Mine pit slope geotechnical design

CA Wylie1, MSc, MAusIMM

2
CChenery BE (Hons), BSc (Geology), CPEng (Geotech). MAIG
1
Managing Director and 2Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd, 79
Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch. cwylie@golder.co.nz; cchenery@golder.co.nz

Mine pit slopes in the Pacific Rim are a geotechnical challenge because of the complex geology in which they are
developed. Mines are currently being fast-tracked to meet the increase in commodity prices, often resulting in some
reduction in ground studies and short-cutting of design procedures. In addition, the resources boom means that
skilled personnel are in relatively short supply. At a time when mine pits are getting bigger and deeper, and the
engineering is getting more demanding, there is an increased demand on managers to effectively implement the
work.

Experience both in New Zealand and the Philippines, display the complex range of geological environments in which
pits are being excavated. Working in these conditions has shown that successful geotechnical design requires a
strong geotechnical model based on sound geology. An appropriate level of investigation and analyses results in a
certain level of understanding for the mine design. There is a point where additional expenditure (on investigation
and analyses) is not warranted based on the expected minimal impact on decreasing the level of perceived risk on the
project. For most projects in our experience the analytical methods and complexity of geotechnical assessment
changes increases as the level of knowledge grows.

Key Words: Geotechnical, design, management, greenfield, brownfield, feasibility, detailed, monitoring, geology,
analysis

Introduction
This paper is a broad summary of experience within the last 4 years of geotechnical consulting
for mine project evaluation and operations in primarily the Philippines and New Zealand gained
working for Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd (Golder). Our work has encompassed all stages of
project development from concept studies to detailed design and operations. We have worked on
greenfield projects in the Philippines and brownfield projects in southern New Zealand, and
active operations in both countries.

Our experience has shown that the successful projects require good management by the owner,
clearly defined goals and expectations at each level of project development, a sound geotechnical
model, and appropriate analyses using suitable input parameters.

Management and project development

Management

Good management and leadership are the common elements of success on all of these jobs. In the
mining business, this means (amongst other things) understanding, and respecting the importance
of technical work done to an appropriate level of investigation. Because of the current minerals
“boom” the pace of development is very high and more “marginal” projects are being assessed.
As a consequence, there is a greater need for management to understand the technical risk on a
job.

In our experience, in the current international environment, good managers in the mining industry
require:

• an understanding of the “field” in which the work is being done,

• the ability to assimilate information quickly (the electronic age),
• the appropriate experience and technical skill, and
• the ability to communicate effectively.

Project development

There are two basic types of projects, each requiring a different approach:

• “Greenfield” projects include such things as the development of new sites, new minerals,
or new areas with no previous history.
• “Brownfield” projects include projects such as re-opening old workings, developing
historic fields or extending existing operations.

An early study on a “greenfield” project will typically present a broad view of the environment in
which the project is operating, and less on detail. The same level of study for a “brownfield” site
will typically have more detail from site experience. Proof of feasibility for a greenfield site may
also require more work than a brownfield project because of precedence of previous operation.
.
There are 4 basic stages of development which apply to all mine projects:

• Discovery (greenfields) or Concept Plan (brownfields)

• Feasibility
• Detailed Design
• Construction

The rate of passage of a project through these stages generally depends on how profitable or cash
hungry the project is estimated to be. In our experience, the most studied are marginal deposits
where a range of factors are required to align for success.

Marginal projects require more management support and understanding because the consequence
of decisions made can impact the profitability (or loss) of the operation. “Cash cow” projects are
more forgiving and can be more loosely managed because of their profit position.

High profit, low cash projects secure finance more easily than low profit, high cash demand
projects, and develop in a series of controlled steps and studies. The amount of work on these
projects is driven by “the Investors” need to understand the technical risk (“Bankable Feasibility”
studies).
Fast track projects aim to meet stakeholders’ expectations, and attract further investment. These
projects appear to require relatively low start up capital so proceed to development quickly,
generally skipping from Pre-Feasibility to Detailed Design and Construction. Our experience
shows that there are often “gaps” in the studies for such projects which are exposed during
construction and development. For this type of project to succeed, commitment, cash, flexibility,
a culture of learning, transparency and teamwork is required.

For technical evaluation, money should be spent where it is most likely to reduce risk, and result
in gain to the project. “Rate of return” should be the guide for investment in professional studies,
and short term savings should consider the cost of the consequence in the long term. If the risk of
not knowing is greater than the cost of work, then investment should be made. It is important to
stop spending when the rate of return reduces below an acceptable level.

Geotechnical design
At any stage of the project development, as more geological investigation is undertaken for
greenfield and brownfield projects, the geotechnical design of the pit can be expected to change.
This is because the geology of the project is only ever known once it has been excavated, and the
design should always be evaluated against current knowledge. In New Zealand and the other
Pacific Rim countries, more information (drilling or exposure) invariably means more
complexity.

The design of any pit slope is driven by the needs at the time. On the way from discovery to
extraction most pits will be re-designed at least 3 times, and most, more often. This is because
the geology of the deposit becomes better known through sampling, and the geotechnical model
is modified against more information. Changes to models should be made in a controlled
manner, signed off by the appropriate level of seniority and clearly recorded. Reviews and
reconciliations are part of good design, and all models need calibrating.

The certainty in design outputs also change with each stage of project development. The
certainty on most projects increases with rigor and detail in investigations, and as more data and
project knowledge comes to hand. The amount of work and sophistication of the analytical
methods used on a project also increases with time.

Geotechnical Design Stages

The geotechnical assessment of a greenfield or brownfield project site should ideally proceed in
stages from feasibility through detailed design and construction. The amount of effort spent at
each stage should depend on the impact the work is likely to have on the economics, or risk
profile of the project. In our experience, most pit assessment is done at the feasibility stage and
during construction.

Good geotechnical assessment requires a sound geological model and through understanding of
the likely geology of the site. Geotechnical analyses should be undertaken to reflects the
mechanism of failure, the level of available information, and the complexity of the issue. For
those projects that go into construction, monitoring, calibration and feedback should be included
in the design process.

There are 3 levels of geotechnical design of pit slopes:

Feasibility design

Feasibilities studies are to help estimate the cost of excavation, and the risk of the project. A
fundamental understanding of the geotechnical factors likely to effect the design of the project
should be known by the end of this work. The risks and practical mitigation measures should be
identified and designed to an appropriate level. Geotechnical designs should only be considered
as definitive as the state of knowledge at the time, and should always be checked against new
information.

In our experience, most of the geotechnical work (before construction) is done at feasibility level.
Geotechnical conditions often present uncertainty on which the viability of a mining project can
depend, and a geotechnical drilling program is generally always required. This means that
geotechnical assessment requires a relatively high level of expenditure early on.

Detailed design

In most cases detailed design requires the study of specific parts of the project to either make it
work, or to reduce costs. As much engineering is done as required to plan and price the project to
a level of certainty at which the constructor requires.

In our experience significant geotechnical analyses of pit slopes is only done at detailed design, if
the project is marginal, banks have a high stake in the job or construction sequencing and staging
is important. In our opinion, the “hard tweaking” of a mine project is best done as the excavation
develops, or at this stage only if previous monitoring exists as precedence. This is because it is
difficult to adequately sample the rock mass, and because numerical models are limited to the
approximations of rock mass behaviour. All models require calibration against observation of the
actual event which they simulate.

Calibration and validation

Monitoring and observation are fundamental to all geotechnical design because of the need to
confirm the geotechnical model on which the analytical work is based. In mining, precise survey
arrays, extensometers, pressure cells, geophones, accelerometers, tilt-meters and piezometers are
all used to measure ground response. The data is complex in 3D and time, and needs to be well
managed to be meaningful. Data management and accessibility of information are fundamental
to smart mining.

Reviews are integral to quality assurance and need to be regular and formal, with opportunity for
feedback to be effective. Without this loop in the design process, incorrect assumptions made in
the original model can be carried forward leading to incorrect conclusions, or miss-representing
the design issues.
Geology model

“Range” is the privilege of working on the Pacific Rim where the geology is widely varied at
almost any scale at which we work, geographic or project. A fundamental understanding of
geological principles and processes is required to be successful in this region. References to the
importance of geological modeling include (Fookes, 1997; Knill, 2002; Morgenstern, 2000,
Stapleton, 1986).

The geological model is the basis from which to develop the geotechnical model. Sufficient
geotechnical investigation should be done to confidently extend the geological model to describe
the geotechnical conditions of the project. The process starts with drilling, and continues with
mapping and monitoring during mining, through to closure. A well constrained model should
include such things as the soil and weathering profile, rock type, geological history, tectonic
position, rock strength, ground and surface water conditions, geological structure and materials
testing.

The most important thing is to communicate the risk in the ground as early as possible (Knill,
2002). The Geotechnical Baseline Report (Essex, 1997) is a useful guide to developing a set of
documentation and guiding the specification and compilation of these studies.

Geotechnical analyses

All analytical techniques are tools to be applied at any stage of the project. The analytical tools
applied change as knowledge on the project builds, and data becomes available to calibrate
models. In the early stages of assessment, numerical methods are most suited for parametric
studies assuming a range of input parameters. The aim is to understand the sensitivity of the
project, and to identify opportunity for improvement.

Empirical methods are generally used as a first pass for design. Classification of the rock mass
according to various criteria (Barton, 1996, Laubscher, 1990) allow “similar” ground to be
calibrated against recorded case histories (Haines and Terbrugge, 1991). These methods are
considered valid and a sound basis for which to undertake preliminary assessment.

Monitoring data is used to calibrate design models as the project matures and the pit develops.
Outputs of numerical models can then be integrated as part of the planning process to understand
ground performance for safety, extraction planning and pit economics. Lessons learnt, carefully
documented should be used to design the next excavation, and improve the performance of the
mine.

With reference to the RocScience suite of programmes as typical examples in common use, the
main numerical techniques used in pit slope design are:

• Stereographic analyses of structural data (DIPS).

• Kinematic analyses of geological structure in 3D and resolution of driving and resisting

forces. This is commonly understood as “wedge” analyses. Kinematic analyses can be
 undertaken at batter and over-all slope scale. Typical software includes SWEDGE and
UNWEDGE; SLOPE/W can be used to assess larger scale planar (2D) failures.

• Limit equilibrium methods including circular failure analyses. This type of analyses is
undertaken particularly within the weathered zone and possibly in very closely fractured
rock masses. Circular failure analyses have also been used to assess soft rock slopes such
at the NZ Tertiary sequences. SLOPE/W, and SLIDE are common examples.

• Finite element methods (FEM). Finite element analyses of pit slope behaviour can be
done in 2D or 3D and can incorporate geological structure at greater or lesser complexity.
Some common programmes are FLAC, Plaxis, Phases 2D and 3D, UDEC and there are
many more. These models basically comprise an assessment of stress and strain
behaviour due to loading or unloading or imposition of displacements. This is
particularly useful for New Zealand’s soft, weak Tertiary rocks where strain softening is
considered probable. The complexity of finite element modeling can be built on over the
job. Initial parametric studies are easily and quickly performed using 2D models such as
Phases2D and 3D. As the knowledge improves, increasingly sophisticated models such
as UDEC can be applied with meaning.

Finite Element methods can also be used to assess seismic effects on pit walls and dump
slopes.

Groundwater modeling should be coupled with the geotechnical analyses as much as possible
since water is such a primary driver of instability.

Geotechnical parameters

Geotechnical input parameters are derived from laboratory tests, and from direct measurements
of ground and groundwater response. Typical parameters for soil slopes include the shear
strength of the soil and groundwater pressures. Mohr coulomb parameters (c’ and phi’) are
generally derived from laboratory shear box and tri-axial tests, and Atterberg limits are used to
guide the selection of the representative strength of softer materials.

Piezometric levels are an important part of any geotechnical model. Piezometric levels are either
estimated from experience, measured as part of the site investigations, or derived from numerical
modeling of both.

For rock slopes geotechnical input parameters are complex and include description of the surface
characteristics, spacing orientation and continuity of geological structures, and the intact strength
and modulus of deformation of the materials. The rock mass rating systems (Barton, 1996;
Laubscher, 1990) are used extensively to allow empirical estimates based on case history.

Of increasing use, the Geological Strength Index (GSI) (Marinos and Hoek, 2001) is proving a
versatile tool to assess rock mass strength. Used with rock mass strength criteria (Hoek and
Brown, 1997) and the RocScience software Roclab, useful estimates of rock mass parameters can
be derived for design.
The selection of material strength parameters is very important as they are the fundamental the
inputs for most geotechnical analyses. Care needs to be taken from sample collection in the field,
laboratory testing and interpretation of test results. Parametric studies are often used to assess the
sensitivity of a project to material properties. The justification of any material parameters
selected needs to be clear on any project.

Closing thoughts
Geotechnical design is a complex technical process made no less easy under the current
economic conditions where projects abound, and experienced people are scarce. In our
experience management’s ability to adequately support a project is crucial to success. This is
most important especially for the more demanding projects being developed around the world in
the current resource “boom”.

Geotechnical evaluation of mine deposits ideally proceeds in a series of well considered stages
from concept, feasibility, detailed design and construction. This is rarely the case and strong
models based on well researched information and validation through observation is necessary for
successful geotechnical design and construction support. Strong models require the application
of the appropriate analytical tool to an appropriate level of study using meaningful input
parameters.

References
Knill, 2002. “Core Values: The First Hans Cloos Lecture”, 9th Congress Intl Assoc for Eng Geo and the
Environment. South Africa.
Barton NR, 1996. Investigation, Design and Support of Major Road Tunnels in Jointed Rock using NMT Principles.
IX Australian Tunneling Conference, Sydney, Australia.
Essex (ed), 1997. Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Underground Construction. In The Technical Committee on
Geotechnical Reports of the Underground Technology Research Council. American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Fookes , 1997. Geology for Engineers: the Geological Model, Prediction and Performance. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology. 30: 293-424
Haines and Terbrugge, 1991. Preliminary Estimation of rock slope stability using rock mass classification systems.
7th Intl. Congress on Rock Mechanics, ISRM. Aachen, Germany.
Hoek and Brown, 1997. Practical Estimates of Rock Mass Strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Vol 34, No. 8 pp
1165-1186.
Laubscher , 1990. A Geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine design. J. S. Afr. Inst.
Min. Metall., vol. 90, no. 10 pp 257-273.
Marinos and Hoek (2000) GSI: A Geologically Friendly Tool for Rock Mass Strength Estimation. Proceedings
GeoEng 2000 Conference, Melbourne.
Morgenstern (2000) Common Ground. International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering.
Technomic, vol. 1 pp 1-30
Stapleton , 1986. Let’s keep the “Geo” in Geomechanics. Specialty Geomechanics Symposium, Adelaide 18-19
August, 1986.