Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bench - Inter-Ramp - Overall: A Guide To Statistically Designing A Rock Slope
Bench - Inter-Ramp - Overall: A Guide To Statistically Designing A Rock Slope
James I. Mathis
Zostrich Geotechnical
110 W. 6th Ave. #180
Ellensburg, WA 98926 USA
e-mail: zostrich@zostrich.com
ABSTRACT
The proper design and evaluation of the catch bench angle, inter-ramp slope angle,
and overall slope angle, individually as well as in combination, are required for successful
excavation and economic optimization of a rock slope. In many slopes at least one, if not
more, of the above controlling angles are essentially ignored, resulting in a slope properly
designed for one facet of the excavation but ignoring the other components. Bench face
angles can be accurately described statistically utilizing engineering predictions from the
rock mass discontinuity network and discontinuity shear strengths. Together with the
required bench width, the bench controlled inter-ramp angle is determined. Inter-ramp
angles can be accurately determined by careful construction of a structural geologic model,
noting location and orientations of discrete intermediate and large planes of weakness for
the excavation in question. The location and orientation of the overall slope is dependent
upon the slope as determined by the bench controlled inter-ramp angle and the stability
controlled inter-ramp angle. Given advances in data collection and analytical techniques
and continuing moves to increase mining safety while simultaneously attempting to
minimize excavation costs, the only possible way to truly optimize slopes is through
rigorous analytical methods combined with probabilistic techniques.
1
INTRODUCTION
Let’s clarify this interaction. Assume an open pit mine with a substantial overall
slope height. Now, assume a bench height of 15m, a required catch bench width of 8m
with a stability determined face angle of 70°. Assume the inter-ramp slope has been
determined to be acceptably stable at an angle of 55° with a ramp width of 33m and a
mean height of 150m. Structural considerations determine that the overall slope shall not
exceed an angle of 44°.
What to all these numbers tell us? Well, in order to maintain the required catch
bench angle, the inter-ramp angle cannot exceed the geometrical constraints imposed by
the bench geometry. In this case, the bench determined inter-ramp angle is:
Now, it is obvious that the bench controlled inter-ramp angle (48°) is less than the
angle at which the inter-ramp slope has been determined to be stable (55°), thus the slope
must be designed to accommodate the required bench geometry.
How about the inter-ramp versus overall slope? The inter-ramp angle cannot
exceed 48°, as noted above. If the ramp width is added, the overall slope, as dictated by
inter-ramp constraints is:
The overall slope was determined to be sufficiently stable at 44°. Yet, the bench
geometry dictates the inter-ramp angle. This angle, together with the inter-ramp height
and the required ramp width impose an overall slope angle of 42°. Therefore, the bench
geometry, for this specific case, dictates the overall slope angle as well.
2
Figure 1 - Bench controlled inter-ramp angle, inter-ramp angle, and overall slope angle
The catch bench consists of a bench face and a catch bench. A bench face is the
vertical to intermediate dipping wall created in rock by excavation actions (Figure 2).
This wall, or face, will also have the added component of a "bench". This bench, located
at the base of the rock face, will be an area reserved for catching (restraining) rocks that
detach from the excavated face, thus the term bench face or the face above the bench.
What is bench face design? A basic definition would be the engineering design
of a rock face above a bench such that the general standing, stable angle of the face is
quantified. This should incorporate at a minimum the input parameters listed in Figure 2.
3
For a “standard” bench design, this information is then compiled and the
following conducted:
Yet, a variety of questions arise with this “standard” design. Amongst these are:
Most benches are drilled and blasted vertically. To what minimum angle will the
bench fail to and how much material will fall from the crest?
What is the distribution of face angles and how will this distribution of face
angles affect the bench catch width design?
How was the variability of the shear strengths incorporated in the analysis?
What is the impact of the discontinuity length and spacing on the face angle and
what is the sensitivity of the design to these parameters?
What would the impact be of utilizing the entire structural orientation distribution
instead of point values?
How much backbreak can be eliminated by drilling angle holes and is it
warranted?
Catch bench face angle design, as conducted by this author, utilizes a rock fabric
simulation to determine bench face angle reliability (2). Discontinuity spatial
characteristics obtained from a rigorous sampling method and obtained either from
physical or photogrammetric mapping are simulated in a three dimensional, Monte Carlo
generated, discontinuity model (Figure 3). The three dimensional model is then cut by a
simulated bench face and statistical failure analyses of wedge and plane shear failures are
conducted on the daylighting features that transect the bench crest. This provides not
only the bench face angle distribution as a function of bench height, but also provides a
large number of simulated face profiles for analysis and allows for the effect of an
excavated face angle of something less than 90°.
4
Figure 3 - Persistence modeling of structures for bench scale analysis
Once the bench face angles distributions are defined, the reliability of the bench
face angle is utilized for selection of the design bench geometry. The face angle
reliability can vary from 70% for areas not often frequented by man or machine to values
>90% for areas where bench failure may substantially impact operations or potentially
endanger personnel. For open pit mines a reliability of 80% appears to be somewhat
standard as this appears to contain most rock that escapes a single bench.
Face angles at the chosen reliability, and segregated by external effects (excellent
vs. poor excavation techniques, etc.) are compiled into a table. This table includes the
structural domain and design sector (face orientation). Note that this table can also
include varying bench height and catch bench width. A geometrically constrained bench
controlled inter-ramp angle, as noted in the introduction to this article, is then calculated.
Note that the described methodology answers all of the questions posed above,
including the effect of discontinuity length (persistence) and center density (spacing).
Note further these questions can only be answered using probabilistic techniques.
5
persistence will provide an accurate estimate for bench face design if the discontinuity
persistence is substantially less than the bench height. This variation in bench face
angles is demonstrated for a 10m and 20m bench height utilizing the program Z-Fabric
(Zostrich Geotechnical) (Figure 5).
Experience has shown that it is always prudent, as well as good engineering, to
validate any slope design. Verification of bench scale performance utilizing the above
described methodology has been conducted using a multitude of individual face profiles
obtained from surveying as well as photogrammetric techniques. One of the advantages
of utilizing photogrammetric techniques is that the entire imaged slope is available for
face profiling to compare with the analytical bench face and slope angles. While some
blind areas may exist due to camera location, the accuracy of the slope topography is far
superior to that obtained by any other easily applied methodology. The verification
process allows one to detect errors in discontinuity data collection, failure mode analysis,
and blasting practices such that the bench design may be refined.
6
INTER-RAMP DESIGN
As was discussed previously, bench scale design is, for most part, predicated on
relatively simple failure modes with low applied stresses on the sliding surfaces. The
controlling geologic structures (rock fabric) can be dealt with statistically as has been
done above.
Stability constraints
7
previously, the inter-ramp height can at times be the entire rock slope, at which point the
inter-ramp is equivalent to the overall slope.
Similar input values are required as for bench design (Figure 2) with the
substitution of the inter-ramp height and bearing for the equivalent bench values.
Adjustments may be required in the discontinuity shear strengths, as fault values may be
required. Assessments of rock mass strength values may be required as well.
One of the greatest differences between inter-ramp and bench design is that
equivalent structure defining the failure geometry must generally be greater than the
height of the bench in persistence. However, such structures are difficult if not
impossible to map as a single feature as they traverse multiple benches in an existing pit
or transect outcrop in natural terrain prior to mining. Extrapolation of fabric mapping
data for such analysis is possible but somewhat unproven. Further, some assessment of
the feature density (spacing) must be provided as well. At present, geologic structural
interpretation is required to fulfill this requirement.
Alternatively, where the design slope is substantially behind the mapping slope or
in areas where no structural projections may be made, the designer is forced to utilize
statistical representations of structural populations. The orientation distribution for the
design structure population is relatively simple to obtain, either by projection of fabric
mapping data, analysis of major features, or both. However, two critical parameters for
the stability analyses are persistence and density (spacing).
Density (spacing): The spacing of the major geologic structures impacting inter-
ramp stability can be obtained from analysis of the local structural interpretation,
8
as can be the variation of this spacing (Figure 6). Both can be utilized for
predictive models. It has been observed by this author that the periodicity of
interpreted “major” structures within a geologic mass appears to be essentially
normally distributed. This contradicts with the multitude of distributions
proposed for rock fabric spacing (periodicity). More research is needed in this
area as such assumptions have a substantial impact on the slope design, especially
in terms of failure probability.
For analytical purposes, the ramp, crest, or toe of an inter-ramp slope section provide
obvious, pre-defined release planes. This is similar to the previously discussed bench
geometry where the structures defining the failure block were required to transect the
crest in order for a viable failure block to be defined.
9
Figure 7 - Effect of multiple structural intersections on probability of failure geometry
occurrence
The rapid change in wall curvature at a pit bottom (Figure 8), or a “nose”
developed in a pit wall can also be analyzed statistically. Where these two special slope
cases have often been described as being more, or less, stable because of degrees of
freedom of motion that is only partially true. As the plan curvature of the slope wall
increases, it is more difficult to create a viable geometry as the release structures must be
found in a specific locale and have a substantial, and increasing, persistence for a viable
failure block to be defined. Alternatively, for a nose, the requirements for persistence and
location of the release structures are substantially reduced. These can both be addressed
analytically, using probabilistic methods, with the aforementioned interpretative
structural work thus improving slope stability assessments.
Economic constraints
For example, if the inter-ramp scale failure is on a slope where it will have little
impact either on mining operations, traffic, or facilities, then the economic impact of
inter-ramp failure is minimal. The probability of failure can likely be quite high without
substantial economic consequences.
However, if the design inter-ramp slope is below a haul road to the bottom of a
pit with no alternative methods for access if the ramp is obliterated by failure, the failure
is an end of mine life event with large economic consequences. In this situation, the
probability of failure, including the accuracy of the failure estimate, must be carefully
considered. Slope angles may be flattened to account for this risk in specific portions of
the pit specifically to address this factor.
10
Figure 8 - Effect of structure persistence for inter-ramp failures as a function of slope
geometry
All inter-ramp slope failures carry an impact on operation. Thus, inter-ramp slope
designs should always consider not only the stability of the slope, but the impact on
operations if the slope is to fail. This can only be done with techniques specifically
addressing the volume and probability of slope failure. Many operations fail to consider
this in their design rendering them exposed to risks which should have been assessed
during slope design.
As was noted in the introduction, the geometry of the bench width and the bench
face can determine the inter-ramp slope angle. The inter-ramp angle may not only be
dictated by simple stability analyses, as the probability of failure coupled with any
economic consequences of failure can have a profound impact on the design angle for the
inter-ramp.
The comparison of the bench determined inter-ramp angle with the inter-ramp
determined economically stable angle is still required as both criteria must be met. The
necessary criterion for acceptance is the shallower of the two slope angles.
11
Once these values have been determined for all structural domains and slope
angles, the slope should be re-optimized. This may result in substantial slope translation
from the original design if those estimates were in error.
However, this design stage provides for an optimization and accommodation of
individual geologic structures and structural zones that may actually improve the slope.
For example, as seen in Figure 6, the structural interpretation indicates the design slope
falls along a major structure. However, stepping the slope back slightly into the wall
behind the structure allows a portion of the slope to be excavated steeper than the
original design allowed as the rock fabric has been accommodated in the bench design.
Whether this is economic is unknown, but it certainly should be compared against
reducing the slope angle in front of the existing structure. Similar analyses should be
made regarding changes in wall orientation, bench height, ramp location, etc. Economic
benefits of such result analyses/combinations/adjustments can be substantial. In order to
realize such benefits, active participation of a knowledgeable geotechnical engineer who
recognizes potential opportunities and pitfalls is required in the planning process.
Of the three stability controlled slope components, the overall slope is generally
the simplest in terms of conceptual framing and analysis.
The overall slope design should only be conducted after the bench and inter-ramp
designs have been conducted, with final interactions of both considered. Thus,
slopes have been adjusted to reflect inter-ramp and bench stability concerns,
including major structures and zones of low rock mass strength.
Inter-ramp design requires a detailed structural geologic interpretation for the
inter-ramp areas. As these encompass the entire design pit, a detailed structural
model is available for the overall slope design.
Thus, a piecewise stable slope has been designed, with the location of these individual
slope components being generally correct spatially. In other words, there is no real
guesswork as to final location of the slope compared to overall wall failure geometries.
The complete structural and lithologic model for the design slope is then examined for
potential failure geometries. It makes no difference as to the analytical methods utilized,
as these are dependent upon the failure modes and stresses involved. As long as the
designer incorporates the uncertainty in the model within the analytical process, the
probability of failure for any portion of the design pit may be calculated. This variability
is, of course, more easily accommodated in simpler models as compared to three-
dimensional numeric models. Even in the latter case, the structural and strength
variability can, and must, be incorporated in the final analysis.
12
Again, economics come into play. In the case of mining, if an overall slope fails resulting
in pit closure three years into a five year mine life, the economic results may be
devastating. Yet, if a structural zone that substantially increases the probability of overall
slope failure is only exposed in the last 6 months of the 5 year mine life, and steeper
slopes can be maintained for the preceding 4.5 years by not exposing the critical
structure, it may be that the cost savings are worth the increased risk near the end of mine
life.
In other words, as for the inter-ramp slopes, the simple stability of the rock slopes at a
fixed point in time may not be the driving design factor. Economics must also be
included.
CONCLUSION
One may argue that this is not the way most rock slopes are currently designed. In
fact, for an open pit mine the geotechnical engineer is often asked for the overall stable
slope angle. Bench face and inter-ramp angles are then back calculated from that angle.
While this can be done at times, and approximate overall slope angles may be utilized to
generally locate the pit extents and depth this is the reverse of this author’s approach.
REFERENCES
13