calculated considering the rock mass. Deep applied in situ stress regime and rock mass geomechanical charac. Heidarzadeh et al.1. It was reported that increasing the stope hanging wall HR adversely affected the hanging wall stability. hanging wall HR.4]. In other words. To determine the rock mass geomechanical Finally. The present study uses a methodology to assess the individual the mean value of the parameters GSI. Germain et al. Firstly. Mathematical optimization techniques are ultimately used to predict the most rcm ¼ rci sa ð4Þ stable stope states (in terms of the POF) by determining the optimal srci ranges for each geometrical input parameter.. in real conditions the occurrence of dif. No comprehensive evaluation. Intact rock properties. were selected to evaluate the rock. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018). obtaining a comprehensive interpretation of the effect of selected geometric Fig.2 S. Moreover. (1)–(6)) [28]: mass brittle failure mode. 1 1  GSI 20  a¼ þ e 15  e 3 ð3Þ tive effects of the aforementioned geometrical parameters are eval.g. Therefore. https://doi.2018. [25]. parameters on the stope stability seemed to be difficult. [27]). has been made on the combined effects of open stope size. and therefore the interferences caused by variation of such the rock mass geomechanical parameters should be assigned other stope geometric parameters have been underestimated. andesite. the Hoek-Brown material constant (mi) and the Geological state of stability. Milne [24]. and/or long horizontal and short vertical dimensions have a higher degree of wall stability compared to square-shaped geometries. and thus the variation ranges for selected geometric parameters were limited. the effect of stope hanging wall size and shape (defined through the parameter hydraulic radius (HR)). however. respectively through stability indicators   of (1) minimum principal induced stress (r3) and (2) rock mass GSI  100 mb ¼ mi exp ð1Þ BSR.ijmst. the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of intact or rock mass brittle mode of failure. and rock properties using the following equations (Eqs. and as Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al. underground mines in the Canadian Shield are generally located teristics. shape and inclination on their state of stability. UCS and mi are assigned and combined effects of stope geometrical parameters (i. stope span width and stope hanging wall dip) on The UCS and mi values of the intact rock and the GSI value for the ‘‘probability of failure” (POF). brian rocks (e. grouped in categories with different ranges of span width. deterministically. In a review of previous studies. 1. Villaescusa [12] identified a gen- eral assumption that open stopes with high vertical and short hor- izontal dimensions.1016/j.05. Determination of rock mass parameters UCS (MPa) 120 Young’s modulus (GPa) 80 The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of open stope mi 13 Poisson’s ratio 0. Hence. stope accordingly (Tables 1 and 2).2 geometrical parameters on the POF by numerical modeling. 2 6 uated by using a general multi-level factorial analysis. rt ¼ ð5Þ mb 2. rhyolite. The variation range of each geometrical parameter is derived 28  14D from a survey of numerous open stopes [2] located in the Canadian   Shield. Clark [26] and Wang et al.e. Thus it would be more reasonable to consider all possible in moderate to high strength metamorphic and igneous Precam- failure scenarios when evaluating the state of stope stability. Property Value 2.

nizing the damage process and subsequent failure modes plays an In this study. The parameters mb. and. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018). State of in situ stress 12 m (Table 4). macroscopic boundary cracks. egory. 45°–60°. The value of 0. stress-induced insta- deterministic values of in situ stress components (Table 3).18 s 0. a total of 400 realizations (mining scenarios) are gener- ated for each hanging wall HR category. Property Value [3]. According to the provided distri- Bulk modulus. namely. [3]. rt (MPa) 0. bility occurs by two dominant processes. between 5 mb 2. Heidarzadeh et al. three categories of stopes are Tensile strength. S. For near vertical deposits in the tion and sometimes failure in the areas close to the excavation Canadian Shield. rcm and rt stand for the compressive and tensile strengths of the rock mass respectively. G (GPa) 9. [15] a small number of realizations (e. under low confinement conditions. Rock mass strength and deformability parameters with their corresponding values are given in Table 2. Arjang et al. as reported by stants defining the rock mass properties. each one of the four classes of hanging wall dip (Table 4). Ultimately.e.2. gravity-driven failure [14]. (2) structurally- using the Eqs.g.g.57 defined having hanging wall HR ranges of below 5 m.32]. For each class of hanging wall dip in each hanging wall HR cat- where D represents the degree of disturbance of the rock mass due to the excavation method and blasting. and Erm is deformation modulus of the rock mass. https://doi. All 1200 realizations for three hanging wall HR categories are repeated for three mean values of stope span width equal to 4 m. the average mining depth of 1400 m is considered important role in assessment of underground stope instability. could be identified in horizontal stress component is normally inclined perpendicular many forms (e.3. The damage process com- r1 ðMPaÞ ¼ 0:026zðmÞ þ 23:636 ð7Þ mences with the creation of extension micro fractures within the r2 ðMPaÞ ¼ 0:016zðmÞ þ 17:104 ð8Þ r3 ðMPaÞ ¼ 0:020zðmÞ þ 1:066 ð9Þ 2.5 and 5 m. However. to the strike of the ore body and the minimum horizontal stress spalling or complete collapse of the excavation) [15]. Depth (m) rH (MPa) rh (MPa) rV (MPa) 1400 60. Determination of model geometry The stope hanging wall hydraulic radius (HR).5 m.011 . ranging from 0 for undis. 2). 60°– 1 þ eð 11 Þ 60þ15DGSI 75° and 75°–90°.2018. the stope span width and the stope hanging wall dip are selected as appropriate input parameters. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 3 Table 2 Realistic ranges of values for each parameter.8 is selected for the parameter D in this study.0 Fig. In as representative of deep underground stopes for estimating the general. are obtained from Rock mass geomechanical parameters.501 the minimum reported value for hanging wall HR in our reference dataset. [30]: controlled. is equal to 2. recog- component oriented parallel to the ore strike. the database compiled by Wang [2] and the study by Zhang et al. stope geometrical parameters respecting the predefined ranges of hanging wall HR and dip.. it should be noted that a 0. therefore first hanging wall HR category is defined having the range between 2.org/10. while the minor principal of mining-induced stresses could cause rock mass damage initia- stress component (r3) is vertical. four classes of stopes are considered.01 and 7 m and between 7 and 10 m. (7)–(9) as suggested by Maloney et al.684 bution functions for stope span width.5 29.760 our reference datasets (Fig. An open stope geometrical parameters [2]. plunging by 10° or less. Failure as a generic term. [29]. 3600 realizations are generated for numerical analysis. Monte-Carlo simulation with uniform distribution function is utilized to generate 100 realizations as a combination of random turbed in situ rock masses to 1 for highly disturbed rock masses [28]. reporting the typical open stope dimensions and inclinations GSI 70 in Canadian underground mines.05. Excavating an opening causes the existing in situ stress regime of the surrounding rock mass to be perturbed. Zhang et al.0 39. respec- 1  D2 Erm ¼ Ei 0:02 þ ð6Þ tively having hanging wall dip ranges of 20°–45°. Selecting a failure criteria influence on the stability of any underground excavation.ijmst. to define stope size. Hence. 100 realizations) is also able to provide a fair approximation of the output variables. hanging wall HR and dip in Shear modulus. Idris et al. The parameter rci represents the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the intact Therefore. shape and inclination (Fig. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling. Although. stated that the major and intermediate principal stress In the case of underground open stopes located in deep. s and a are the Hoek-Brown failure criteria con. the high magnitude horizontally. mentioned that the maximum walls [14. 100 realizations for rock. 8 m and 2. 2. Monte-Carlo simulation is reported as as the rock mass is assumed to be disturbed by blasting effects. hard components (r1 and r2) in the Canadian Shield are oriented almost rock mines or for a brittle rock mass context. the most accurate method of its kind in the case of a large number of realizations of a simulation model [15]. The magnitude and orientation of the in situ stress components have a significant 2. Table 3 The values of in situ stress components. plastic yielding.1016/j.4. K (GPa) 4. For each category ! of hanging wall HR. (1) stress- The magnitudes of in situ stress components are estimated induced spalling and slabbing failure. i. 3).31. Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al.

5.05. However. rock mass tensile strength. whereas the tangential stress increases to its tensile stress near the opening surface. a built- ment of macro-fractures and release surfaces.org/10. or a relaxation zone. 3. Determination of the probability of failure parallel to the walls. rock mass. It should be noted that according to Kaiser et al. the POF can be calculated as the an open stope can be estimated by the ‘‘brittle shear ratio” (BSR) proportion of stopes having either the magnitude of minimum [14. exceeded the corresponding allowable threshold. two different stability indicators are eter of interest to assess the effect of stope size. [14] described the rock mass damage level based on tion and propagation of these cracks finally leads to the develop. To obtain the maximum BSR value of each model.1016/j. The potential of gravity-driven failure due to the presence of cant reduction. In the zone of the model. induced stress (r3) near the excavation walls undergoes a signifi. Number of simulations Stope span width (m) Stope HW HR (m) Stope HW dip range (°) 400 4 2.011 . for 150 open stope cases [2].32]. cipal induced stress to zero or less and creates tensile stress if the magnitude of r3 exceeds the tensile strength threshold. ing the magnitude of minor principal induced stress (r3) to the controlled failures. The potential rock mass brittle damage surrounding In a deterministic approach. not to the radial stress component which leads to low confinement [19]. relaxation in the walls reduces the minor prin. excavation is considered to be failed.2018.31. ing either the relaxation-related gravity driven or the brittle failure Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al. in the case of gravity-driven. stope hanging wall HR (c). is determined by compar- maximum.5–5 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 400 4 5–7 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 400 4 7–10 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 400 8 2. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018). creating an maximum shear stress of each zone and calculate the BSR for each unconfined area. structurally. shape and inclina- used to determine the brittle and tensile modes of failure in the tion on its stability. the [14. and/or the maximum BSR value induced stress (r1  r3) around the stope over the uniaxial com. in program in the FISH-language code was developed to use the tangential and radial stresses decrease drastically. These compression-induced tension cracks normally UCSintact form parallel to the major principal induced stress (r1). Distribution plots of stope strike length (a). The maximum BSR value around the stope for case of spalling failure. The probability of stope failure (POF) is selected as the param- Therefore. The BSR (Eq. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx Fig. [33]. stope height (b).4 S. in this study. Castro et al. Heidarzadeh et al. the BSR. (10)) is defined as the ratio of differential principal induced stress (r3). As a result. the magnitude of the minor principal each model was selected as the output variable. Table 4 Stope geometrical categories the corresponding number of Monte-Carlo simulation for each category. around the opening. when consider- pressive strength (UCS) of an intact rock. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling.33]. https://doi. Since the tension is positive in FLAC3D.5–5 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 400 12 5–7 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 400 12 7–10 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 intact rock bridges in the rock mass as a result of high compressive r1  r3 BSR ¼ ð10Þ stress regime. Accumula.ijmst. stope hanging wall dip (d) and stope span width (e).5–5 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 400 8 5–7 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 400 8 7–10 20–45 45–60 60–75 75–90 400 12 2. relaxation in excavation walls is attributed to the reduction of tan- gential stresses (the major and/or intermediate principal stress) 2.

gravity driven failure is assessed by comparing the highest magni- tude of minimum principal induced stress of each model (as an output of FLAC3D).B½3C ½2Þ mary stopes having identical dimensions. 6. The 36-experiment design and the values of response of failure is calculated using Eq.0 (Table 7). over 100 realizations for each hanging wall dip class. the model is allowed to reach equilibrium. The identical in situ stress POF results (Table 7). and thus indi- are positioned far enough from the region of interest. Another validation of the assigned model is state is applied to the models of all geometrical categories using the proximity of the predicted determination coefficient (R2) value the magnitudes reported in Table 3. Fig. The with 36 experiments is generated by Design Expert 7. the main failure mechanism is deter- mined to be the structurally-controlled gravity driven (i. The process takes place by fitting different regression POFð%Þ ¼ models (i. obtained from numerical modellings. The applied regression model is statistically significant a finer mesh size is adopted near the stopes and pillars.C ½1. Numerical modeling variable). The transverse stope configuration [12] is selected to gen. a general factorial design BSR was reported to be equal to 0. a reason- able agreement would be achieved (Table 7). parameters fall within approximately 0. based on dif- cates the goodness-of-fit of the regression model for predicting the ferent stope dimensions for each model. Model boundary conditions and the state of in situ stress. it should be The POF is calculated for each class of hanging wall dip in all noted that in the case of a general factorial design with multi- categories of hanging wall HR for the two considered failure level categorical factors. no brittle failure condition is observed. are counted and the probability levels. (POF).6. 5. A. stope hanging wall according to a database reported by Hudyma [34] that contains dip and stope hanging wall HR. The ratio of the number of failed model realizations. Contour of the brittle shear ratio (BSR). Stopes are excavated in where POF is the ‘‘probability of failure” in percentage. https://doi. estimated by Eq. modes.A½2C ½1. and after each ables are eliminated from the model.org/10.B½1C ½1.ijmst. are presented in Number of failed modelsðr3  rtðrock massÞ or BSR  0:7Þin each class Table 5.0 trial soft- threshold for tensile stress is considered to be the tensile strength ware. however. To increase accuracy. (5) as equal to 0. Thus.A½2C ½2. Results and discussion Regression coefficient values reflect the way each independent variable impacts the response variable. ANOVA is used to determine the level of sig- ð11Þ nificance for the applied regression models. The stopes in each model are and the adjusted R2 (R2adj).1016/j.05. the roller conditions for external boundaries The model regression coefficient (R2) equals 0. and/or whether interaction effect mode. mean. respectively. If the values of these two excavation step. and the individual/interactive effects of independent variables: The finite difference code FLAC3D is employed to build models POF ð%Þ ¼ f ðA½1. 3. S.57 (MPa). (11).A½2. open stope mines. The rib pillar W/H ratio is set at 0. provides the POF in percentage. based on the geometry setup obtained by Monte-Carlo simulation (Fig. A½1C ½2. 2FI and 3FI) to the response data Total number of models in each class  100 (POFs). ð12Þ erate planar symmetrical models.2018. the obtained results. It should be noted that for the pre- sumed state of in situ stress and rock mass quality. B½1C ½2. with multiple neighboring pri.B½2C ½2. these coefficients do not imply a physical Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al.e. Table 6.0001).e. and the possibility of structurally-controlled Fig.20 of each other. tensile) failure.. B½1. (12)) expresses the relationship between the POF value (response 2.B½2. 5). The general (multi-level) factorial design allows categorical of the rock mass. main effects. [14]. with the obtained value of rock mass tensile strength (Fig.A½1C ½1. The final equation (Eq. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 5 Fig. To avoid any adverse effect on the minimum desirable limit of 4. Heidarzadeh et al. and the parameter ‘‘adequate precision” which coarser mesh is applied for the homogeneous isotropic rock mass reflects the signal to noise ratio [35]. which indicates that unnecessary vari- excavated in separate single steps from left to right. Thus. Consequently. Different mesh sizes are tested to obtain the ANOVA results of the general factorial design are presented in most reliable and accurate numerical results. Contour of minimum principal induced stress r3 (MPa) (a) and minimum principal induced stress r3  0 (b).4 for all the models C refer to the coded values of stope span width.B½3.B½2C ½1. B½3C ½1.91. B and sequence. [n] represents the cor- 135 rib pillar size parameters observed from 17 different Canadian responding level (range) for each input variable. C ½2. 4. In order to have a better understanding about the way each input parameter affects the POF. while the (p  0.011 .7 by Castro et al. The stability thresholds (maximum allowable limit) for the exists between the parameters or not. 6a and b). 4). Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling. factors to be defined with different numbers of levels and creates the number of failed models for each hanging wall dip class of an experiment that includes all possible combinations of factor every hanging wall HR category. The possibility of brittle failure for each model is evaluated by plotting BSR contours and determining the zone with maximum BSR value (Fig. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018). has the value well above surrounding the area of interest.

HR from 2. compared to the strike length. each category contains model realizations with 24 12 75–90 5–7 64 25 12 45–60 5–7 37 four different classes of hanging wall dip. B (hanging more stable by increasing the hanging wall HR range. increasing the hanging wall HR range. causes a rapid reduction in the POF (decreased to 12%).41 10. significantly increases the POF (from 16% to 32%).5–5 48 8 m. and then decreases to 37% while HR ize the exposed surface of a hanging wall.1. to develop a better to its maximum range (7–10 m). Fig.78 5.82 0.5–5 50 HR is investigated for three categories of stope with different val- 23 8 75–90 5–7 59 ues of span width. For shallow to moderately dipping stopes (45°–60°). relaxation-related dilution. stopes having span width equal to 4 m became the POF are individual parameters of A (span width).18] that increas- 6 8 60–75 7–10 36 ing the stope height contributes to greater instabilities and accord- 7 4 60–75 7–10 6 8 8 60–75 5–7 49 ing to Henning [19]. to 10 4 45–60 5–7 32 account for the combined effect of hanging wall size and shape.6 S. 7a).org/10.61 <0. for stopes with 12 m of span width. Furthermore.40 4.00 18 37. the effect of the stope hanging wall 22 12 75–90 2. 11 8 20–45 5–7 43 the hydraulic radius (HR) is used as a common measure. 28 12 20–45 2.0001 A 2602. How- 35 4 20–45 5–7 36 36 4 75–90 2.23.0125 AC 613. while increasing the hanging wall HR to its highest range Dimensions of the stope hanging wall ‘‘exposed surface” is one (7–10 m). 12 m-wide studies [10. Source Sum of squares Degree of freedom Mean square F-value p-value Model 6823.70 0.5–5 76 of hanging wall HR has not been fully understood yet.5–5 36 effect of hanging wall size and shape on stability.83 Cor total 7504.97 35 Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al. The stope strike length and height character. In the case of moderately to steeply dipping stopes (60°–75°) with a span width of 4 m.5–5 55 to a higher extent of hanging wall instability [12.03 34.0001 B 1433.0162 BC 1747. 15 12 60–75 5–7 45 Despite the aforementioned assumptions corresponding to the 16 8 20–45 2. it is strongly recommended to use the 38% and from 69% to 39%. 34 12 60–75 2.05 0.5–5 23 reported by many studies.05. respec- 33 8 75–90 2.ijmst. respectively.0001 C 427. increasing the hanging wall meaning.5–5 28 eters such as span width and hanging wall dip have been largely 21 4 20–45 7–10 15 underestimated.61 4 153. It is also reported [10.011 .26]. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling. According to previous reaches its maximum range (7–10 m). whereas.1016/j. increases the POF to 46% and interpretation of the model.5–5 47 In the case of shallow dipping stopes having hanging wall dip 29 12 45–60 7–10 47 30 12 20–45 5–7 40 ranging between 20° and 45°. instead of coefficient values. decreasing the strike length by increasing the hanging wall HR range (Fig. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018).5–5 m to 5–7 32 4 75–90 5–7 42 m increases the POF from 30% to 32%. respectively.21] longer strike lengths cause a greater degree of stopes have their POF continuously increasing (from 32% to 44%). C (hanging wall HR) and interactions of A*C and B*C a decrease of the POF from 52% to 21% (Fig. while increasing the HR model graphs.5–5 34 ever. Whereas.5–5 25 decreases the POF dramatically to 8% and 33%. Run Span width (m) HW dip (°) HW HR (m) POF (%) Adequate precision R2 Adjusted R2 Predicted R2 1 8 75–90 7–10 49 14. the POF increases ity. coefficients. and span width between 4 m and 31 4 45–60 2.39 <0. Effect of open stope hanging wall HR on the probability of failure from 2.97 17 401.06 2 1301.0003 Residual 681. 7a–d illustrate the 26 12 60–75 7–10 50 POFs corresponding to HR variations for each stope hanging wall 27 8 20–45 7–10 29 dip class. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx Table 5 Table 7 The 36-full factorial experimental runs and the corresponding values of POF obtained The values of determination coefficient (R2). https://doi. increasing the hanging wall HR leads 13 12 75–90 7–10 56 14 8 45–60 2.5–5 m to 5–7 m.91 0. increasing the hanging wall HR range from 2. since it directly contributes to the extent of the hanging wall first (from 21% to 44%) by increasing the range of hanging wall relaxation zone [26]. decreases the POF from 58% to mathematical algorithm. Since these coefficients are calculated according to a HR range from 2.2018. In addition. with a span width equal to 8 m and 12 m. 7b).63 0. Significant model terms influencing 53%. causes the POF to reduce from 46% to 40% (Fig.64 2 8 45–60 7–10 47 3 8 60–75 2.0 0.5–5 44 tively.5–5 m to 5–7 m. adjusted and predicted determination from numerical modellings. For the stopes with a span width equal to 8 m. since the 18 8 45–60 5–7 34 19 12 20–45 7–10 36 interferences caused by variation of other stope geometric param- 20 4 20–45 2. Table 6 ANOVA results of the regression model applied to POF data. (Table 6).65 0. increasing the hanging wall HR range 3.19 7. Heidarzadeh et al.5–5 21 4 4 75–90 7–10 14 5 4 60–75 5–7 26 provides more stability. resulting in wall dip). increasing the HR to its ultimate range (7–10 m). and as 12 4 60–75 2.5–5 m to 5–7 m.16.20. Therefore. the actual role 17 12 45–60 2.11 6 291. 7c).88 12. of the most important factors influencing the hanging wall stabil. even imposes a stronger effect on hanging 9 4 45–60 7–10 26 wall overbreak.64 3 477. and from 36% to 44%.56 2 213. However.

for stopes with span widths of 4 m. respectively. increasing span width to 12 m causes almost no change in the val. Finally. 8. 39%. from 35% to 58% and from three hanging wall HR categories in different hanging wall dip 46% to 69%. 41% to 59% and 52% to 60%. stopes show less stability (in terms of POF) than narrower ones. For stopes with a span width equal to 4 m.5–5 m to 21% to 53%. Effect of open stope hanging wall dip on the probability of failure depending on differences in span width and hanging wall dip ranges. It is also hanging wall dip from 20°–45° to 45°–60°.1016/j. since vertical stresses (r3) are shed onto two other aforementioned parameters. causes a significant decrease in the ranges between 2. 8b). hanging wall dip range 60°–75° (c) and hanging wall dip range 75°–90° (d). The obtained results of the stope hanging wall HR effect on the POF. 8c). 8a. a more compre. while increasing the HR range to 7–10 m. 32% to 44% and 47% to 59%.5–5 m. stopes whose hanging wall HR dip to the range of 60°–75°. Fig. increasing span width from 4 m to 8 m raises 7 m. Finally. increasing the range of ues of POF for neither of the four hanging wall dip classes. 60°–75° and 75°–90°. However. while increasing the hanging wall dip range to 60°–75° 60°–75° have almost identical POFs in every stope span width cat. 41% and 52% of POF for dip classes respectively from 30% to 46%. since hanging wall HR variation does not show similar patterns of effect 3. hensive assessment is accomplished by considering the influence Accordingly. almost identical POF values 35% to 47%. Ultimately. the effect of hanging wall dip may be altered when it is combined with the effect of other stope geomet- The effect of open stope span width on relaxation-related dilu. 44. and accord. 8 m and 12 m. For stopes with egory (Fig. respectively increases the POF from 8% to 40%. As observed in Fig. to obtain a clearer understanding HR in the range 2. The impacts of open stope hanging wall dip on the POF are pre- ingly as a general notion. Hence. whereas. (Fig. S. Heidarzadeh et al. it is reported that narrower stopes sented in Fig. similar patterns of POF variation are observed for all the span the POF in all four classes of hanging wall dip. leading to the creation of larger relax- ation zones. 8a–c plot the effects of stope span width on the POF for increases the POF from 30% to 52%.011 .05. 46% and 53%. reaching a hang- to 12 m continuously increases the POF for all four hanging wall ing wall dip range of 75°-90°. almost identical POFs are obtained for each hanging wall dip range. especially for span widths of 8 m and 12 m. increasing the span width from 4 m POF to 16%. Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al. ric parameters. increasing the hanging wall classes.2018. tion has previously been investigated by some studies. of other geometric parameters in different ranges. respectively. 52% to 69%. The results of the stope span width effect on the POF. In stopes with a hanging wall to be unstable [21–22]. with three values of span width. 26% to 38%. increasing the span width from 4 m to 12 m 8 m and 12 m span widths. Effect of open stope span width on the probability of failure more unstable. these observations strongly suggest the presence of According to Henning [19]. increases the POF to 47%.3. Moreover. results in 35%. 21% and 32%.2. increasing the range of hanging wall HR from 2. the surrounding orebody. respectively. respectively.org/10.5 and 5 m. challenges the conventional previous assumptions. causes the POF to decrease to 21%. 12% to 44% and (Fig. 21% to 53%.3% and 59% are for the large stopes with a hanging wall HR range of 7–10 m. respectively from width groups. 9a). 8 m and 12 m. obtained for dip ranges of 20°–45° to 75°–90°. in various cat- undergo a larger extent of dilution and therefore are more prone egories of hanging wall HR ranges. 16% to 32% stopes with span widths of 4 m to 12 m. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018). / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 7 Fig. Thus. in similar variation trends on the POF for all the span width groups. greater hanging wall overbreak significant interaction effects between hanging wall HR and the occurs for shallower dips. Where stopes had their hanging wall HR range In the case of stopes having hanging wall HR ranging from 5 to between 5 and 7 m. POF plots for span width variations for four hanging wall dip classes: hanging wall HR range 2. increasing the hanging wall dip results about the effect of span width on stope stability.ijmst.5–5 m (a). respectively (Fig. for span widths do not support the previous reported assumptions. and ultimately 75°–90°. since wider of 4 m. respectively (Fig. 5–7 m for steeply dipping (75°–90°) stopes increases the POF from 45°–60°. 7d). POF plots for hanging wall HR variations for three average span width groups: hanging wall dip range 20°–45° (a). in which 31% to 44%. Fig. for span width of 4 m. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling. 8 m are observed in hanging wall dip classes of 45°–60° and 75°–90° and 12 m. and 35% to 52%. hanging wall dip range 45°–60° (b). 9b). https://doi. hanging wall HR range 5–7 m (b) and hanging wall HR range 7–10 m (c). Here. 7. 9a–c. decreases the POF from found that stopes with hanging wall dip ranges of 20°–45° and 31% to 26%. shallow dipping stopes are considered to be 3. POFs of 44%. However. increasing the range of hanging wall dip from 20°-45° to 45°-60°. for hanging wall dip classes of 20°–45°.

Heidarzadeh et al. is achieved for the category of stopes with cussed. Regardless of the stope span width. at first causes the POF to stopes (span width of 4 m). 10b).05. POF for the stopes with hanging wall HR ranges between 2. respectively. In contrast. Again.1016/j. either with high vertical and short horizontal hanging wall HR first increases the POF (at HR range of 5–7 m). the lowest are considered more stable in comparison to square-shaped stopes POF (21%) was observed for stopes with high vertical (HR ranges [12]. 10a–d). increasing the stope span width increases the POF for all of 4 m. hanging wall HR range 5–7 m (b) and hanging wall HR range 7–10 m (c). in that increasing the assumed that stopes. dimensions or with long horizontal and short vertical dimensions. 37% and 44% ning (at HR range of 5–7 m).011 . It is also observed that reducing the difference results in POFs of 21%. 46% and 53% for span width groups of 4 m between stope’s horizontal and vertical dimensions (the category to 12 m. and short horizontal (span width of 4 m) Fig. and span width range. Interaction effect of open stope geometric and inclination (Fig. the highest level of stability 45°. General factorial analysis plots showing interaction effects between stope span width and stope hanging wall HR in hanging wall dip range 20°–45° (a). of span width equal to 12 m and HR ranges between 2. 10d). reduces the POFs to 12%. for large span and span width simultaneously. The effect of increasing the hanging wall dip on the POF shows a For shallow to moderately dipping stopes (HW dip between 45° similar pattern for all three span width groups with 7–10 m hang. 10c). However. https://doi. shape and inclination A similar pattern of POF variation is observed for steeply dip- on the POF. In this case. between 7 and 10 m and span width of 4 m (Fig. causes the POF to increase.5 and Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al. sharply decreases the POF. between 7 and 10 m). eral conclusion on the influence of stope size. 10a). hanging wall dip range 45°–60° (b). results in the most unstable condition in terms of POF (69%) 3. and then decreases it across all span widths. high vertical and short horizontal dimensioned stopes are more In shallow dipping stopes (HW dip between 20° and 45°). Int J Min Sci Technol (2018). 10.ijmst. for the hanging wall dip ranges of 20°– Across the hanging wall dip classes. In widths (12 m). firstly elevates the POF and then (except the dip class of 45°–60°). POF plots for hanging wall dip variation for three span width groups: hanging wall HR range 2. the POF is significantly controlled by strong interactions for all the span width categories. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling. 11a–c. it can be ping stopes (HW dip between 75° and 90°). hanging wall dip range 60°–75° (c) and hanging wall dip range 75°–90° (d). (the lowest POF values). Moreover. and stope hanging wall HR.2018. Ultimately. Moreover. increasing the range of hanging wall dip from 20°–45° to tion occurs in the group of stopes with span widths of 4 m and 45°–60°. The presence of synergis. Based on the results of previous studies. parameters on the probability of failure In the case of moderately to steeply dipping stopes (HW dip between 60° and 75°). it provides a general increasing the hanging wall HR for stopes with low and moderate pattern for POF variations. 60°–75° and 75°–90° respectively. Fig. the most stable condi- 12 m. 10a–d illustrate the interaction effects of stope span width dimensions (Fig. and then increases it considerably for respectively. wall HR (5–7 m).5 and 5 Fig. 8 m and HR. increasing the dip range to 75°–90°. and then to increase by the same value. 8 m and 12 m are presented in of span width equal to 12 m and HR ranges between 2. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx Fig. a global decreasing trend of POF is observed stopes dipping between 45° and 60°.5 and 5 m). and 60°) with the span width of 4 m. it is observed that regardless of the stope hanging wall dip the hanging wall HR ranging between 7 and 10 m. when the horizontal dimensions of The interaction effect of stope hanging wall HR and stope hang- the stope becomes closer to its vertical dimension (the category ing wall dip.4. the m). This result supports the previously stated assumption that three hanging wall HR categories (Fig. As previously dis.org/10. having the maximum range of hanging decrease significantly. and then decreases it sections. increasing the HR decreases the POF in the begin- wall dip range to 60°–75°. for stopes having span widths of 4 m. larger HR values. where in all the hanging wall dip classes span widths (4 m and 8 m). increasing the hanging wall ing wall HR. 45°–60°. increasing the hanging wall (Fig. 9c).5–5 m (a). stable than square-shaped stopes. Thus. increases the POF from 8% to 21%. For stopes with span widths from 40% to 53% respectively. increasing the hanging of 8 m and 12 m. 9. in term of POF (11%) is achieved for stopes with hanging wall HR tic effects between the geometrical parameters complicates a gen. respectively (Fig. for span widths of 4 m.8 S. the most stable condition between certain geometrical parameters. from 33% to 46% and hanging wall HR between 7 and 10 m. The most stable condition (POF = 8%) occurs with narrow HR and span width simultaneously. increasing the hanging wall HR reduces the POF to their minimums. increasing the hanging wall HR first As indicated by the results for individual parameters in previous increases the POF (at HR range of 5–7 m). the POF increases to its maximum level of 46%. In addition.

in contrast.2018. While stopes dipping greater than 60°.org/10. In order to calculate the POF as the response vari. It was found that under the presumed state of in situ stress and rock mass quality. Heidarzadeh et al. when the hang- decreased to its minimum value. walls (60°–75° and 75°–90°). maximum value. increasing the stope hanging wall HR range from decreases from their maximum to minimum values by increasing 2. having different average values of span width (4 m. aside from stope span width range. for stopes having their hanging wall HR rang- Finally. Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al. The mathe- Where stope span widths equaled 4 m. the POF decreases experiments was utilized to determine the induvial and interactive at first and then continuously increases with increasing stope effects of the parameters. however.5–5 m to 5–7 m. the POF is Moreover. increasing the hanging wall HR range from 2. while the m range. decreases from their maximum to minimum tion occurs for hanging wall dip between 45° and 60°. However. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx 9 Fig. value. the most stable condition occurs for the 75°–90°. S. width and stope hanging wall dip were evaluated for three groups of stopes.5–5 m. while the value by increasing the HR from 2. decreases the POF (Fig. For a hanging wall dip range of 20°–45°. In contrast. Consequently. The POF for stopes dipping between 45° and 60°.5–5 m to hanging wall dip range of 45°–60°. the POF for the stopes matical relationship between the POF and the geometrical param- with hanging wall dip ranges of 20°–45°. The effect of stope hanging wall HR. 45°–60°. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling. a key finding of this study is that whatever the stope m. for stopes with hanging wall dip ranges of probability of stope failure is significantly controlled by interaction 45°–60°. p. In condition occurs for the hanging wall HR range of 5–7 m for all stopes dipping 20°-45°.1016/j. hanging wall dip is. while the maximum instability 5–7 m. increases the POF in all categories of stope hanging wall HR. The mathematical optimization performed with Design Expert 7. alters For 8 m-wide stopes with moderate to steeply dipping hanging the way each parameter affects the probability of stope failure. would like to acknowledge the Niobec mine (Saint-Honoré. a general multi-level factorial design with 36 stopes with a hanging wall HR range of 5–7 m. follows an increase/decrease/increase pattern of failure. Comprehensive rock engineering: principles. able. increasing the stope span width from 4 m to increasing the HR range to 5–7 m results in an increase of POF to 12 m. The interaction between the parameters.5–5 m to span width groups. causes the POF to Furthermore. Oxford: Pergamon Press. An appropriate quadratic model with an hanging wall dip ranges (Fig. eters in their corresponding levels were adequately described by a increases to its highest level by increasing the hanging wall HR polynomial equation. 11c). practice & structurally-controlled gravity driven failure is the dominant mode projects.5–5 m to 5–7 m. 5. stope span width and stope hanging wall to its minimum when the hanging wall HR is increased to 7–10 dip have a strong influence on the stope stability state.5 and 5 m. for 12 m-wide stopes dipping between 60°–75° and ing between 5 and 7 m. 8 m Acknowledgments and 12 m). 11a–c). 7–10 m. enhances the POF from their minimum to the maximum is observed for hanging wall dip between 75° and 90°.ijmst. it can be concluded that independent of stope decrease. and 75°. shape and inclination on the stope prob. m) whose hanging wall HR ranges between 2. 11a). Due to the presence of strong interaction effects between as the stope hanging wall dip range is increased. https://doi. with every group divided in three hanging wall HR cat- egories (2. hanging wall HR. 60°– Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the authors 75° and 75°–90°.011 . the most unstable POF value is observed. POF for the stopes dipping ing wall HR ranged between 2. an increase in the to 60°. the maximum difference code FLAC3D. are employed to assess the individual instability would occur in wider stopes (span width equal to 12 effects of open stope size. its maximum value. the most unstable condi- between 45° and 60°. 5–7 m and 7–10 m) and each category of HR var. QuébecQuébec). when the HR reaches the 7–10 m range. In contrast. 1993. whereas increasing HR to 7–10 m.5–5 m hence. while at the 7–10 m range of HR. Results indicated that the three parameters range from 2. stope span ing wall dip ranges between 45° and 60°. the effect of each geometrical parameter on POF must be to 5–7 m. respectively.0 trial software predicts that the maximum stability (in terms 4. increasing the HR range from 2. 11b). increases the POF from their minimum value to their assessed by considering the variation level of other parameters. 5 m and 7 and 10 m.5 and 5 m and hang- ability of failure.5–5 m to 5–7 m and increases most stable condition occurs for hanging wall dip between 60° when HR ranges between 7 and 10 m (Fig. While for the the parameters. Conclusions of POF) would be achieved for narrow stopes (span width of 4 m) whose hanging wall dip ranges between 20 and 45° and hanging The Monte-Carlo simulation approach combined with the finite wall HR ranges between 7 and 10 m.05. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018). the POF decreases. span width of 8 m (b) and span width of 12 m (c). span width. 60°–75° and 75°–90°.5–5 m to 7–10 m decreases the POF for the stopes dipping up the HR from 2. the possibility of rock mass brittle failure and structurally. [1] Hudson JA. the POF continuously decreases with increasing hanging effects between span width/hanging wall HR and hanging wall dip/ wall HR ranges (Fig. increasing the HR range from 2. adequate fit was applied to the obtained POF results. 11. General factorial analysis plots showing interaction effects between stope hanging wall dip and stope hanging wall HR for span width of 4 m (a). when HR range is increased to 7–10 However. controlled gravity driven (tensile) failure were assessed for simu- lated stopes through the BSR parameter and the minimum princi- References pal induced stress. the POF decreases stope hanging wall HR. This work was funded by a grant from Natural Sciences and ied the hanging wall dip in four classes of 20°–45°.

Asadi H.74:103–18. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci [15] Idris MA. Bathurst. Can Geotech J 1996. Risk and risk analysis in rock engineering. Poulin R.3(3):194–219. violent failure around underground openings in highly American.44:692–703. Stability analysis of sublevel open stopes at great tunneling and mining. Evaluation of long-hole mine design influences on unplanned ore stability and dilution.org/10. Kaiser P. mining.34:628. Ore-Skin design to control sloughage in underground open stope [6] Brown ET. Mitri HS. [23] Urli V. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology xxx (2018) xxx–xxx [2] Wang J. [24] Milne D. Bewick RP. New South [30] Maloney S. Mitri HS. [35] Ahmadi A. excavations. A re-assessment of in situ stresses in the Wales: CRC Press. Canada: University of Saskatchewan. Probabilistic stability analysis of underground mine 2015. 1999. J Geochemical Explor 2014. London: [32] Shnorhokian S. Risk assessment and management in underground rock mining. Stability assessment of stope CRC Press—Taylor & Francis Group. [33] Kaiser PK. Saiang D. Thibodeau D. stressed ground. Numerical evaluation of the effects of [10] Henning JG. Development of empirical rib pillar design criterion for open cost and improved the productivity at Langlois mine. Melbourne. Heidarzadeh S. undercutting. Jia Z. Influence of stress. Hadjigeorgiou J. American. [11] Idris MA. Reza A. and narrow vein longhole blasting.33:1136–41. Mitri HS. Diederichs MS. Raju GD. Kaiser PK. [25] Germain P. blasting. Evaluation of the effect of geometrical parameters on stope probability of failure in the open stoping method using numerical modeling. Moreau-verlaan L.3:193–204. 2015. Sweden: Lulea University of Technology. [13] Aglawe JP. 2007.011 . [4] Abdellah W. In: Innovative numerical modelling in geomechanics. Canada: University of Waterloo. update. Rock instability and risk analyses in open stope mine on recorded overbreak. Int J Min Sci Technol (2018). Please cite this article in press as: Heidarzadeh S et al. Nordlund E. Probabilistic analysis of open stope stability geometry. 2006. Carter TG. [12] Villaescusa E. Int J rock Mech Min Sci 1997. dilution. In: Proceedings of the international conference on depth. Reeves M. In: Proceeding 14th CIM stope mining. Allen G.45:574–93.34:15. [17] Perron J. 393–414. Canada: University of Toronto. Factors influencing overbreak in narrow vein longitudinal retreat vicinity of mined stopes.147:151–8. rock masses properties in Malmberget Mine. Instability of hard rock masses: the role of tensile damage and [14] Castro LAM. using numerical modelling. 2014. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997. to deep mining.18:269–87. [3] Zhang Y. Mitri HS. Sci 2014. University of British Columbia. 1988. Electron J Geotech Eng [29] Arjang B. Calgary. The probabilistic estimation of [28] Hoek E. Wettainen T. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 1997. Montreal. Probabilistic analysis of underground excavation stability. 2004. Canada: Mining Department. 1999. Wegner L. sequence scenarios in a diminishing ore pillar. https://doi. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2008. 2000. Minimizing dilution in open stope mining with a focus on stope design [9] Chen G. Hadjigeorgiou J.44:289–98. 1998. 1983.2018. [31] Diederichs MS. Canada: McGill University. Canada: University British Columbia. Tunnel Undergr Space underground mines.11(2):141–55.ijmst. stress and excavation surface geometry on the zone of relaxation around open Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2007. Quantifying the cost of dilution in [5] Einstein HH. Technol 1996. Numerical modelling of ore dilution in blasthole stoping. In: 101th Annual General Meeting.05. Vancouver. 1996. Canada: Queen’s University at Kingston. 1999. Int J Min Miner Eng 2011. Mine Operator’s Conference. Canada: McGill University. Sweden. Simple solutions and employee’s involvement reduced the operating [34] Hudyma MR. Canada: University of British Columbia. Canadian Shield.34:3–4. [26] Clark L. Influence of stope geometry and blasting patterns [8] Diederichs MS. Milne D. Martin CD. [27] Wang J.1016/j. Zavodni ZM. [22] Pakalni RC. Unstable. Chen J. 2013. geotechnical and geological engineering. Vorauer A. Canada: McGill University. Underground design and deformation based on surface [7] Idris MA. In: The 41st US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). Optimization of heavy [18] Yao X.10 S. and time on open stope [19] Henning JG. 2012: p. Heidarzadeh et al. Effect of stope construction parameters on ore dilution in development intersections during the life of a mine plan. Geotechnical design for sublevel open stoping. engineering—an overview. design. 2014. Practical rock engineering. using response surface methodology. Mining Eng 1995. Stability of underground mine [21] El Mouhabbis HZ. Elastoplastic stability analysis of mine haulage drift in the [20] Hughes R. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 2012. Darezereshki E. In: The 24th Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Int J Rock Mech Min narrow vein mining. stope hanging walls. Asp: World Wide Web edition.33(3):431–9. Basarir H. 2011. Ke J. Dilution evaluation using the cavity monitoring system at metal removal from aqueous solutions by maghemite (c-Fe2O3) nanoparticles HBSM-Trout Lake Mine. Underground works in hard rock [16] Chen D. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2007. Nordlund E. In situ ground stresses in the Canadian hard rock mines: an 2013. An overview of numerical modelling applied relaxation. 1999.72:173–81. Herget G. 2000.