Empirical Bench Design Assessment For Slope Stability Analysis. Thesis

THE COPPERTBELT UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF MINES AND MINERAL SCIENCES

MINING ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FINAL YEAR PROJECT
PROJECT TITLE
BENCH DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS OF
WEST WALL CUTBACK IN MAIN 10 AT KANSANSHI OPEN PIT MINE
BY
FOTA ISRAEL CHILEFU
SIN: 13055727
SUPERVISOR:
MR W SAMISELO
This dissertation is submitted to the school of mines and mineral

sciences of the Copperbelt University in partial fulfilment of the
award of the Bachelor of Engineering in Mining Engineering.
2018 ACADEMIC YEAR
i|Page
DECLARATION
ii | P a g e
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to the people that have given me courage and motivation to be able to achieve
this much. First and foremost, my mother Chijika Chikomba, who through hardship managed to
raise and support me academically, spiritually and morally, you have always believed in me. To
my late uncle Mr. Paul Tshilefu, your advice and ability to bring the best out of everyone around
has made me come this far.
To the following: Mr. Kaumba, Mr. Himoonga Mujega, Naomi Chingangu, Mrs. Kumesa, brother
Paul Chilefu, uncle Emmanuel, Mr. Daniel Gondwe and brother Francis Chilefu, thank you very
much for your unrivalled support toward my academics and life in general and without whom this
could not be achieved. You are all irreplaceable in my life.
To Mr. Derick Katoka and Mr. Nsipa Simbile, thank you for your tireless effort in ensuring that
the project is a success, May GOD richly bless you.
To my Pastor Dinwell Chingangu, thank you for giving me the direction and teaching me how to
be courageous and dependence on GOD.
To my family (Sister Bridget, Mercy, Natasha, Mumba, Perzu Naweji and Brother Kasongo
Chilefu) and friends (Codrick, Happiness, Reuben, Geoffrey, Fortune, Kaponda, Ikasaya, Selena,
Evans, Abel, Travon and Darious) thank you for the wonderful times that we share and for the
support.
To Mr. Ephraim Simataa, Jonathan and Fredrick k. thank you for your help in search of the project.
Finally, and most important of all, to GOD almighty thank you for everything that you bless me
with, you deserve all the glory and praise in my life.
BY FOTA ISRAEL
CHILEFU i|Page
EMPIRICAL BENCH DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR MAIN 10 CUT BACK AT KANSANHI
MINE: 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank GOD Almighty for according me the grace, strength, courage and the opportunity
to pursue my studies at the Copperbelt University and for being with me throughout the entire stay
at the institution.
I also want to thank the following institutions for making it possible for me to carry out this
dissertation, first the Copperbelt University for giving me a place at the institution as a student
then secondly, Kansanshi mine PLC for allowing me to carry out my research.
I express my gratitude to my project supervisor at Kansanshi mine Mr. Nsipa Simbile for all his
input towards the completion of this work. Special thanks to my project supervisor at the institution
Mr. W Samiselo for his guidance during this research. I also want to thank the entire mining
department member of staff at the mine for the information and support and also the mining
department at the Copperbelt University.
My special appreciation to Mr. Misheck, Mr. Allan, Mr. Samson, Mr. Simon and Magdalene thank
you for the information and guidance you provided during the research.
My gratitude goes to my CBU family which includes the entire Bachelors of Engineering in
Mining class of 2018 and all my friends
ii | P a g e
BY FOTA ISRAEL CHILEFU
MINE: 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ............................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES. ............................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................xi
DEFINATIONS OF SOME KEY WORDS. .......................................................... xii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1
1.0. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 2
1.1. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .............................. 2
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................... 4
1.3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE. ........................................................................... 6
1.3.1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES .......................................................................6
1.4. GEOLOGICAL SETTING OF KANSANSHI OPEN-PIT .......................... 7
1.4.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY ........................................................................7
1.4.2. STRATIGRAPHY OF KANSANSHI ....................................................9
1.5. MINERALIZATION................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 13
2.0. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 14
2.1. PRINCIPLES OF ROCK SLOPE ENGINEERING ................................... 14
2.1.1. OPEN PIT MINING SLOPE STABILITY ..........................................14
iii | P a g e
MINE: 2018
2.1.2. SLOPE CONFIGURATIONS ..............................................................15
2.1.3. FORMULATION OF SLOPE DESIGNS ............................................16
2.1.3.3. STRUCTURAL MODEL ..................................................................18
2.1.3.5. HYDROGEOLOGY MODEL ...........................................................19
2.1.4. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ...............................................19
2.2. SLOPE STABILITY ................................................................................... 20
2.2.1. TYPES OF SLOPE PROBLEMS .........................................................20
2.3. FACTORS AFFECTING SLOPE STABILITY OF AN OPEN-PIT ......... 21
2.3.1. SLOPE GEOMETRY ...........................................................................21
2.3.2. GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE (GEOLOGY) .....................................23
2.3.3. GROUND WATER TABLE ................................................................24
2.3.4. LITHOLOGY ........................................................................................27
2.3.5. DYNAMIC FORCES ...........................................................................27
2.3.6. METHOD OF MINING & EQUIPMENT USED ................................28
2.3.7. ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION ..................................................29
2.3.8. COHESION (C) ....................................................................................29
2.3.9. SEISMIC EFFECT. ..............................................................................29
2.4. FAILURE MECHANISM ANALYSIS ...................................................... 31
2.5. SLOPE FAILURE TYPES AT KANSANSHI ........................................... 32
2.5.1. PLANAR FAILURE .............................................................................32
2.5.2. WEDGE FAILURE ..............................................................................33
2.5.3. CIRCULAR FAILURE.........................................................................34
iv | P a g e
MINE: 2018
2.5.4. TOPPLING FAILURE .........................................................................35
2.6. REASONS FOR SLOPE FAILURE IN MINES ........................................ 36
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 37
3.0. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 38
3.1. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INPUT DATA. ............ 38
3.1.1. DESK STUDY ......................................................................................38
3.1.2. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................38
3.2. DETERMINATION OF BASIC RMR PARAMETERS ........................... 39
3.2.1. UNI-AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS) ............................39
3.2.2. JOINT SPACING (M) ..........................................................................40
3.2.3. CONDITION OF JOINTS (cj) .............................................................41
3.2.4. GROUNDWATER ...............................................................................41
3.2.5. RQD (ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION ..........................................41
3.3. SUMMARY OF RMR RATING ................................................................ 42
3.4. ADJUSTMENT FOR MRMR (MINING RMR) ........................................ 43
3.4.1. WEATHERING ADJUSTMENT. ........................................................43
3.4.2. ORIENTATION ADJUSTMENT. .......................................................43
3.4.3. BLASTING ADJUSTMENT................................................................43
3.4.4. JOINT CONDITION INCLUDING GROUND WATER. ..................43
3.5. SUMMARY OF MRMR. ............................................................................ 43
CHAPTER FOUR - SLOPE ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND EVALUATION .. 44
4.0. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 45
v|Page
MINE: 2018
4.1. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ............................................................... 45
4.2. KINEMATIC ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 46
4.2.1. RESULTS PRESENTATION ..............................................................47
4.3. PROBABILITY ANALYSIS OF TOPPLING FAILURE ......................... 51
4.3.1. PRESENTATION OF INPUT DATA ..................................................54
4.3.2. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS ........................................................56
CASE 7: BENCH HEIGHT – 5M, BENCH FACE ANGLE 85 ......................... 59
4.4. DATA UNCERTAINTY ............................................................................ 60
4.4.1. RESULTS ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................ 62
4.4.1.1. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA. .............................................................62
4.4.1.2. BENCH DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................63
CHAPTER FIVE - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ....................... 67
5.0. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 68
5.1. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 68
6.0. REFERENCES ............................................................................................ 69
7.0. APPENDIX ................................................................................................. 72
vi | P a g e
MINE: 2018
LIST OF FIGURES.
Figure 1: Map Of Zambia Showing The Location Of Kansanshi Mine (Moore, 2015). .................3
Figure 2: M10 Bench Showing The Design Of Weathering And Discontinuity Characteristics,
Self-Taken. .......................................................................................................................................4
Figure 3: Vein Orientation For Both Pits (Including The Future Expansion Of South East Dome)
(Moore, 2015). .................................................................................................................................5
Figure 4: Simplified Geology Of The Domes Region Of North-Western Province, Zambia.
(Moore, 2015). .................................................................................................................................7
Figure 5: Contouring The Top Of The Upper Marble With The Regional Lines Shown,
Highlighting The Nw Pit, Main Pit And Se Domes Along The Antiform Axis. .............................8
Figure 6: Pit Wall Terminology, (Moore, 2015)............................................................................15
Figure 7: Design Methodology, (SCIRO, 2009). ...........................................................................17
Figure 8: Geotechnical Domains In Use Currently At Kansanshi Open-Pit, (Moore, 2015). .......22
Figure 9: Genetic Model Of Kansanshi Deposit Showing The Possible Migration Pathway For
Hydrothermal Fluid Migration Into The Kansanshi Mine Sequence, (Moore, 2015). ..................24
Figure 10: Decline Configuration (Including Major Structures), (Moore, 2015) ..........................25
Figure 11: Station Layout Configuration, (Moore, 2015)..............................................................26
Figure 12: Grades Of Weathering Found At Kansanshi Mine, (Moore, 2015). ............................27
Figure 13: Geometry Of Slope Exhibiting Plane FAILURE: ........................................................32
Figure 14: Geometric Conditions For Wedge Failure:. .................................................................33
Figure 15: The Shape Of Typical Sliding Surface. ........................................................................34
Figure 16: Toppling Failure Flexural Type, (Wyllie & Mah, 2004) .............................................35
Figure 17: determination of rock mass rating (rmr 1989) and the adjustments required to evaluate
mining rock mass rating (mrmr). Own elaboration based on (jakubu & laubscher, 2001). ..........38
Figure 18: Indentations Made With A Point Of Geological Hammer In Weathered Marble. .......39
Figure 19: Relationship Between Apparent Spacing And Effective Spacing (Wyllie & Mah, 2004)
........................................................................................................................................................41
Figure 20: Histogram Of The Relevant Joint Spacing As Measured In The Field(Apparent Spacing)
........................................................................................................................................................40
Figure 21: The Haines And Terbrugge (1991) Chart For Estimating Slope Angles Using
MRMR ...........................................................................................................................................45
vii | P a g e
MINE: 2018
Figure 22: Stereographic Plots Showing Plane Failure From DIPS 7.0 Rocscience Software .....48
Figure 23: Stereographic Plots Showing Wedge Failure From Dips 7.0 Rocscience Software ....48
Figure 24: Stereographic Plots Showing Flexural Failure From DIPS 7.0 Rocscience Software. 49
Figure 25: Stereographic Plots Showing Direct And Oblique Failure From DIPS 7.0 Rocscience
Software. ........................................................................................................................................49
Figure 26: Block-Flexure Toppling Characterized By Pseudo-Continuous Flexure Of Long
Columns Through Accumulated Motions Along Numerous Cross-Joints ....................................51
Figure 27: Block-Flexure Toppling Failure Of The Mapped Area M10, Showing Pseudo-
Continuous Flexure Of Long Columns Through Accumulated Motions Along Numerous Cross-
Joints. .............................................................................................................................................52
Figure 28: Discrepancy In RQD Values Derived From Joint Spacing Using Graphical Estimation
With Chart Proposed By (Bieniawski, 1989) ................................................................................60
Figure 29: The Relationship Between Bench Face Angle/Catch Berm Width And Inter-Ramp
Angle After Ryan And Prior (2000). .............................................................................................63
Figure 30: Relation Between Catchment Berm Width And Bench Height. The Diagram Assumes
1.2m High Catch Fence At The Crest. (Ritchie, 1963) ..................................................................64
Figure 31: Saprolite Domain Failure Mechanisms. .......................................................................79
Figure 32: Saprolite Domain Failure Mechanisms For The Three Pits. ........................................80
viii | P a g e
MINE: 2018
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Katangan Stratigraphic Column For The Zambian Copperbelt ------------------------------ 9
Table 2: Tectono- Stratigraphy Of The Kansanshi Mine. ---------------------------------------------- 12
Table 3: Summary Of Mechanical Properties At Kansanshi, (Moore, 2015). ----------------------- 30
Table 4: Saprolite Properties, Drained Direct Shear Box (Moore, 2015) ---------------------------- 30
Table 5: Average Values Of Volumetric Joint Count For Three 10m Windows ------------------- 42
Table 6: Summary Of Design Parameters From Classification System. ----------------------------- 45
Table 7: Basic Kinematic Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 47
Table 8: Results Of Sensitivity Analysis For Different Values Of Friction Angles And Bench Face
Angles ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50
Table 9: Input Data For Monte Carlo Analysis Using Roctopple 1.0 -------------------------------- 54
Table 10: Output Data Of Monte Carlo Analysis Using Roctopple For Current Design
Configuration For Bench Height 10m And Bench Face Angle Of 750 ------------------------------- 56
Table 11: Output Data For Monte Carlo Analysis Using Roctopple 1.0 For Bench Height Reduced
To 5m ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56
Table 12: Output Data For Monte Carlo Analysis Using Roctopple 1.0 For Bench Height 10 And
Bench Face Angle Reduced To 70° ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
Table 13: Output Data For Monte Carlo Analysis Using Roctopple 1.0 For Bench Angle 70° And
Bench Height Reduced To 5m ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 57
Table 14: Output Data For Monte Carlo Analysis Using Roctopple 1.0 For Bench Height 10 And
Bench Face Angle Reduced To 65° ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 58
Table 15: Output Data For Monte Carlo Analysis Using Roctopple 1.0 For Bench Height -5m,
And Bench Face Angle - 65° ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 58
Table 18: Required Acceptance Criteria For Different Categories Of Slopes ----------------------- 62
Table 19: Design Options ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65
Table 20: Proposed Bench Design Parameters. ---------------------------------------------------------- 68
Table 21: Bieniawski Rock Mass Rating Chart, 1989 -------------------------------------------------- 72
ix | P a g e
MINE: 2018
Table 22: Rock Mass Characterisation Of The Mapped Section -------------------------------------- 73

Table 23: Case Results Of Probabilistic Analysis For Toppling Failure ----------------------------- 74
Table 24: Rocktopple Software Result Analysis For Overall Slope Geometry --------------------- 75
Table 25: Mean Spacing Rating Chart (Barton, 1974). ------------------------------------------------- 76
Table 26: Laubscher’s MRMR Chart (Jakubu & Laubscher, 2001) ---------------------------------- 76
Table 27: Condition Of Discontinuity Ratings (Jakubu & Laubscher, 2001) ----------------------- 77
Table 28: MRMR Tables Showing The Adjustments For Weathering, Joint Orientation And The
Effects Blasting.. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78
x|Page
MINE: 2018
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
M10 – Level 10 in the Main Pit at Kansanshi mine
SAP – Saprock
UMC - Upper Mixed Clastics
Jv – Volumetric Joint Count
ZCCM – Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines
FQM – First Quantum Minerals
RMR – Rock Mass Rating
UCS – Uniaxial Compressive Strength
MRMR - Mining Rock Mass Rating
FoS – Factor of Safety
PoF – Probability of Failure
GCMP – Ground Control Management Plan
ISRM – International Society for Rock Mechanics
MAR – Marble
KS – Knotted Schist
BS – Spotted Biotite schist
PHY- Phyllite
CBPH – Carbonaceous Phyllite
LCS – Lower Carbonaceous Sequence
CLS – Calcareous Biotite Schists
SE – South East Domes
NW – North West Pit
xi | P a g e
MINE: 2018
DEFINATIONS OF SOME KEY WORDS.

SLOPE: This is simply a slanted ground, which includes upward or down ward at an angle. This
ground can occur naturally, that is due to natural processes e.g. side of a hill or mountain or can
be a result of human activity such as mining and construction.
STRIPPING RATIO: This can be defined as the amount of waste mined to the amount of ore
mined. It’s crucial in slope management as it covers the economic aspect of the mines operations.
Usually mines tend to maximise ore extraction which in affects how steep the benches are
designed.
INTER-RAMP ANGLE: This is the angle that defines the relationship of a group of benches
between wider horizontal areas, e.g. ramps or berms that are left for geotechnical purposes.
PHYLLITES: A type of foliated metamorphic rock created from slate that is further
metamorphosed so that very fine grained white mica achieves a preferred orientation. It is
primarily composed of quartz, sericite mica, and chlorite. Phyllites are usually black to gray or
light greenish gray in color. The foliation is commonly crinkled or wavy in appearance.
SCHIST: A medium-grade metamorphic rock with medium to large, flat, sheet-like grains in a
preferred orientation (nearby grains are roughly parallel). It is defined by having more than 50%
platy and elongated minerals, often finely interleaved with quartz and feldspar. In geotechnical
engineering a schistosity plane often forms a discontinuity that may have a large influence on the
mechanical behavior (strength, deformation, etc.) of rock masses in, for example, tunnel,
foundation, or slope construction.
MARBLE: A metamorphic rock composed of recrystallized carbonate minerals, most commonly

calcite or dolomite. Marble may be foliated. In geology the term "marble" refers to metamorphosed
limestone, but its use in stonemasonry more broadly encompasses unmetamorphosed limestone.
SAPROCK: The saprolites are very complex in that the highly weathered material in the upper
portion or proximal to faulting behaves in a soil-like manner and the less intensely weathered lower
portion (Saprock) still contains relic structures which tend to be the cause most instabilities. These
structures for the most part, are the foliations of the weathered schists and phyllites. What makes
these a challenge is that these relict structures are difficult to identify in the field, highly variable
and can only be measured once failure has occurred. Most of the failures in the saprolite domain
xii | P a g e
MINE: 2018
have occurred as a result of circular, planar sliding or wedge failure, with some hybrid mechanisms
including one or more of the above.
RELIC STRUCTURES: This refers to structures or minerals from a parent rock that did not
undergo metamorphic change when the surrounding rock did, or to rock that survived a destructive
geologic process. Some geologic processes are destructive others are transformative and when a
process is not complete or does not completely destroy certain features, the left-over feature is a
relict of what there was before.
FACTOR OF SAFETY: The term describing the load carrying capability of a system beyond the
expected or actual loads. It’s a constant value imposed by law, standard, specification, contract or
custom to which a structure must conform or exceed. If the safety factor is high, the designs are
recommended but this is dependent on the stripping ratio and other geotechnical parameters.
xiii | P a g e
MINE: 2018
ABSTRACT
Open pit mining is one of the surface mining methods being practiced in Zambia. It is a high
productive mining method in use today. To fully understand the overall effect of slopes, bench
design assessment has to be done, then the geometry of the bench design can be implemented in
other sections of the pit with similar rock properties. The main objective of the project is to collect
data on the soil and rock mass strength of Kansanshi open-pit for M10 in order to form the basis
for the rock and soil investigations used to determine the slope design strength and parameters
used to devise a slope management plan.
Slope design process at any level of a project essentially involves the Formulation of a geotechnical
model for the pit area, Population of the model with relevant data, Division of the model into
geotechnical domains, Subdivision of the domains into design sectors, Design of the slope
elements in the respective sectors of the domains, Assessment of the stability of the resulting slopes
in terms of the project acceptance criteria, Definition of implementation and monitoring
requirements for the designs.
Data collection was based on empirical assessment. The empirical assessment of bench design and
slope stability was based on the empirical values of the rock mass, friction and cohesion derived
from the rockmass rating schemes that have been calibrated from experience. The rockmass rating
used in this projects are:
 Bieniawski’s Rock Mass Rating (RMR 1989) scheme,
 Laubscher’s Rock Mass Rating (MRMR 1990) scheme.
Data analysis was based on kinematic analysis using DIPS Rocscience software and probabilistic
analysis using Rocktopple 0.1v software.
Based on the results, it can be recommended that the current design be maintained or depending
on the stripping ratio, reduce the stack angle to 47° and berm width to 6.5m. Also that blasting
results should be improved as poor conventional blasting leads to damage of the toe and the bench
face. Samples from the mapped section should be taken for lab testing in order to come up with
strength parameters (RQD and UCS
xiv | P a g e
CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION
BY FOTA ISRAEL
CHILEFU 1|Page
EMPIRICAL BENCH DESIGN ASSESSMENT FOR MAIN 10 CUT BACK AT
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
1.0. INTRODUCTION
Open pit mining is one of the surface mining methods being practiced in Zambia. It is one of
the high productive mining method in use today. The annual output has increased generally in
open pits as opposed to the output of decades ago. This is due to the new improved technology
in ore production capacities and handling, new equipment facilitation and the general
understanding of the technical part of mining such as planning, technical services and geo-
engineering.
Kansanshi mine is one of the leading copper producers in Zambia and employs open-pit method
for its mining operations. It is Africa’s largest copper mine co-owned by First Quantum
minerals (FQM) and Zambia consolidated copper mines (ZCCM), with the former owning 80%
and the later 20% of the mine. Kansanshi Mining PLC does the operations at the mine.
Slope stability analysis is crucial to the effective operation of the open-pit and the safety of
personnel and equipment. To fully understand the overall stability of slopes, bench design
assessment has to be done, this is because slopes are created when designing benches. Thus,
understanding of bench design and geometric properties is crucial for successive design of
benches in other sections of the pit with similar rock properties. A slope is defined as slanted
ground inclining upwards or down ward at an angle. A “slope failure” is the movements of a
mass of rock, debris, or earth down a slope under the influence of gravity with many different
forms, for example, landslide debris flow rock fall (K, 2013).
due to the production of huge amount of materials there is a change in the dimensions of the
pit i.e. depth, pit width and bench height. The change in the dimensions generates difficulties
related to slope stability. Therefore, it is very crucial to evaluate the various modes of failures
occurring in the bench slope and to take economically feasible steps to reduce, remove and
mitigate the risk associated with slope stability as well as to provide a safe and comfortable
environment for operations and costly machineries employed.
1.1. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The Kansanshi Cu (-Au) deposit is located in Northwest Province, Zambia, 10km north of the
provincial capital of Solwezi and approximately 160km west of the Kitwe in the central African
Copper belt (Figure 1). Kansanshi translates as “the important hill” in the local language, and
referred to a 30m high bare hill that rose from the surrounding plain.
2|Page
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
Kansanshi was one of the earliest deposits located by Europeans in Zambia and has seen
intermittent commercial mining since 1906. It is also one of the oldest mines in Zambia and
has been closed and re-opened several times in its long history. In the 1850s, a shaft was sunk
to 250m below surface and a number of sub-levels were developed at 65ft (20m), 150ft (46m),
290ft (88m), 400ft (122m), 500ft (152m), 550ft (168m), 600ft (183m) and 700ft (213m) below
surface to access the ore veins. Some underground stoping was made from 1903 to 1914. The
stoping of the high-grade copper veins has not been picked up by Survey. Today the ore deposit
is currently being exploited by means of two open pits, namely Main Pit and North West Pit.
(Moore, 2015).
FIGURE 1: MAP OF ZAMBIA SHOWING THE LOCATION OF KANSANSHI MINE (MOORE, 2015).
3|Page
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Most of the challenges of open pit mining are associated with safety of the slopes and presence
of water. It is vital to understand the material in which the soil and rock slopes are being
excavated. The importance of a thorough geotechnical analysis of soil and rock structures
cannot be over-emphasised.
 Main 10 bench is characterized by a lot of discontinuities and shows a high degree of

weathering in some section. This could lead to slope instability of the bench as shown
in figure 2 below.
Kansanshi open-pit structures that have been identified as posing the biggest risk of slope
stability are:
 Structures orientated parallel to pit wall and where long straight walls are created.
 The 4800 zone where the material is highly weathered and very weak (M10 is located
in this area).
 The 5400 zone where the material is highly weathered and very weak and current.
FIGURE 2: M10 BENCH SHOWING THE DESIGN OF WEATHERING AND DISCONTINUITY CHARACTERISTICS, SELF-TAKEN.
4|Page
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
This is shown in the figure below.
FIGURE 3: VEIN ORIENTATION FOR BOTH PITS (INCLUDING THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF SOUTH EAST DOME) (MOORE, 2015).
5|Page
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
1.3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE.

The main objective is to collect data on the soil and rockmass strength of Kansanshi open-pit
for M10 in order to form the basis for the rock and soil investigations used to determine the
slope design strength and parameters used to devise a slope management plan.
1.3.1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

1.3.1.1. Review and analyze the various geotechnical
methodologies currently in use at Kansanshi mining
open pit for stability analysis.
1.3.1.2. Determine the slope design (bench design) parameters
for M10
1.3.1.3. Devise a slope stability management plan for M10.
6|Page
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
1.4. GEOLOGICAL SETTING OF KANSANSHI OPEN-PIT

1.4.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Kansanshi deposit is located in the “Domes Region” of Northwestern Province, Zambia.
It is hosted within the Katangan Supergroup sediments, which make up the Central African
Copperbelt (Figure 4). According to the current understanding, the deposit is hosted within the
metasediments of the Nguba (previously referred to as the Lower Kundelungu), Grand
Conglomerate, and Mwashya Groups.
FIGURE 4: SIMPLIFIED GEOLOGY OF THE DOMES REGION OF NORTH-WESTERN PROVINCE, ZAMBIA. (MOORE, 2015).
A major basement feature known as the Solwezi Dome, comprising of granites, migmatites and
gneisses is located approximately 12km south of Kansanshi (Figure 4). A series of
metamorphosed schists, quartzites and conglomerates exposed around the Solwezi Dome
Margins are thought to correlate with the Lower Roan Group of the Zambian Copperbelt.
Banded ironstone, including quartzites and phyllites, on the northern edge of the Dome are
thought to represent the Mwashia Group (Moore, 2015) . Locally, calcareous-dolomitic, quartz-
biotite-hornblende-garnet schist can be found between the rocks surrounding the Solwezi
Dome and the Kansanshi Mine area. Drilling within the Kansanshi Mine area has confirmed
that these schists overlie the Kansanshi Mine Sequence (Table 1)
7|Page
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
The Kansanshi Mine Sequence is thought to be recumbently folded Katangan Metasediments

with a pronounced NW-SE trending antiformal structure, known as the Kansanshi Antiform.
Along the strike of this Antiform re-folding has occurred creating doubly-plunging, domal
structures along the crest. It is within these domed structures that the three major ore bodies
(NW Pit, Main Pit and SE Dome) of Kansanshi Mining License are located.
FIGURE 5: CONTOURING THE TOP OF THE UPPER MARBLE WITH THE REGIONAL LINES SHOWN, HIGHLIGHTING THE NW PIT,
MAIN PIT AND SE DOMES ALONG THE ANTIFORM AXIS.
8|Page
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
1.4.2. STRATIGRAPHY OF KANSANSHI

The Kansanshi Mine sequence is dominated by alternating mixed clastic units and carbonate
units. As a direct result of folding within the Kansanshi sequence, lithology units may be
missing or repeated. The stratigraphy surrounding the intrusive gabbro shows deformation and
distortion of thicknesses. Units can also be attenuated, or accentuated in thickness depending
on the location in the deposit.
TABLE 1: KATANGAN STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN FOR THE ZAMBIAN COPPERBELT
9|Page
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
The stratigraphic succession at Kansanshi has been interpreted to represent a symmetrically

repeated sequence across a recumbent isoclinal fold, as follows, from the structural base:
 Lower Dolomite - the Chafungoma Formation, an ~15m thick sequence of intercalated

calcareous biotite schists, marbles, dolostones and phyllites that is underlain by a
greyish "dirty" dolostone that is >30m thick. The dolostone often displays intense
dolomitic alteration to a white saccharoidal dolostone.
 Lower Pebble Schist - Locally garnetiferous biotite schist containing up to 10% exotic
clasts of dolostone, argillite, quartz and very rare granite, very similar to the Upper
Pebble Schist, to which it is locally correlated. It is locally considered to represent the
Grand Conglomerate, which marks the base of the Nguba Group.
 Lower Marble - A thick zone of grey, fine to medium-grained cryptocrystalline calcic

marble, very similar to the Upper Marble.
 Lower Calcareous Schist - a sequence of calcareous schists, calcareous biotite schists,

marbles, knotted schists and phyllites, with considerable thickness variations, from
80m in the NW pit to <40m in the Main Pit. It displays abundant high ductile strain
textures, e.g. S/C fabrics, 'C' shear bands and, most commonly, mineral differentiation
banding resulting in a prominent mm-scale banding of biotite-rich and calcite-rich
zones, and while it appears to represent a shear zone, does not crosscut stratigraphy.
 Middle Mixed Clastics - A 30 to 100 m thick sequence of knotted schists, biotite schists
and phyllites, very similar to the Upper Mixed Clastics. Considerable variations in
thickness are evident.
 Upper Marble –A thick (10 to 80 m) sequence of grey, fine to medium-grained

cryptocrystalline calcic marble with bands of carbonaceous and calcareous phyllite
towards the base, the marble is generally massive but becomes weakly foliated
adjacent to external and internal contacts with clastic rocks.
 Upper Mixed Clastics - A thick (at least 250 m) sequence of phyllites and knotted
schists.
 Topmost Marble - massive grey calcic marble, which has considerable thickness
variations, possibly as a result of boudinage.
 Upper Pebble Schist - biotitic, commonly calcareous and occasionally garnet-bearing

schists, containing 1 to 2% exotic clasts, which include dolostone, siltstone, sandstone,
massive quartz, quartzite and very rare granite. These pebbles are strongly flattened
10 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
within the dominant schistosity. This unit has been correlated with the Grand
Conglomerate Formation marking the base of the Nguba Group.
 Upper Dolomite - The Chafungoma Formation, a pale brown-grey to medium-grey

saccharoidal iron-free dolostone and dolomitic marble. The footwall of the unit is
marked by a 10 to 15 m thick dark grey to black, crystalline, massive and Pyrrhotite-
bearing, coarser-grained sedimentary rock. (Mwape, 2017).
1.5. MINERALIZATION
The mineralised area originally outcropped as a conspicuous treeless hill with spectacular
copper staining, due to impregnation of the host rocks with copper oxides that impart a
distinctive blue-green colouration, known as the Green Wallrock. The primary mineralisation
occurs within the clastic stratigraphic units, chiefly interbedded graphitic shale, knotted schist,
quartzite and lesser limestone of the Mwashya Subgroup, that have been subjected to supergene
remobilisation and enrichment. The mineralised system being mined in the Main and
Northwest pits is classified into three dominant ore styles:
 Vein-hosted, as steeply dipping, sheeted quartz-carbonate-sulphide veins;
 Sediment-hosted, occurring as mineralised haloes to the veins, but with an extent and
character which has a strong lithological control; and
 Breccia mineralisation, as intervals of sulphide crackle and stockwork breccias, in

zones of higher density of veining. The primary sulphide mineralisation in all three
types is predominantly chalcopyrite, with local minor bornite and some gangue pyrite,
the latter being more evident in Northwest Pit. Mineralisation is more prevalent in the
clastic sedimentary rocks than in the carbonates, with the Middle Mixed Clastics unit
host to the bulk of the mineralisation, both as vein- and sediment-hosted.
 All of these primary styles are overprinted by supergene processes to produce oxide,
transitional (mixed oxide-sulphide or mixed float), and sulphide zones. Oxide
mineralisation generally comprises malachite, wad and tenorite, with lesser
chrysocolla, limonite and cupriferous goethite, while mixed mineralisation includes
chalcocite, minor native copper and tenorite, and partially weathered chalcopyrite in
addition to the oxide mineralogy listed above.
11 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
 Some copper appears to be carried in clay and mica minerals, where it is essentially
refractory (Mwape, 2017).
TABLE 2: TECTONO- STRATIGRAPHY OF THE KANSANSHI MINE.
12 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW
13 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.0. INTRODUCTION
The term “slope stability” is the resistance of an inclined surface to failure by sliding or
collapsing (McCarthy, 2007). Slope failure is the movement or sliding of material or rock down
on an inclined plane. This is one of the main problems faced in M10 and M12 by Kansanshi
open-pit mine.
Slope stability analysis can be said to be the process of determining and comparing the shear
stress developed along the most likely rupture surface with the shear strength of the soil.
2.1. PRINCIPLES OF ROCK SLOPE ENGINEERING
For an open pit mine, the design of the slopes is one of the major challenges at every stage of
planning and operation. It requires specialised knowledge of the geology, which is often
complex in the vicinity of ore bodies where structure and/or alteration may be key factors, and
of the material properties, which are frequently highly variable. It also requires an
understanding of the practical aspects of design implementation (Mah, 2005).
The ore recovery must be maximised and waste stripping kept to a minimum throughout the
mine life to address the economic needs of the owners. The resulting compromise is typically
a balance between formulating designs that can be safely and practicably implemented in the
operating environment and establishing slope angles that are as steep as possible (SCIRO,
2009).
Uncontrolled instability, in effect failure of a slope, can have many ramifications including:
 Safety/social factors which are Loss of life or injury, Loss of worker’s income, Loss of
worker confidence, Loss of corporate credibility, both externally and with shareholders.
 Economic factors which are Disruption of operations, Loss of ore, Loss of equipment,
increased stripping (SCIRO, 2009).
2.1.1. OPEN PIT MINING SLOPE STABILITY
2.1.1.1. TERMINOLOGY OF SLOPE DESIGN
The three main components of an open pit slope design are as shown in Figure 6 below.
 First, the overall pit slope angle from crest to toe, incorporates all ramps and benches.
This may be a composite slope with a flatter slope in weaker and a steeper slope in more
competent rock at depth.
14 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
 Second, the inter-ramp angle of the slope, or slopes, lying between each ramp depends
on the number of ramps and their widths.
 Third, the face angle of individual benches depends on vertical spacing between
benches, or combined multiple benches, and the width of the benches required to
contain minor rock falls (Mah, 2005).
FIGURE 6: PIT WALL TERMINOLOGY, (MOORE, 2015).
2.1.2. SLOPE CONFIGURATIONS

The standard terminology used to describe the geometric arrangement of the benches and haul
road ramps on the pit wall is illustrated in Figure 6. It should be noted that terminology related
to the slope elements varies by geographic regions. Some important examples include the
following.
 Bench face = batter
 Berm = the flat area between bench faces used for rockfall catchment. The adjective
‘catch’ or ‘safety’ is often added in front of the term in either area.
15 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
 Windrow (Australia). Rock piles placed along the toe of a bench face to increase
rockfall catchment and along the crest of benches to prevent personnel and equipment
falling over the face below. Note the potential confusion with the use of the term ‘berm’
for a flat surface.
 Bench stack. A group of benches between wider horizontal areas, e.g. ramps or wider
berms left for geotechnical purposes.
2.1.3. FORMULATION OF SLOPE DESIGNS

The basic process for the design of open pit slopes, regardless of size or materials, is
summarised in Figure 7. Following this approach, the slope design process at any level of a
project essentially involves the following steps.
 Formulation of a geotechnical model for the pit area;
 Population of the model with relevant data;
 Division of the model into geotechnical domains;
 Subdivision of the domains into design sectors;
 Design of the slope elements in the respective sectors of the domains;
 Assessment of the stability of the resulting slopes in terms of the project acceptance
criteria;
 Definition of implementation and monitoring requirements for the designs.
The methodology adopted for the compilation of the Ground Control Management Plan
(GCMP) by Kansanshi mining follows the design methodology presented in the Guidelines for
Open Pit Slope Design (Moore, 2015).
16 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
FIGURE 7: DESIGN METHODOLOGY, (SCIRO, 2009).
The Geotechnical Model has been developed through a combination of the lithology, limited
structural information, limited rock mass information and hydrogeological information.
Kansanshi does not yet have a Structural, Rock Mass, or Hydrogeological Model. From the
primitive Geotechnical Model, Domains have been identified, failure modes identified for
each, followed by design sector definition. Stability analyses and design parameters are then
derived for each of the design sectors.
The following describe the basic elements of each step in the SCIRO design methodology.
2.1.3.1. GEOTECHNICAL MODEL
The geotechnical model is the fundamental basis for all slope designs, it is compiled from four
component models; the geological model, structural model, rock mass model (material
properties), and hydrogeological model.
17 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.1.3.2. GEOLOGICAL MODEL
The geological model presents a 3D distribution of the material types that will be involved in
the pit walls. The material type categories can relate not only to lithology but also to the degree
and type of alteration, which can significantly change material properties, either positively
(Solidification) or negatively (argillisation). As pit slopes become higher, the potential for
impact by in situ stresses, particularly acting in combination with the high stresses created at
the toe of the walls, must be considered. (SCIRO, 2009).
2.1.3.3. STRUCTURAL MODEL
A structural model for slope designs is typically developed at two levels:
 Major structures (folds, inter-ramp and mine scale faults)
 Structural fabric (joints, bench scale faults).
This differentiation relates largely to continuity of the features and the resultant impact with
respect to the slope design elements. Hence they could be expected to influence the design on
an inter-ramp or overall slope scale. On the other hand, the structural fabric typically has
limited continuity but close spacing, and therefore becomes a major consideration in design at
a bench scale and possibly for inter-ramp bench stacks (SCIRO, 2009).
2.1.3.4. ROCK MASS MODEL
The properties of the materials in which the slope will be excavated define probable
performance and therefore the design approach. In strong rocks, structure is likely to be the
controlling factor, even in relatively high slopes. In weaker materials and for very high slopes,
the rock mass strength plays an important role, either alone or in combination with structures.
In defining the material properties, consideration must be given to the possible behavior of the
rock after exposure. This particularly applies where there has been argillic alteration involving
smectities or in clay-rich shales since the strength properties and behavior of the material can
change after exposure.
Back-analysis of failures and even of stable slopes can play a significant role in the
determination of material properties. Detailed records of the performance of phase slopes and
the initial stages of ultimate slopes can provide large-scale assessments of properties that can
normally only be determined through small-scale laboratory tests during the feasibility and
earlier stages of design. (SCIRO, 2009).
18 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.1.3.5. HYDROGEOLOGY MODEL

Both the groundwater pressure and the surface water flow aspects of the hydrogeological
regime may have significant negative effects on the stability of a slope and must therefore be
fully understood.
These aspects are usually the only elements in a slope design that can be readily modified by
artificial intervention, particularly at a large (inter-ramp and greater) scale. However,
dewatering and depressurization measures require operator commitment to be implemented
effectively and usually need significant lead time for design and implementation. Identification
and characterisation of the hydrogeological regime in the early stages of any project is therefore
of paramount importance (SCIRO, 2009).
The main aquifers at Kansanshi are:
 Weathered shallow regolith (Subsoil, Saprock and Laterite – SAP/ LAT);
 Upper Mixed Clastics (UMC) and fractured biotite schist;
 Upper Marble (UM);
 Middle Mixed Clastics (MMC) - fractured and weathered;
 Lower Calcareous Sequence (LCS);
 Lower Marble (LM);
 Quartz/Calcite Veins; and
 Individual Structures.
2.1.4. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT

A storm water management plan was implemented in 2013. An audit sheet is used to compile,
monitor progress and ensure completion of required works. The surface water management
plan includes, but is not limited to, the following;
 No breaching of windrows in order to drain water over soft, vulnerable slopes.
 Designation of one or more sumps into which, where practicable all in-pit water is
channeled.
 Limit ponding of storm water at any location on the Mine and shape all in-pit haul
ramps and roads so they drain towards Pit walls.
19 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
 Shape waste rock dumps, ore stockpiles and perimeter roads so water drains away from
Pits and ensure that water flows away from the pit edge and off the roads as quickly as
possible.
 Keep drainage infrastructure clean and free of obstacles.
Surface water run-off is diverted away from the crests of the pits by means of trenches, culverts,
pumping and grading. Lined ponds have been created in topographic depressions to temporarily
store run-off water prior to being pumped away from active areas. “Dirty water”, containing
silt, is diverted to sediment traps to allow settlement of the solids, while the “clean water” is
diverted to nearby Dambo systems.
The full Storm Water Management Plan can be viewed separately and the aim is to safely and
efficiently divert water away from the pits to improve road conditions, minimise gullying and
maximise both safety and production.
2.2. SLOPE STABILITY

The stability problem can further be divided into two major categories, namely Local Stability
Problem and Gross Stability Problem.
2.2.1. TYPES OF SLOPE PROBLEMS

Basically there are two types of slope failure problems and these are local and gross stability
problems.
2.2.1.1. LOCAL STABILITY PROBLEM
This Problem is encountered when a much smaller volume of material comes down the slope.
This failure type at a time generally affects two or less benches by virtue of jointing of shear
plane, erosion associated with slope due to surface drainage, and also because of designated
slip-erosion
2.2.1.2. GROSS STABILITY PROBLEM
Gross stability Problems involves when a large volume of material comes down the slope. This
type of Problem occurs as the result of giant Rotational Kind Failures and includes Rock and
Soils that are weathered.
20 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.3. FACTORS AFFECTING SLOPE STABILITY OF AN OPEN-PIT

The stability of slopes is affected by so many factors; some of them include the following:
 Slope Geometry
 Geological Structure (Geology)
 Ground Water Table
 Lithology
 Dynamic Forces
 Methods of Mining and Equipment used
 Angle of Internal Friction (ø)
 Cohesion (C)
 Seismic effects.
2.3.1. SLOPE GEOMETRY

Slope Geometry including bench height, bench width, overall slope angle and area of failure
surface are the basic geometrical slope designing parameters. As we go on increasing the bench
height and slope angle, it adversely affects the slope stability.
As per the Directorate General of the Mine Safety (DGMS), 45⁰ is the proposed overall slope
angle in the slope stability design process for secure purposes and effective operations.
According to Moore (GCMP for Kansanshi), “the slope geometry design adopted by Kansanshi
mine are dependent on the geotechnical domains. These domains are identified through
consideration of lithology, rockmass competency, and hydrogeology and slope geometry).
Kansanshi has three material types namely saprolite, clastics and marble.
2.3.1.1. SAPROLITE
This includes the completely weathered (no residual structures) and highly weathered (Some
residual structure remaining, i.e. Saprock) schists and phyllites. This material is classified as
“Poor” to “Very Poor” using the RMR system and a number of instabilities have occurred. Due
to the highly variable material competency and structure in the saprolites, bench geometry is
designed such that any material which becomes unstable is contained within the bench below.
Although weathering depths vary across the pit areas, the design of 5m high benches battered
to 65⁰ with a catchment berm of 7.0m is used throughout. An inter-stack height of 50m is
used, after which a double width berm is required. Areas of bull nose have wider berms (10m)
21 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
to mitigate the reduction in confinement. These can be seen in Figure 9 and Table 2 from
GCMP pp54.
2.3.1.2. CLASTICS
The clastics domain includes fresh schists and phyllites. Benches are pre-split to an angle of
75⁰ with a catchment berm of 7m and a bench height of 10m. Sectors 5,6,12 and 13 have
shallower inter-ramp angles due to the presence of structures, bull noses and deeply weathered
veins that have resulted in weaker material. In these sectors the berm width should be increased
to 10m.
2.3.1.3. MARBLE
This zone comprises the unweathered Upper and Lower Marble units. The benches are pre-
split to 85⁰ with 5.5m wide catchment berms and 10m high benches. Catchment berms are
widened to 8.5m around the bullnoses (zones 5,6,12 and 13).
FIGURE 8: GEOTECHNICAL DOMAINS IN USE CURRENTLY AT KANSANSHI OPEN-PIT, (MOORE, 2015).
22 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.3.2. GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE (GEOLOGY)

Geology involves the dip and strike of the deposits and Geo-logical structures and the
discontinuities associated with them like faults, joints and folds. The geological structures that
affect most of the stability of the slope in open-pit mines are listed below.
 Magnitude and the direction associated with dip
 Shear zones associated within the formation.
 Presence of geological discontinuities like joints
 It reduces the shear stability
 Changes penetrable property
 It acts as a sub-surface drain of plane failures
 Presence of faults
 It provides a plane of failure
 It acts as a ground water channel.
Slope instability develops if strata dip towards excavations. The failures in rock may occur
along pre-existing discontinuity structures, or may be through the unbroken material or onward
a surface which developed slightly along intact material & somewhat on the discontinuities,
which may lead to instability in the rock slope.
According to (Banda, 2008) the strength of the slope depends on the following factors:
 Shear strength available along the surface under failure
 Pressure associated with the surface because of water
 Their orientation near surface in relative to slope
The Kansanshi Mine sequence is dominated by alternating mixed clastic units and carbonate
units. As a direct result of folding within the Kansanshi sequence, lithology units maybe
missing or repeated. The stratigraphy surrounding the intrusive gabbro shows deformation and
distortion of thicknesses. Using structural discontinuities as pathways, fluid migrated upwards
through the stratigraphy into areas suitable for deposition. The 4800E and 5400E fault zones
were the most influential pathways for fluid influx at Kansanshi (Figure 9). Vein type deposits
are usually characterised by multiple mineralization and remobilisation stages. Mineralization
is thought to occur in two discreet pulses (502Ma and 512Ma) during the Cambrian period,
following the Lufilian Orogeny (Moore, 2015).
23 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
FIGURE 9: GENETIC MODEL OF KANSANSHI DEPOSIT SHOWING THE POSSIBLE MIGRATION PATHWAY FOR
HYDROTHERMAL FLUID MIGRATION INTO THE KANSANSHI MINE SEQUENCE, (MOORE, 2015).
2.3.3. GROUND WATER TABLE

Presence of ground water may cause the following problems:
 It changes the cohesion and frictional parameters associated with the slope
 Also it may reduce the normal effective stress
Due to the physical & chemical effects of pore water pressure on the joint filling materials, the
friction & cohesion of the discontinuity surface may alter.
According to Moore, Kansanshi has developed a decline from the eastern wall of Main Pit
(1275 RL). A horseshoe cubby is developed in order to house a diesel generator and protect it
from fly rock from the mining areas above. Two portals serve as exhausts for the diesel fumes.
Development took place by means of 4 m x 4 m headings to a station position on 1212 RL. A
shaft of 4.1 m diameter connects the station at 1212 RL to surface – approximately 222 m
vertically. The shaft is lined at certain pre-indicated zones with a fibre-reinforced dry mix
shotcrete which was remotely applied to 50 mm thickness. The decline configuration is
presented in the figure below.
A dewatering drive is developed below the Main Pit from which other crosscuts are developed
for the drilling of large diameter drain holes to intersect water-bearing features below the pit
floor elevation. Water is piped from the drain holes to the dam in the station area, the
dimensions of which are 3.5 m wide, 9 m long and 25 m high. The submersible pumps will
hang in the dam from the pump chamber above. The pump chamber is fitted with a gantry crane
24 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
in order to lower or raise the pumps. The dimensions of the pump chamber are 5.5 m wide, 11
m long and 11 m high. The station layout configuration is presented in the figure below. Decline
ground support is regularly assessed and audited for compliance and condition. It generally
consists of grouted, tensioned mechanical anchor rock bolts, with additional 6m cable anchors
in large excavations or intersections. Ground condition assessment is done using industry
standard RMR, MRMR and Q-System with the data collected through a combination of
mapping, logging and lab test work. Generally speaking, the Marble units are more competent
and require less support due to reduced foliation and discontinuity density. To this stage, the
only troublesome stratigraphy is the Lower Calcareous Schist, which is friable, heavily foliated
and often wet. As it is thin, when occurring in the hanging wall, it is barred down and
subsequently supported with mesh to provide aerial coverage. As a minimum, 2.4m long, full-
column grouted mechanical end anchored bolts are used on a spacing of 1.5m. No areas are left
unsupported (Moore, 2015).
FIGURE 10: DECLINE CONFIGURATION (INCLUDING MAJOR STRUCTURES), (MOORE, 2015)
25 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
FIGURE 11: STATION LAYOUT CONFIGURATION, (MOORE, 2015).
26 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.3.4. LITHOLOGY
Lithology of the rock unit is considered to describe its physical characteristics which are visible
at outcrop that includes textures, colour, grain size and composition.
Two grades of weathering are described at Kansanshi namely Saprolite (SAP), Saprock (SRK)
and Fresh (FR). A description of each grade of weathering is given as:
 Saprolite – Not to be confused with the Lithological unit. Weathered rock composed
predominantly of clays. Frequently preserves some primary mineralogy and often
preserves the textural features of the bedrock. Iron content is variable, and is dependent
on the primary lithology, but is rarely in excess of 30%.
 Saprock – Partially weathered bedrock. Defined as having less than 20% of the
weatherable minerals converted to clay/iron oxide weathering products.
 Fresh – Material is unweathered, with no strength reduction as a result of exposure to

air and water.
FIGURE 12: GRADES OF WEATHERING FOUND AT KANSANSHI MINE, (MOORE, 2015).
2.3.5. DYNAMIC FORCES

The shear stress momentarily increases due to the effect of blasting & vibration, which may
result into the dynamic accelerations of the materials and increases the stability problems in
27 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
the slope faces. Due to instability ground motion and fracturing of rock maybe pre-dominant.
Blasting can be considered to be the primary factor which governs the maximum achievable
bench face angles. It has been recognized that the impacts of inadequately & heedless planned
blasting might be exceptionally critical for bench stability. Notwithstanding blast harm & back
break which decreases the bench face angle, the vibrations from the blasting could potentially
cause failure of the rock mass.
In order to ensure that the walls are not damaged by excessive blast energy, the following
strategies have been implemented at Kansanshi mine (Moore, 2015):
 Pre-splits are drilled in all hard areas; and
 A buffer row is drilled between the pre-split and the production holes.
 The timing of the blast is carefully designed to prevent excessive backbreak.
It is important to ensure that the position of the pre-split line is in accordance with the design
and that the correct bench width has been left. This is dependent on geologic conditions.
To ensure compliance to the design, a number of checks have been implemented:
 Drill and blast design approval and sign-off.
 Geotechnical field audits.
These measures ensure that the position, spacing and angle of all pre-split holes are correct, the
berm width is according to design and that all holes are drilled to the right length.
2.3.6. METHOD OF MINING & EQUIPMENT USED

Basically there are four methods of advance in open pit mines, these are:
 Strike cut: advancing down the dip strike cut, advancing up the cut, along the strike
open pit working.
 The use of dip cuts with advance on the strike reduces the length and time that a face is
exposed during excavation.
 Dip cuts with advance oblique to strike may often be used to reduce the strata.
 Dip cut generally offers the most stable method of working but suffers from
restricted production potential.
 Open pit methods are used in steeply dipping seams, due to the increased slope
height are more prone to large slab/buckling modes of failure.
28 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
 Mining equipment which piles on the benches of the open pit mine gives rise to the
increase in surcharge which in turn increases the force which tends to pull the slope
face downward thus instability occurs (Tembo, 2014).
2.3.7. ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION

The Angle of Internal friction denoted as “ø”, is measure in the middle of the normal force (N)
and the resultant force(R), which occurs when failure happens in response with the shearing
stress (S). Its tangent (S/N) is the coefficient of sliding friction. It’s the measure of the ability
of a unit of rock or soil to withstand a shear stress. This is affected by particle size and
roundness. Lower roundness or larger median particle size results in larger friction angle. It is
also affected by quartz content.
There are several techniques available to find the angle of internal friction in the laboratory.
Some of these are Tri-axial shear test, direct shear test (Tembo, 2014).
Due to the soil- tests are impossible to carry out, while tri-axial tests are very expensive. Table
3 summarizes the test results (slow, like nature of the saprolites, UCS drained conditions) for
cohesion and friction angles obtained by testing Saprolite samples directly with the shear box.
These tests were performed as part of a saprolite characterization program which entailed the
drilling of 4 diamond holes in the Main 5 and Main 6 areas of Main Pit and collecting
representative samples for laboratory testing (Moore, 2015).
2.3.8. COHESION (C)

It is the characteristic property of the rock or soil that measures how well it resists to been
deformed or broken by forces such as gravity. The properties for Kansanshi for both cohesion
and angle of internal friction are summerised in table 3 and 4.
2.3.9. SEISMIC EFFECT.

Seismic waves passing through rock add stress which could cause fracturing. Friction is
reduced in unconsolidated masses as they are jarred apart. Liquefaction may be induced.
Earthquakes are one of the major hazards which usually causes landslides.
29 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AT KANSANSHI, (MOORE, 2015).
TABLE 4: SAPROLITE PROPERTIES, DRAINED DIRECT SHEAR BOX (MOORE, 2015)
30 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.4. FAILURE MECHANISM ANALYSIS

According to Moore (Moore, 2015), Failure mechanisms have been analyzed per domain for
those identified at Kansanshi. For both pits, the following failure mechanisms have been
identified:
 Circular Failure;
 Wedge Failure
 Toppling Failure (flexural and direct toppling)
 Planar Failure.
2.4.1. SAPROLITES
The saprolites are very complex in that the highly weathered material in the upper portion or
proximal to faulting behaves in a soil-like manner and the less intensely weathered lower
portion (Saprock) still contains relic structures which tend to be the cause of most of
instabilities. What makes these a challenge, is that, these relict structures are difficult to identify
in the field, highly variable and can only be measured once failure has happened. Most of the
failures in the saprolite domain have occurred as a result of circular, planar sliding or wedge
failure.
It is understood and accepted that failures will occur on a bench scale and to avoid them entirely
the slopes would need to be flattened to uneconomical angles. The current approach is to accept
the bench-scale failure and create benches wide enough to contain any fallen material and halt
progressive failure of lower benches.
2.4.2. CLASTICS DOMAIN
Most of the exposed clastic units have the potential of toppling failure in most areas around the
pits. In some areas, namely Main 7, there is a creep-type of slumping failure of the laminated
material. The dominant failure mechanisms in each pit are presented in appendix 7 together
with the stereonets of mapped joints and foliation.
2.4.3. MARBLE DOMAIN
The marble is stable with no incidences of failure reported to date. There remains a chance of
wedge failures in the marble, failure mechanisms and accompanying stereonets are presented
in appendix 7.
31 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.5. SLOPE FAILURE TYPES AT KANSANSHI

Basically there are four modes of slope failures identified at Kansanshi mine namely: planar
failure, wedge failure, circular failure and toppling (including direct and flexural toppling).
2.5.1. PLANAR FAILURE
Planar failures are the most common, easiest and simple form of rock slope failures that occurs
in the benches. This mode of the failures comes to exist when the discontinuity strikes parallel
or relatively parallel as well as steeping at a minor angle intersects the slope face that compels
materials over discontinuity to slide. Conditions required for the failures to occur;
 The plane on which sliding occurs must strike parallel or nearly parallel
(within approximately ±20◦) to the slope face.
 The sliding plane must “daylight” in the slope face, which means that the
dip of the plane must be less than the dip of the slope face, that is, ψp < ψf.
 The dip of the sliding plane must be greater than the angle of friction of this
plane, that is, ψp > φ.
 The upper end of the sliding surface either intersects the upper slope, or
terminates in a tension crack.
Release surfaces that provide negligible resistance to sliding must be present in the rock mass
to define the lateral boundaries of the slide. Alternatively, failure can occur on a sliding plane
passing through the convex “nose” of a slope.
FIGURE 13: GEOMETRY OF SLOPE EXHIBITING PLANE FAILURE: (A) CROSS-SECTION SHOWING PLANES FORMING A PLANE
FAILURE; (B) RELEASE SURFACES AT ENDS OF PLANE FAILURE; (C) UNIT THICKNESS SLIDE USED IN STABILITY ANALYSIS,
(GOODMAN & BRAY, 1976).
32 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.5.2. WEDGE FAILURE

The general conditions for wedge failure are as follows:
 Two planes will always intersect in a line (Figure 14(a)). On the stereonet, the line of
intersection is represented by the point where the two great circles of the planes
intersect, and the orientation of the line is defined by its trend (αi) and its plunge (ψi)
(Figure 14(b)).
 The plunge of the line of intersection must be flatter than the dip of the face, and steeper
than the average friction angle of the two slide planes, that is ψfi > ψi > φ (Figure 14
(b) and (c)). The inclination of the slope face ψfi is measured in the view at right angles
to the line of intersection. Note the ψfi would only be the same as ψf, the true dip of
the slope face, if the dip direction of the line of intersection were the same as the dip
direction of the slope face.
 The line of intersection must dip in a direction out of the face for sliding to be feasible;
the possible range in the trend of the line of intersection is between αi and α_ i (Figure
14 (d)).
FIGURE 14: GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS FOR WEDGE FAILURE: (A) PICTORIAL VIEW OF WEDGE FAILURE; (B)
STEREOPLOT SHOWING THE ORIENTATION OF THE LINE OF INTERSECTION, AND THE RANGE OF THE PLUNGE OF THE
LINE OF INTERSECTION ΨI WHERE FAILURE IS FEASIBLE; (C) VIEW OF SLOPE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE LINE OF
INTERSECTION; (D) STEREONET SHOWING THE RANGE IN THE TREND OF THE LINE OF INTERSECTION ΑI WHERE
WEDGE FAILURE IS FEASIBLE.
33 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.5.3. CIRCULAR FAILURE

The conditions necessary for circular failure are that one or more of the discontinuities
normally defines the slide surface. However, in the case of a closely fractured or highly
weathered rock, a strongly defined structural pattern no longer exists, and the slide surface is
free to find the line of least resistance through the slope. Observations of slope failures in these
materials suggest that this slide surface generally takes the form of a circle, and most stability
theories are based upon this observation. Figure 15 shows a typical circular failure in a highly
weathered rock slope above a highway.
The conditions under which circular failure will occur arise when the individual particles in a
soil or rock mass are very small compared with the size of the slope. Hence, broken rock in a
fill will tend to behave as a “soil” and fail in a circular mode when the slope dimensions are
substantially greater than the dimensions of the rock fragments. Similarly, soil consisting of
sand, silt and smaller particle sizes will exhibit circular slide surfaces, even in slopes only a
few meters in height. Highly altered and weathered rocks, as well as rock with closely spaced,
randomly oriented discontinuities such as some rapidly cooled basalts, will also tend to fail in
this manner.
FIGURE 15: THE SHAPE OF TYPICAL SLIDING SURFACE: (A) LARGE RADIUS CIRCULAR SURFACE IN HOMOGENEOUS, WEAK
MATERIAL, WITH THE DETAIL OF FORCES ON SLICE; (B) NON-CIRCULAR SURFACE IN WEAK, SURFICIAL MATERIAL WITH
STRONGER ROCK AT BASE SHAPE OF TYPICAL SLIDING SURFACES: (A) LARGE RADIUS CIRCULAR SURFACE IN
HOMOGENEOUS, WEAK MATERIAL, WITH THE DETAIL OF FORCES ON SLICE; (B) NON-CIRCULAR SURFACE IN WEAK,
SURFICIAL MATERIAL WITH STRONGER ROCK AT BASE.
34 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.5.4. TOPPLING FAILURE
This kind of the deterioration involving rotation of series of blocks or columns of rock about a
permanent base are termed as toppling failure. At the point when the weight vector of block of
rock resting on a slanted plane falls outside the base of the block, this prompts toppling failure.
Toppling failure is classified into two. These are direct toppling and flexural toppling.
2.5.4.1. DIRECT TOPPLING INSTABILITY:
the kinematic feasibility will only relate to the geometry of the rock mass rather than the
geometry plus the strength parameters-although the later can be used to establish the cut-off
between toppling only and sliding plus toppling.
The condition for this mode of failure are:
 There is a set of discontinuity planes to form the bases of the toppling blocks
 There is a set of discontinuity planes whose intersection dip into the slope
Toppling tends to occur within ±20º sector of the slope dip, except for very steep slopes where
the sector can be considerably enlarged. Toppling failure is determined from consideration of
the block geometry and the angle of between the block and the surface on which it is resting.
2.5.4.2. FLEXURAL TOPPLING INSTABILITY:
This failure mode is caused by continuous columns of rock, separated by well developed,
steeply dipping discontinuous breaking in flexure as the bend forward. This usually occurs in
thinly bedded shale and slate in which orthogonal jointing is not well developed.
Sliding, excavation or erosion of the toe of the slope allows the toppling process to start
and it retrogresses back into the rock mass with the formation of deep tension cracks
that becomes narrower with time.
FIGURE 16: TOPPLING FAILURE FLEXURAL TYPE, (WYLLIE & MAH, 2004)
35 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
2.6. REASONS FOR SLOPE FAILURE IN MINES

There are many reasons for a bench slope failure. Some of them are:
 Dynamic loading due to blasting, earthquake, and HEMM (heavy earth moving
machineries) etc. shear stresses increases instantly in the rock mass as the result of
vibration.
 Water pressure in the joint is also liable for frequent slope failure than all other
causes taken together.
 Very often the location, orientation and properties of structural discontinuities in
the rock mass acts as a major factor for rock slope failure.
 Due to lack of supervision in the high-wall bench.
 Flooding of floor due to existence of aquifers.
 Because of the decrease in the cohesion and friction angle value of dump materials.
 In deep-hole blasting maintenance of slope angle is also very difficult and
probability of slope failure becomes very high.
36 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY
37 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
3.0. INTRODUCTION
From the literature review, consultations and technical advice empirical method was
used to achieve the set objectives and the collection of data relevant for the design.
3.1. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INPUT DATA.

3.1.1. DESK STUDY
During desk study/literature review, a number of written sources of information were looked
at so as to gain a better understanding of the assessment to be carried out. Some of the major
sources of information included guidelines for open pit slope design (SCIRO, 2009) and
Kansanshi mine ground control management plan (Moore, 2015) which are currently in use at
Kansanshi mine. Also text books, reports and journals for various authors for slope failure and
slope stability analysis were used. Interpersonal communication with Kansanshi employees
who have knowledge on slope stability formed an important aspect of desk study as they
provided guidance on how to proceed with the investigation.
3.1.2. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS

Data collection was based on empirical assessment. The empirical assessment of bench design
and slope stability was based on the empirical values of the rock mass, friction and cohesion
derived from the rockmass rating schemes that have been calibrated from experience. The
rockmass rating used in this projects are:
 Bieniawski’s Rock Mass Rating (RMR 1989) scheme,
 Laubscher’s Rock Mass Rating (MRMR 1990) scheme.
 The procedure for obtaining the RMR and MRMR values is shown in the figure below.
FIGURE 17: DETERMINATION OF ROCK MASS RATING (RMR 1989) AND THE ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED TO
EVALUATE MINING ROCK MASS RATING (MRMR). OWN ELABORATION BASED ON (Jakubu & Laubscher, 2001).
38 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
3.2. DETERMINATION OF BASIC RMR PARAMETERS

3.2.1. UNI-AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS)
Estimation of UCS in the field was based on geological hammer test. The strength of the rock
is assigned based on the field specimen’s response to the blow with a geological hammer. The
suggested method of field strength estimates proposed by ISRM was used in this project
(International Society for Rock Mechanics, 1981b).
According to the ISRM classification, the strength of the slightly weathered rock materials is
50-100 MPa for specimens that requires more than a single blow of geological hammer to
fracture it and 5-25 MPa for the ones that were indented. The rating based on Bieniawski’s
1989 are respectively 7 and 2 and also 1 for highly weathered material.
FIGURE 18: INDENTATIONS MADE WITH A POINT OF GEOLOGICAL HAMMER IN WEATHERED MARBLE.
39 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
3.2.2. JOINT SPACING (M)

Joint spacing is the perpendicular distance between adjacent discontinuities within the same
set. It refers to the mean or modal spacing of a set of joints. Spacing categories range from very
widely spaced (>2m) to extremely closely spaced (<20 mm). Measurement of joint spacing of
each set of discontinuities will define the size and shape of blocks and also gives the stability
of the mode of failure, such as toppling. The rock mass strength is related to spacing because
in closely fractured rock the individual discontinuities will more readily join to form a
continuous zone of weakness. The value which was rated here is effective spacing, not the
apparent spacing which is measured in the field. The adjustment for effective spacing was made
in respect to the angle of intersection between average strike of the joint set and strike of the
wall.
The mean and mode obtained after calculating for effective spacing are 0.416m for mean and
0.417m for mode. The RMR for spacing was taken to be 10 for moderately widely spaced
joints from the mode and mean.
FIGURE 19: HISTOGRAM OF THE RELEVANT JOINT SPACING AS MEASURED IN THE FIELD (APPARENT SPACING)
40 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
FIGURE 20: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPARENT SPACING AND EFFECTIVE SPACING (Wyllie & Mah,
2004)
3.2.3. CONDITION OF JOINTS (cj)

Joint conditions combine the following attributes: joint aperture, joint persistence, roughness
infilling and weathering of a joint. This was based on visual observations of the discontinuities.
The rating for joint conditions are based on (BIENIAWSKI, Z.T., 1989), 25 and 20 for slightly
weathered joint walls and highly weathered joint walls respectively.
3.2.4. GROUNDWATER
The mapped wall was completely dry. The rating for groundwater was set to zero (0) as advised
for practical estimations of RMR. RMR based on (BIENIAWSKI, Z.T., 1989) is 15.
3.2.5. RQD (ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION

RQD is defined as the percentage of intact core pieces longer than 100 mm in the total core
length.
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 ≥100 ×100%
It is expressed mathematically as RQD% = 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑢𝑛
In this project, RQD was estimated from inspection of the exposed rock surfaces by
determining the number of unhealed joint planes per m3of rock. It was done by counting the
41 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
relevant number of joint planes (excluding blast fractures) which cross a 2 to 3m length of tape
held against the excavated wall. The number of joint planes divided by the relevant samples
length gives the number of joints per metre. This process was repeated for 2 directional
directions and the sum of these values gives Jv values per m3 (BARTON, 1974) .
Expressed mathematically as: RQD = 115 – 3JV
Four windows each 10m each were measured for volumetric joint count and the average values
were used.
TABLE 5: AVERAGE VALUES OF VOLUMETRIC JOINT COUNT FOR THREE 10M WINDOWS
Average joint spacing in three 10m

cm inverse window (cm) metres (m) Jv values (volume)
100 1 20 0.2 5
100 1 70 0.7 1.428571429
100 1 35 0.35 2.857142857
100 1 100 1 1
100 1 55 0.55 1.818181818
100 1 37 0.37 2.702702703
14.80659881
Given the average JV to be 14.80659881, RQD=115-3(14.8659881) =70.6%. Therefore, from

Bieniawski’s 1989 RMR was found to be 13.
3.3. SUMMARY OF RMR RATING

From the rating found above, the RMR rating of the mapped section falls within 40-80. This
corresponds to classes (II) good rock and (III) fair rock. Bieniawski proposed the reference
values for cohesion and friction angles for each class. Class II is represented by the values of
cohesion C (KPa) 300-400 and friction angle (øº) of 35-45. Class III is represented by values
of cohesion C (KPa) of 200-300 and friction angle (øº) of 25-35.
42 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
3.4. ADJUSTMENT FOR MRMR (MINING RMR)

The objective of mining adjustment was to account for the disturbance of the rock caused by
mining activities. Mining activities have a detrimental effect on the surrounding rock mass and
the mining adjustment provides a more realistic assessment of the rock mass competency for
the particular mining situation.
3.4.1. WEATHERING ADJUSTMENT.

This was made for six months’ exposure period from December 2017, when the mapped area
was blasted, and from the empirical tables given by (Jakubu & Laubscher, 2001), the
adjustment factors of 88% and 70% were selected for slightly weathered and highly weathered
respectively.
3.4.2. ORIENTATION ADJUSTMENT.

This was based on (Jakubu & Laubscher, 2001); face orientation adjustment and wall
orientation adjustment 85% and 75% respectively.
3.4.3. BLASTING ADJUSTMENT.

Blasting creates new fractures and loosens the rock mass, causing movements on joints. The
entire mapped area had poor conventional blasting. The applied adjustment was 80% according
to (Jakubu & Laubscher, 2001).
3.4.4. JOINT CONDITION INCLUDING GROUND WATER.

Water generally reduces the strength of the rock mass by reducing the friction across the
structures and reducing the effective stress. The mapped area was completely dry, thus a rating
adjustment of 95% was assigned (Jakubu & Laubscher, 2001).
3.5. SUMMARY OF MRMR.

The adjusted MRMR applied is calculated as follows;
 80×0.88×0.85×0.80×0.95=45 for maximum and,
 40×0.70×0.75×0.80×0.95=16 for minimum.
43 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
CHAPTER FOUR - SLOPE ASSESSMENT RESULTS

AND EVALUATION
44 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
4.0. INTRODUCTION
4.1. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
The results from empirical assessment are presented in the table below
TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF DESIGN PARAMETERS FROM CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.
PARAMETER MIN MAX WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
RMR 40 80 70
COHESION (KPa) 200 – 300 300 – 400 275 – 375
FRICTION ANGLE (°) 25 – 35 35 – 45 32 – 42
MRMR 16 45 38
SLOPE ANGLE FOR 32⁰ - 40⁰ 50⁰ - 55⁰ 39⁰ - 54⁰

FoS 1.5/1.2
FIGURE 21: THE HAINES AND TERBRUGGE (1991) CHART FOR ESTIMATING SLOPE ANGLES USING MRMR
45 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
Although the highly weathered zones are present on the mapped area, the majority of the rock
mass displayed slightly weathered zones and hence would be classified with values of upper
bound of the presented RMR and MRMR. The combined span of highly weathered material
indicated only about 37.5m of 150m (25%). The weighted average was calculated based on
that proportion. Figure 21 above shows the established slope angles for bench stack 50m which
falls within the estimated MRMR .
4.2. KINEMATIC ANALYSIS

Kinematic analysis was conducted using the stereographic projections of mapped discontinuity
planes. DIPS v7.0 from Rocscience package was utilized for analysis. Kinematic analysis takes
into account only the orientation based data. Thus, DIPS projects the entered planes on the
lower hemisphere, and tests each plane for kinematic failure conditions for a given slope angle
and orientation. The result of analysis is the number of poles of the planes which are
kinematically free to fail in a certain mode. This is directly interpreted as a Probability of
Failure.
The kinematic analysis was conducted in order to determine the probability of failure for the
following failure modes:
 Plan failure
 Wedge failure
 Toppling failure (flexural, direct and oblique toppling)
Since the friction angle for the discontinuities is unknown, the sensitivity analysis was
conducted for the friction angle between the ranges of 25° to 45°, in accordance with the
empirical estimations above. Also, the sensitivity analysis was conducted for bench face angle
from 65° to 85°, as part of bench design analysis.
Lateral limit was set to 35 as suggested by the user’s manuals for kinematic analysis
(Rocscience, 2018) and probabilistic block toppling analysis (Tatone, 2008).
First, the kinematic analysis was conducted to define the failure modes which are kinematically
possible at the analyzed area. That analysis was conducted for assumed friction angle of 30 0.
Then, the sensitivity analysis was conducted for wedge sliding, to assess the influence of
variations in friction angle and bench face angle on the probabilities of failure. Both parameters
were changed with minimum varying increments of 1°, 2° or even 3°.
46 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
4.2.1. RESULTS PRESENTATION

Kinematic analysis conducted in DIPS 7.0, showed the number of planes that are kinematically
free to fall in a certain mode. The percentage of the planes that satisfy kinematic failure
conditions for each of the failure modes is expressed as a Probability of Failure. The obtained
results are shown in the table below.
TABLE 7: BASIC KINEMATIC RESULTS
Failure mode Probability of Failure
Planar sliding 0.00%
Planar sliding (no lateral limits) 1.23%
Wedge sliding 5.55%
Flexural toppling 10.33%
Direct toppling 4.00%
Oblique toppling 9.41%
ᶲ: 300 Lateral limit: Slope angle: Slope dip direction:

35 660 1140
Note: in this case, PoF = P [FoS≤1].
The analysis has shown that the rock mass of the mapped area is especially prone to block
toppling and flexural toppling. The sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the
relation between varying values of friction angle and probability of wedge failure. To illustrate
the dependence of probability of wedge failure on bench geometry, sensitivity analysis was
conducted also for a range of bench face angles. Sensitivity analysis of the bench face angle
was conducted for three values of friction angle 32°, 37°, and 42°. Those values correspond to
the empirically estimated range of friction angle adjusted to the proportions of slightly
weathered to highly weathered material on the mapped area. In case of toppling failure, the
influence of bench face angle on the number of planes which satisfy the kinematic failure
condition is negligible. The sensitivity analysis is not very illustrative as a method of stability
47 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
analysis for toppling failure. Instead, the probabilistic analysis based on a limit equilibrium
model designed specifically for toppling failure (Goodman & Bray, 1976), was conducted
based on the structural data.
FIGURE 22: STEREOGRAPHIC PLOTS SHOWING PLANE FAILURE FROM DIPS 7.0 ROCSCIENCE SOFTWARE
FIGURE 23: STEREOGRAPHIC PLOTS SHOWING WEDGE FAILURE FROM DIPS 7.0 ROCSCIENCE SOFTWARE
48 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
FIGURE 24: STEREOGRAPHIC PLOTS SHOWING FLEXURAL FAILURE FROM DIPS 7.0 ROCSCIENCE SOFTWARE.
FIGURE 25: STEREOGRAPHIC PLOTS SHOWING DIRECT AND OBLIQUE FAILURE FROM DIPS 7.0 ROCSCIENCE SOFTWARE.
49 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
TABLE 8: RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENT VALUES OF FRICTION

ANGLES AND BENCH FACE ANGLES
Friction Pof Bencch face Probability of wedge sliding

angle anlge °
Wedge Ø = 42° Ø = 37° Ø = 32°
ø sliding
15⁰ 26.38% 65 5.72% 5.95% 6.32%
18⁰ 21.98% 66 5.81% 6.04% 6.42%
20⁰ 19.78% 67 5.90% 6.13% 6.51%
21⁰ 18.84% 70 6.16% 6.41% 6.81%
23⁰ 17.20% 71 6.25% 6.50% 6.90%
25⁰ 15.83% 72 6.34% 6.59% 7.00%
27⁰ 14.56% 73 6.42% 6.68% 7.10%
30⁰ 13.19% 74 6.51% 6.77% 7.20%
32⁰ 12.36% 75 6.60% 6.87% 7.30%
33⁰ 11.99% 76 6.69% 6.96% 7.39%
35⁰ 11.30% 78 6.86% 7.14% 7.58%
37⁰ 10.69% 80 7.04% 7.32% 7.78%
40⁰ 9.89% 83 7.30% 7.60% 8.07%
42⁰ 9.42% 85 7.48% 7.78% 8.26%
50 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
4.3. PROBABILITY ANALYSIS OF TOPPLING FAILURE

Results of kinematic analysis have indicated flexural and block toppling as major failure modes
in terms of Probability of Failure for the mapped area. For this reason, the stability analysis,
specifically for toppling failure was conducted, as a part of design assessment. According to
(Goodman & Bray, 1976), block toppling occurs when in strong rock, individual columns are
formed by a set of discontinuities dipping steeply into the face, and a second set of widely
spaced orthogonal joints defines the columns height. Flexural toppling is caused by continuous
columns of the rock, separated by well-developed steeply dipping discontinuities, breaking in
flexure as they bend forward. This failure mode usually occurs in thinly bedded shale and slate
in which orthogonal jointing is not well developed.
FIGURE 26: BLOCK-FLEXURE TOPPLING CHARACTERIZED BY PSEUDO-CONTINUOUS FLEXURE OF LONG COLUMNS

THROUGH ACCUMULATED MOTIONS ALONG NUMEROUS CROSS-JOINTS
51 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
FIGURE 27: BLOCK-FLEXURE TOPPLING FAILURE OF THE MAPPED AREA M10, SHOWING PSEUDO- CONTINUOUS FLEXURE OF
LONG COLUMNS THROUGH ACCUMULATED MOTIONS ALONG NUMEROUS CROSS-JOINTS.
The mapped area M10 is characterised by block-flexure toppling, thus (Goodman & Bray,
1976) describes this failure mode to be characterised by pseudo-continuous flexure along long
columns that are divided by numerous cross joints. Instead of the flexural failure of continuous
columns resulting in flexural toppling, toppling of columns in this case results from
accumulated displacements on the cross joints.
Goodman and Bray (Goodman & Bray, 1976) developed a model for limit equilibrium analysis
of toppling failure. It utilizes the basic principles of Limit Equilibrium Method. The
requirement of this analysis is that the friction angle of the base plane is greater than its dip, so
that the sliding of blocks will not occur, unless there is a presence of external forces. That
model was used by Tatone and the Geomechanics Research group of University of Toronto to
52 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
develop a program for probabilistic analysis of toppling behavior – ROCTOPPLE 0.1. (Tatone,
2008) ROCTOPLLE is based on the limit equilibrium proposed by (Goodman & Bray, 1976),
but has been modified to allow the probabilistic analysis with Monte Carlo Simulation method.
ROCTOPPLE 0.1 was used for stability analysis of toppling potential at mapped area. The
probabilistic analysis was conducted for the current slope geometry as well as for the different
configurations of slope’s height and angle.
The advantage of the probabilistic approach, over limit equilibrium alone, is that it accounts
for the uncertainty of the input data. In probabilistic approach, input data - orientation and
spacing of the joint set defining toppling blocks and the bedding planes - are randomly sampled
from probability distributions with mean values and standard deviation defined by user. That
allows accounting for variety of joint orientation within a set that can form toppling blocks. On
the mapped area, the joints which satisfy the kinematic condition for toppling vary from
striking nearly parallel to the slope to 450 off of the slope. The shear strength properties –
friction angle of discontinuities is also defined as a probability distribution, which accounts for
the uncertainty resulting from the lack of laboratory data. The Output data of the program is
the total Probability of Failure (probability of Factor of Safety being lower than1), and the
distribution of the Factor of Safety with its mean and median values extracted.
53 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
4.3.1. PRESENTATION OF INPUT DATA
TABLE 9: INPUT DATA FOR MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS USING ROCTOPPLE 1.0
Fixed (constant) Variable (defined as probability distribution)
Slope 10 Mean Mean Dip Fisher Mean Friction angle Mean Spacing
height [m]* Dip Direction consta friction distribution3 spacing distribution
nt1 angle2 [m]
Slope angle 750 Base 100 2460 K = 50 320 Type: Normal 0.75 Type:
* plane Lognormal
Standard dev.
2.5 Standard dev.
0.3
Slope dip 2460 Joint 830 1000 K = 25 420 Type: Normal 0.42 Type:
direction Set Lognormal
Standard dev.
2.5 Standard dev.
0.2
Unit weight 27.8 *The geometry of the bench was modified in stability analysis. The analysis was conducted
of rock for current geometry and additionally for five following scenarios:
[kN/m3]
 Case 1: Bench height - 5m, bench face angle - 750,
 Case 5: Bench height - 5m, bench face angle - 650.
 Case 6: Bench height – 10m, bench face angle -85°
 Case 7: Bench height -5m, bench face angle -85°

Other parameters presented in this table were not changed for any of the cases. The only
changing parameters were slope height and slope angle.
Number of Monte Carlo iterations: 10 000
 Assumed based on (Tatone, 2008)
 Based on empirical estimations, see Table
 Assumed based on (Tatone, 2008)
54 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
The input data for probabilistic analysis is presented in Table 9 above. The fixed parameters,
which are defined as constants, and not probability distributions, include: slope height, slope
angle, slope dip direction and the unit weight of the rock. The variable parameters, which
represent the orientation and shear resistance of discontinuities, are defined in terms of mean
values, the type of probability distributions and standard deviation.
Those values were used as a mean of a defined probability distribution, from which the
orientations of the set were randomly sampled. Therefore, the variability of joint orientation
was accounted for in the analysis; however, the emphasis was on the orientation which is the
most unfavorable for stability when it comes to toppling failure.
The analysis was conducted for current slope geometry, as well as for the 7 alternative
configurations for which the slope height or/and slope angle were changed. When analyzing
the alternative cases for slope geometry, the input data was altered only for fixed variables,
which is the slope height and slope angle. The orientation of discontinuity sets, friction angle,
and the distribution parameters were not changed for the different cases.
The Results of the analysis are presented in the following pages. The current design and 7
alternative cases are characterized by the Total Probability of Block Toppling Failure, Mean
Factor of Safety, Median Factor of Safety and the Distribution of Factor of Safety presented
on the distribution chart. The chart presents the frequency for the ranges of Factor of Safety
values, and the function of cumulative probability for occurrence of each of those values.
55 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
4.3.2. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
1.0.ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT DESIGN

TABLE 10: OUTPUT DATA OF MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS USING ROCTOPPLE FOR CURRENT
DESIGN CONFIGURATION FOR BENCH HEIGHT 10M AND BENCH FACE ANGLE OF 750
CASE 1: BENCH HEIGHT – 5M, BENCH FACE ANGLE - 750
TABLE 11: OUTPUT DATA FOR MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS USING ROCTOPPLE 1.0 FOR BENCH
HEIGHT REDUCED TO 5M
56 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
CASE 2: BENCH HEIGHT – 10M, BENCH FACE ANGLE 70°
TABLE 12: OUTPUT DATA FOR MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS USING ROCTOPPLE 1.0
FOR BENCH HEIGHT 10 AND BENCH FACE ANGLE REDUCED TO 70°
CASE 3: BENCH HEIGHT – 5M, BENCH FACE ANGLE 70°

TABLE 13: OUTPUT DATA FOR MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS USING ROCTOPPLE 1.0 FOR
BENCH ANGLE 70° AND BENCH HEIGHT REDUCED TO 5M
57 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
CASE 4: BENCH HEIGHT -10M, BENCH FACE ANGLE - 65°

BENCH HEIGHT 10 AND BENCH FACE ANGLE REDUCED TO 65°
CASE 5: BENCH HEIGHT - 5M, BENCH FACE ANGLE - 65°

TABLE 15: OUTPUT DATA FOR MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS USING ROCTOPPLE 1.0 FOR BENCH
HEIGHT -5M, AND BENCH FACE ANGLE - 65°
58 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
CASE 6: BENCH HEIGHT - 10M, BENCH FACE ANGLE 85°
TABLE 16: OUTPUT DATA FOR MONTE CARLO ANALYSIS USING ROCTOPPLE 1.0
FOR BENCH HEIGHT -10M, AND BENCH FACE ANGLE - 85°
CASE 7: BENCH HEIGHT – 5M, BENCH FACE ANGLE 85
BENCH HEIGHT -5M, AND BENCH FACE ANGLE - 85°
59 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
4.4. DATA UNCERTAINTY

Before making any conclusions on obtained results, the uncertainty involved in data collection
and analysis needs to be considered.
Starting with the data collection, the errors in scan-line and window mapping are ± 100 for dip
direction and ± 50 for dip angle. (Brown, 2007) In respect to that, the orientation data records
were rounded up or down to 50.
Rock Mass Classification schemes are based on the subjective ratings of specific parameters,
therefore there is a lot of uncertainty involved in empirical analysis. The results of field
estimates of rock strength with a geological hammer are subjective and of questionable
accuracy. Particularly, for the low range of UCS (25 MPa and less) the uniaxial compressive
test is a preferred method of strength estimation. (Bieniawski, 1989) .
RQD, as a parameter based on joint spacing (see figure) is poorly defined and presents an
artificial, abrupt boundary, which is not always representative of the actual rock-mass
conditions. (Deere, et al., 1967) Especially in highly weathered and sheared portions of the
mapped area, where the joint persistence was below 1m limit, or not present at all, due to the
material being loose, the RQD estimation based solely on joint spacing would indicate that the
rock mass is competent, which is not accurate. To overcome that uncertainty, the value of RQD
was estimated based only on the spacing records lower than 1m.
FIGURE 28: DISCREPANCY IN RQD VALUES DERIVED FROM JOINT SPACING USING GRAPHICAL ESTIMATION WITH CHART PROPOSED
BY (BIENIAWSKI, 1989), SEE FIGURE. THE ROCK-MASS ON THE LEFT DISPLAYS HIGHER DEGREE OF WEATHERING AND LOW
STRENGTH; THE JOINTS ARE LESS PERSISTENT AND ABOUT HALF OF THE MATERIAL IS LOOSE. THE ROCK-MASS ON THE RIGHT IS
MODERATELY JOINTED BUT OF LOWER DEGREE OF WEATHERING AND HIGHER STRENGTH, NONE OF THE MATERIAL IS WEATHERED
TO RESIDUAL SOIL. BOTH EXAMPLES COME FROM THE MAPPED AREA OF M10
60 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
The adjustment for joint orientation, required for MRMR rate is quantitative, takes into account
only the number of joint sets, not their dip or dip direction relative to the face. Steeply dipping
joints, typical of the mapped area, are usually favourable for stability.
Because of the limited accuracy of RMR and MRMR estimations, assigning one rating to each
scheme would increase the probability of that rating being inaccurate. To account for that, the
results were presented as a range defined with minimum, maximum and average value.
Assumptions and simplifications made during data analysis affect the accuracy of the results.
Assumptions that were made during analysis in this project are:
 Joints forming toppling blocks are not cemented.

 Influence of in-situ stress was assumed to be negligible, due to the shallow depth.
 The analysis was conducted for designed bench face angle which is 750; effective bench
face angle is determined by the geometry of intersecting discontinuities and may be
steeper.
The need to include the potential seismic loading in slope stability analysis is a subject of debate
within geotechnical community. There are only few reported cases of seismic activity leading
to significant slope instabilities in hard rock conditions (Stacey, et al., 2013). The potential
pseudo-static conditions could be accounted for by applying the appropriate seismic coefficient
as an external load in probabilistic limit equilibrium analysis of block toppling. The literature
research would need to be conducted on seismic activity in the vicinity of Kansanshi, to support
selection of the adequate seismic coefficient.
61 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
4.4.1. RESULTS ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.4.1.1. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA.
TABLE 18: REQUIRED ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF SLOPES

Serviceable life Consequences of failure Slope scale FoS4 PoF Source
Permanent or sustained 1.5 (US Navy Dept, 1971)

conditions
Temporary 1.25 (SAICE, 1989)
Low - high Bench 1.1 25 – 50% (Stacey, et al., 2013)
Low 1.15 – 1.2 25%
Medium Inter-ramp 1.2 20%
High 1.2 – 1.3 10%
Low 1.2 – 1.3 15 – 20 % (Stacey, et al., 2013)
Medium Overall 1.3 5-10%
High 1.3 – 1.5 ≤ 5%
Bench, expansion, not adjacent to the ramp < 45% (Swan & Sepulveda,
2000)
Bench, expansion, adjacent to the ramp < 40%
Inter ramp, expansion >1.25 < 25%
Very short-term, continuous monitoring with sophisticated instruments 10 – 20% (Kirsten, 1983)
Short-term, continuous monitoring with simple instruments 5 – 10%
4 Factor of Safety for static conditions
62 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
The tolerable FoS and PoF values are dependent mainly on the slope scale, serviceable life of
the slope and the consequences of failure. Loading conditions, and surveillance required are
also defining parameters when selecting appropriate acceptance levels in slope stability
analysis. The FOS and PoF values, relevant for the conditions of this project, recommended in
literature are presented in Table 18 above.
FIGURE 29: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BENCH FACE ANGLE/CATCH BERM WIDTH AND INTER-
RAMP ANGLE AFTER RYAN AND PRIOR (2000).
4.4.1.2. BENCH DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Bench height in large mining operations are typically 12m to 15m and the height is controlled
by the available mining equipment that is used to drill, blast and load the bench (Ryan, 2000).
There is a direct trigonometric relationship between bench face angle (BFA) and the catch berm
width (W).
The maximum achievable bench face and the related catch berm width determines the
maximum inter-ramp angle.
𝐻 𝐻
𝑊= −
tan 𝐼𝑅𝐴 tan 𝐵𝐹𝐴
Where,
W = CATCHBERM WIDTH
IRA = INTER – RAMP ANGLE
BFA = BENCH FACE ANGL and H = BENCH HEIGHT
63 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
The catch berm width is controlled by the stability of joints and faults that intersect the bench.
The stability of the structures is in turn influenced by the orientation of the bench in relation to
the structures; blasting and related energies and mechanical undercutting during loading and
hauling operations.
Empirical, kinematic, and probabilistic analysis provide an overview of stability conditions for
various options of bench face and bench stack angle as well as the bench height. Another
important parameter to be considered in terms of slope stability is the width of the catchment
berm. For rockfall considerations, the empirical relationship defining the catch berm width is
often used. See the equation below by (Ryan & Pryor, 2000).
𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒎 𝒘𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉 = 𝟎. 𝟐 × 𝒃𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒉 𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 + 𝟒. 𝟓𝒎
The required berm width is 5.5m for 5m high benches and 6.5m for 10m high benches.
The relation between bench height and required width of the catchment berm was also defined
by Ritchie. (Ritchie, 1963) It can be seen on the empirical diagram, Figure 30 below.
That diagram assumes that 1.2m catch fence is constructed at the crest of the bench. For that
reason, required berm with defined with that diagram is lower than if defined with equation by
(Ryan & Pryor, 2000). The diagram needs to be used with caution.
FIGURE 30: RELATION BETWEEN CATCHMENT BERM WIDTH AND BENCH HEIGHT. THE DIAGRAM ASSUMES 1.2M HIGH
CATCH FENCE AT THE CREST. (RITCHIE, 1963)
64 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
TABLE 19: DESIGN OPTIONS
Design Bench Bench FoS of PoF for Bench FoS of Catchment

configuration height Face bench bench Stack bench berm
[m] Angle face5 face6 Angle stack7 width [m]
Current 10 750 1.30 6.8% 500 >1.2 7.0
Case 1 5 750 1.44 2.2% 500 >1.2 2.9
Case 2 10 700 0.98 4.2% 500 1.2 4.8
Case 3 5 700 1.50 0.8% 450 >1.2 3.2
Case 4 10 650 1.56 1.4% 850 <1.5 5.5
Case 5 5 650 2.24 0.4% 470 >1.5 2.3
Case 6 10 850 0.88 9.4% 500 <1.5 7.5
Case 7 5 850 1.03 5.6% 500 1.5 7.3
Case 8 10 75 1.30 6.8% 47° > 1.5 6.5
 The current design meets the acceptable standard criteria for all the conditions as
proposed by Ryan and Prior (Ryan & Pryor, 2000), as well as Moore (Moore, 2015).
 Case 1 does not meet the standard design criteria because the catch berm width is well
below the set standards (Ryan & Pryor, 2000) .
 Case 2 is also below the acceptable standard due to low FoS and catch berm width
(Ryan & Pryor, 2000)
65 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
 Case 3 has low catch berm width hence not acceptable (Ryan & Pryor, 2000)
 Case 4 has a bench stack angle that is not within the empirically estimated values of
bench stack and low FoS for bench stack angle (Ryan & Pryor, 2000).
 Case 5 meets all the requirements except that the catch berm width is below the set
standard hence unacceptable (Ryan & Pryor, 2000).
 Case 6 has low bench face FoS as well as low bench stack FoS, thus unacceptable (Ryan
& Pryor, 2000).
 Case 7 has low FoS hence unacceptable.
 Case 8 meets all the requirements hence acceptable.
66 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
CHAPTER FIVE - CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION
67 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
5.0. CONCLUSION
 The current design justifies the required acceptance criteria hence the mine should
continue with the same designs in the lithology of MMC (containing CBPH, PHY, KS,
BS and MAR) and LCS (containing CLBS, CLS and MAR). The design should mainly
be implemented in rock formations having MAR, KS and CLS which comprised most
of the mapped section. This is because the rocks are hard and competent enough to
accommodate the design.
 The implementation of the designs should be carried out with caution to the economic
stripping ratio and water conditions.
 The recommended slope geometry for the mapped area is presented below
5.1. RECOMMENDATIONS
 The conditions shown in the table below are recommended for the mapped area.
TABLE 20: PROPOSED BENCH DESIGN PARAMETERS.
parameters Case 1 Case 2 Acceptance criteria
Bench height [m] 10 10 Factor of Safety: 1.17
Bench face angle 75° 75° Probability of Failure: 11%
Bench stack height 50 60 Factor of Safety: 1.2 – 1.5

[m]
Bench stack angle 50° 47°
Catchment berm 7 6.5 Defined based on (Ryan &

width [m] Pryor, 2000)
 The laboratory tests on samples from the mapped area should be conducted to define
the following parameters: UCS, shear strength of discontinuities, friction angle of
discontinuities and the unit weight of the rock.
 Blast results should be improved as poor conventional blast was recorded on the
mapped area.
68 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
6.0. REFERENCES
6.1. REFERENCES
International Society for Rock Mechanics, 1981b. Rock Characterization, Testing and
Monitoring; ISRM Suggested Method, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Anon., 2018. [Online]

Available at: www.google.com
[Accessed 4th april 2018].
Banda, s. u., 2008. design parameters and management strategiesof soil and rock slopes. design
parameters and management strategiesof soil and rock slopes, p. 8.
BARTON, N. L. R. a. L. J., 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of
tunnel support,. In: rock mechanics. s.l.:s.n., pp. pp 189-236.
BIENIAWSKI, Z.T., 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classification, NEW YORK: s.n.
Bieniawski, Z., 1979. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering applications..

Proceedings of 4th Congress of International Society of Rock Mechanics, pp. 41-48.
Bieniawski, Z., 1989. Engineering rock mass classifications. John Wiley & Sons, p. p 251..
Brown, E., 2007. Block Caving Geomechanics. Brisbane: JKMRC.
Deere, D., Hendron, A., Patton, F. & Cording, E., 1967. Design of surface and near surface
excavations in rock. New York, s.n., pp. 237 - 302.
Goodman, R. & Bray, J., 1976. Toppling of rock slopes.. s.l., Boulder, CO, 2, pp. 201 - 234.
International Society for Rock Mechanics, 1981b. Rock characterisation, testing and
monitoring; ISRM suggested method. OXFORD: Pergamon Press.
Jakubu, J. & Laubscher, D., 2001. THE MRMR Rock Mass classification for jointed rock
masses, "Underground Mininig Method: Engineering fundamentals and international Case
Studies (ed WA hustrulid and RL Bulluck). s.l.:Society of mining engineers.
Kirsten, H., 1983. Significance of the probability of failure in slope engineering. The Civil
Engineer in South Africa.
69 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
K, L. C., 2013. slope stability analysis. slope stability analysis at nchanga open-pit mine using
numerical modelling software, p. 15.
Mah, D. C. W. a. C. W., 2005. Principles of rock slope design. LONDON AND NEW YORK:
Taylor and Francis e-library,2005.
McCarthy, D. F., 2007. Essential of soil mechanics and Foundations. pp. pp 657-718.
Moore, T., 2015. Kansanshi – Ground Control Management Plan. Ground Control
Management Plan, pp. 14-15.
Mwape, P. S., 2017. An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Blast Movement Monitoring for
Grade Control Purposes at Kansanshi Mine Plc.. kitwe: copperbelt university.
Newmark, N., 1965. Effect of earthquakes on dams and embankments: 5th Rankine Lecture of
the British Geotechnical Society. s.l., s.n., pp. 137 - 160.
Ritchie, A., 1963. Evaluation of rockfall and its control. Higway Research Record, pp. 13-28.
Rocscience, 2018. Rocscience. [Online]

Available at:
https://www.rocscience.com/help/dips/webhelp/pdf_files/tutorials/Tutorial_04_Toppling_Pla
nar_and_Wedge_Sliding.pdf
Ryan, T. a. P. P., 2000. Designing catch Benches and Inter-ramp Slopes. In: Slope Stability in
Surface Mining. s.l.:s.n., pp. 27 - 46.
Ryan, T. & Pryor, P., 2000. Designing catch benches and interramp slopes.. Colorado, s.n.,
pp. 27-38.
SAICE, 1989. Code of Practice: Lateral Support n Surface Excavations, s.l.: South African
Institute of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Division.
SCIRO, 2009. Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design. COLLING WOOD AND VIC 3066:
CSIRO PUBLISHING 150 OXFORD STREET (PO BOX 1139).
Stacey, P. et al., 2013. Guidelines for Open Pit Slope Design 3 - Design. [Online]
Available at: http://www.edumine.com/courses/online-courses/guidelines-for-open-pit-slope-
design-3-design/
Swan, G. & Sepulveda, R., 2000. Slope stability at Collahausi. Slope Stability in Surface
Mining, pp. 163-170.
70 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
Tatone, B., 2008. USER MANUAL FOR ROCKTOPPLE: A SPREADSHEET-BASED

PROGRAM FOR PROBABILISTIC BLOCK TOPPLING ANALYSIS, Toronto: University of
Toronto.
Tembo, g., 2014. slope stability analysis of the cop FD OPEN PIT PHASE 5 AT NCHANGA
MINE. KITWE: COPPERBELT UNIVERSITY.
US Navy Dept, 1971. Soil Mechanics, Foundations, and Structures, Washington DC:
NAVFAC.
Wyllie, D. C. & Mah, W. C., 2004. Rock slope engineering, civil and mining. Based on Rock
Slope Engineering (third edition, 1981) byDr Evert Hoek and Dr John Bray.. New York:
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.
71 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
7.0. APPENDIX
7.1. APPENDIX: CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (RMR) AFTER (BIENIAWSKI, Z.T.,
TABLE 21: BIENIAWSKI ROCK MASS RATING CHART, 1989
1989)
72 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
7.2. APPENDIX SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATION OF THE MAPPED AREA
TABLE 22: ROCK MASS CHARACTERISATION OF THE MAPPED SECTION
0 – 14.8m 14.8 -115.9m 115.9 – 158.6m
 Rust at the top with greyish,  Rust with yellowish and greyish
 Rust with greyish and staining.
brownish staining. brown and whitish staining.
 Moderately high joint persistence
 Joint persistence between 3-  Joint persistence between 1- (1-3m)
10m (high persistence) 3m and 3-10m (moderately  Closely spaced joints
 Moderately widely spaced high and high joint  Weak: can be peeled by a pocket
persistence) knife with difficulty. Can be
 Strong: requires more than fractured with single firm blow of
one blow of geological  Moderately widely spaced and
geological hammer.
hammer to fracture it. closely spaced.  Highly weathered: most of the
 Slightly weathered: the rock  Very strong: material requires original rock mass strength is lost.
mass is not significantly many blows of geological Material is discoloured and more
hammer to break it than half the mass is changed to a
weaker than when soil by chemical decomposition or
unweathered. Rock may be  Slightly weathered: the rock
disintegration (increase in density
discoloured along defects, mass is not significantly of defects/fractures).
some of which may have weaker than when Decomposition adjacent to
been opened slightly. unweathered. Rock may be defects and at the surface of the
discoloured along defects, clasts penetrates deeply into the
rock material. Lithorelicts or
some of which may have been
corestones of unweathered or
opened slightly slightly weathered rock may be
present.
73 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
7.3. APPENDIX: RESULTS FROM PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS USING

ROCTOPPLE SOFTWARE 1.0
TABLE 23: CASE RESULTS OF PROBABILISTIC ANALYSIS FOR TOPPLING FAILURE
74 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
7.4. APPENDIX: TRIAL 5 OF ROCKTOPPLE V1.0 SOFTWARE

Note: the spreadsheet describing overall slope geometry is not complete. This is just a sample.
TABLE 24: ROCKTOPPLE SOFTWARE RESULT ANALYSIS FOR OVERALL SLOPE GEOMETRY
75 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
7.5. APPENDIX: ADJUSTMENT OF MRMR AFTER LAUBSCHER
TABLE 25: LAUBSCHER’S MRMR CHART (JAKUBU & LAUBSCHER, 2001)
TABLE 26: MEAN SPACING RATING CHART (BARTON, 1974).
76 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
TABLE 25: CONDITION OF DISCONTINUITY RATINGS (JAKUBU & LAUBSCHER, 2001)
77 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
TABLE 26: MRMR TABLES SHOWING THE ADJUSTMENTS FOR WEATHERING, JOINT ORIENTATION AND THE
EFFECTS BLASTING.
78 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
7.6. APPENDIX: FAILURE MECHANISM IN THE MAIN PIT AND THE

TWO PITS.
FIGURE 31: SAPROLITE DOMAIN FAILURE MECHANISMS IN THE MAIN PIT.
79 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
FIGURE 32: SAPROLITE DOMAIN FAILURE MECHANISMS FOR THE THREE PITS.
80 | P a g e
KANSANHI MINE: 2018
7.7. APPENDIX: EQUATIONS

1.0. Calculation of catch berm width
𝐻 𝐻
𝑊= −
tan 𝐼𝑅𝐴 tan 𝐵𝐹𝐴
Where;
H = BENCH HEIGHT
IRA = INTER-RAMP ANGLE
BFA = BENCH FACE ANGLE
W = BERM WIDTH
2.0. 𝒃𝒆𝒓𝒎 𝒘𝒊𝒅𝒕𝒉 = 𝟎. 𝟐 × 𝒃𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒉 𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕 + 𝟒. 𝟓𝒎
81 | P a g e

Empirical Bench Design Assessment For Slope Stability Analysis. Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Empirical Bench Design Assessment For Slope Stability Analysis. Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE COPPERTBELT UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF MINES AND MINERAL SCIENCES

FINAL YEAR PROJECT

This dissertation is submitted to the school of mines and mineral

2018 ACADEMIC YEAR

LIST OF FIGURES. ............................................................................................... vii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................xi

DEFINATIONS OF SOME KEY WORDS. .......................................................... xii

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1

1.0. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 2

1.1. LOCATION AND BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .............................. 2

1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT ........................................................................... 4

1.3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE. ........................................................................... 6

1.3.1. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES .......................................................................6

1.4. GEOLOGICAL SETTING OF KANSANSHI OPEN-PIT .......................... 7

1.4.1. REGIONAL GEOLOGY ........................................................................7

1.4.2. STRATIGRAPHY OF KANSANSHI ....................................................9

CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................ 13

2.0. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 14

2.1. PRINCIPLES OF ROCK SLOPE ENGINEERING ................................... 14

2.1.1. OPEN PIT MINING SLOPE STABILITY ..........................................14

2.1.2. SLOPE CONFIGURATIONS ..............................................................15

2.1.3. FORMULATION OF SLOPE DESIGNS ............................................16

2.1.3.3. STRUCTURAL MODEL ..................................................................18

2.1.3.5. HYDROGEOLOGY MODEL ...........................................................19

2.1.4. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT ...............................................19

2.2. SLOPE STABILITY ................................................................................... 20

2.2.1. TYPES OF SLOPE PROBLEMS .........................................................20

2.3. FACTORS AFFECTING SLOPE STABILITY OF AN OPEN-PIT ......... 21

2.3.1. SLOPE GEOMETRY ...........................................................................21

2.3.2. GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURE (GEOLOGY) .....................................23

2.3.3. GROUND WATER TABLE ................................................................24

2.3.4. LITHOLOGY ........................................................................................27

2.3.5. DYNAMIC FORCES ...........................................................................27

2.3.6. METHOD OF MINING & EQUIPMENT USED ................................28

2.3.7. ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION ..................................................29

2.3.8. COHESION (C) ....................................................................................29

2.3.9. SEISMIC EFFECT. ..............................................................................29

2.4. FAILURE MECHANISM ANALYSIS ...................................................... 31

2.5. SLOPE FAILURE TYPES AT KANSANSHI ........................................... 32

2.5.1. PLANAR FAILURE .............................................................................32

2.5.2. WEDGE FAILURE ..............................................................................33

2.5.3. CIRCULAR FAILURE.........................................................................34

2.5.4. TOPPLING FAILURE .........................................................................35

2.6. REASONS FOR SLOPE FAILURE IN MINES ........................................ 36

CHAPTER THREE – METHODOLOGY .............................................................. 37

3.0. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 38

3.1. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INPUT DATA. ............ 38

3.1.1. DESK STUDY ......................................................................................38

3.1.2. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................38

3.2. DETERMINATION OF BASIC RMR PARAMETERS ........................... 39

3.2.1. UNI-AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (UCS) ............................39

3.2.2. JOINT SPACING (M) ..........................................................................40

3.2.3. CONDITION OF JOINTS (cj) .............................................................41

3.2.4. GROUNDWATER ...............................................................................41

3.2.5. RQD (ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION ..........................................41

3.3. SUMMARY OF RMR RATING ................................................................ 42

3.4. ADJUSTMENT FOR MRMR (MINING RMR) ........................................ 43

3.4.1. WEATHERING ADJUSTMENT. ........................................................43

3.4.2. ORIENTATION ADJUSTMENT. .......................................................43

3.4.3. BLASTING ADJUSTMENT................................................................43

3.4.4. JOINT CONDITION INCLUDING GROUND WATER. ..................43