DESIGN OF LINING FOR A MINE

SHAFT AND DECLINE USING

NUMERICAL MODELLING
TECHNIQUES

Prof. Islavath Sreenivasa Rao

Department of Mining Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur
West Bengal – 721302
 CONTENTS
• Introduction

• Objectives & Scope

• Geotechnical Study and Laboratory Testing

• Numerical Modelling and Stability analysis

• Conclusions

• References
 INTRODUCTION
• Out of total reserves in india, 95% of chromite occurs in Orissa, and it has wide
usage in chemical, metallurgical industries

• A company has total lease area over 64.463 hectares in Sukinda tehsil of Jajpur
district, Orissa to extract chromite ore both from opencast and underground mines

• The lease area is bounded between two other mining companies in the east and
west side of the boundary

• There are 3 lodes of ore bodies namely Band-1, Band-2 and Band-6

• Band-6: orebody of size 290m x 20m x 200m ,dipping 10 degrees with vertical
• Country rock: weathered serpentenite, serpentenite, quartzite and pyroxinite

• Sub-level open stoping method with late filling, if required

• Shaft size: 6m (finished dia) , Decline size: 5m x 4m and Drives size: 3.5m x 3m

• Portal of the decline and the shaft located in the foot wall side of the orebody
and floor of the drives are located at 170mRL in the orebody

• Decline is made at 80 inclination with horizontal and it touches the orebody at

170 mRL
 OBJECTIVES
This study has two main objectives:

• Determination of geotechnical and rock parameters of hanging wall, footwall and

ore body of the chromite deposit to use as input to the numerical modelling.

• Design and stability analysis of the mine shaft and decline using using numerical
modelling. The method of stoping is ‘ sub-level open stoping method with late
filling, if required’.
 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
• Rock samples have been tested for UCS, Tensile strength, Elasticity of
modulus , Poison’s ratio, density which are used as input of the
numerical model

• Rock quality designation (RQD) and rock mass rating(RMR) are

estimated for the rock mass properties

• Two 2D-finite element models have been developed to analyze the

stress distribution around the decline, the stope and the shaft area and
also to estimate the plastic zone around these three openings

• Stress and displacement distribution profile has been analyzed

GEOTECHNICAL STUDY & LABORATORY TESTING

• Rock Quality Designation (RQD)

• Recovery Factor

• Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

• Density

• Uni-axial Compressive Strength(UCS)

• Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio

• Tensile Strength
 RQD , RECOVERY FACTOR & DENSITY
• Ratio of length of core less than 10 cm to total length of the bore hole drilled

• Ratio of length of core received to total length of the bore hole drilled

• Ratio of weight of sample to its volume Bore Recovery

Hole RQD Factor
No. (%) (%)
BH-1 61.73 72.23
BH-2 65.02 72.16
BH-3 73.19 81.44
BH-4 39.44 51.96
BH-5 67.96 80.26
BH-6 68.19 78.25

Rock W.Serpentenite Serpentenite Chromite Quartzite Pyroxinite

Type
RQD 56.81 83.65 75.41 78.31 63.66
(%)
Density 2745 2745 3537.9 2350 3000
Kg / m3
 ROCK MASSS RATING(RMR)
It’s basically depends on following factors

• Strength of intact Rock (15/100)

• Rock Quality Designation (RQD) (20/100)
• Spacing of discontinuities (20/100)
• Condition of discontinuities (30/100)
• Ground water condition (15/100)

Rock Mass
Rock Type RMR
Classification
W.Serpentenite 47 Fair
Serpentenite 71 Good
Chromite 75 Good
Pyroxinite 74 Good
Quartzite 76 Good
 UNI - AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGHT

Sample under loading condition Tested samples

L:D=2.5
UCS: Maximum load at which fails per unit area

Rock W.Serpentenite Serpentenite Chromite Quartzite Pyroxinite

Type
UCS 132 152.56 113.18 115 110
(MPa)
 TENSILE STRENGTH

Sample is under loading condition Tested samples

2 Fc
T  L:D = 0.5
DL
Rock W.Serpentenite Serpentenite Chromite Quartzite Pyroxinite
Type
T 4.05 11.82 10.33 3.2 3.5
(MPa)
 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY AND POISSON’S RATIO
Stress strain relationship
200
180
160
140
120

Stress (MPa)
100
80
lateral strain
60
Longitudinal
40
20
0
-0.003 -20
-0.001 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.009
Strain (mm/mm)

Sample under loading Stress Strain curve of chromite sample

Rock W.Serpentenite Serpentenite Chromite Quartzite Pyroxinite

Mass
E 1840.107 4064.16 6816.8 5090.627 1717.7
(MPa)
 0.138 0.138 0.144 0.150 0.2
 NUMERICAL MODELLING TECHNIQUES
• An effective tool for the analysis of mechanical and structural components of machinery

• This method is amenable to systematic computer programming and offers a scope for
application to a wide range of analysis problems

• It’s adopted in almost all branches of engineering where complex structures, fluid dynamics
problems, mine and tunnel structures and similar problems are addressed (Bathe, K.J.,
2007).

• CONCEPT:

- a body or structure can be divided into a finite number of smaller units of finite dimensions
–ELEMENTS

- these elements connected at finite number of joints-NODES

F  K q
Where, {F} = global force vector, i.e. forces in each node,
[K] = global stiffness matrix based on material properties,
{q} = displacement vector containing each node.
 PROCEDDURE FOR NUMERICAL MODELLING
• Design the model

• Assigning the material properties

• Meshing the model

• Applying the boundary conditions

• Solving the model

VIRGIN ROCK

20m
LINE DIAGRAM OF VIRGIN ROCK

20m
SOLID MODEL OF STOPES AND PILLARS

43.86 m

50 m

Stopes (48.5 m)
 2D NUMERICAL MODELING
Two of 2D Numerical Models

1. VERTICAL SECTION comprising of host rock, ore body, drives and

the decline

2. HORIZONTAL SECTION comprising of host rock, orebody and the

shaft

Above 2 numerical model has been made to determine the shaft

lining of the shaft and decline.

The models are analyzed based on the Drucker Prager yield criteria in
plane strain condition.
FINITE ELEMENT MODELS - 2D (VERTICAL SECTION)
Orebody

Quartzite

Pyroxinite
Serpentenite

The insitu model

Stope , Drives and Decline

The excavation model

 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
 cm   0.003mi0.8   ci 1.029  0.025e 0.1m 
GSI
i ( Marinos and Hoek, 2000 )


Ec   0.003mi0.8  Eci 1.029  0.025e 0.1mi 
GSI

Ecm  0.8Ec
Here,
mi = the Hoek-Brown parameter of intact rock ,
 ci = uniaxial compressive strength (Intact rock core),
 cm= uniaxial compressive strength (rock mass),
Eci = elastic modulus (Intact rock core),

Ec = elastic modulus (rock mass), and

Ecm = elastic modulus (reduced by 80%).

 MATERIAL PROPERTIES USED

Rock or Material Modulus of Poisson’s Density Rock Mass Rock Mass Rock Mass
Elasticity E Ratio (kg/m3 ) compressive Cohesion Friction Angle
(MPa) Strength (MPa) (Deg)
(MPa)

Weathered
1840.107 0.138 2745.0 11.525 3.00 35
Serpentenite

Serpentenite 4064.160 0.138 2745.0 3.924 1.25 25

Chromite 6816.800 0.144 3537.9 3.570 1.25 20

Quartzite 5090.627 0.150 2350.0 17.156 4.00 40
Pyroxynite 1717.700 0.200 3000.0 11.939 4.18 20
 MESHING
Finer mesh area where drives and declines are
located

Around 3,715 6-noded triangular elements and around 7,538 nodes

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS APPLIED

σh = 1.5σv

 v  9.4MPa
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Stress concentration around stope,

drives and decline

Stress (Pa)

MAJOR PRINCIPAL STRESS

Stress concentration around stope ,drives and
decline

Stress (pa)

MINOR PRINCIPAL STRESSES

 PLASTIC STRAIN

Plastic strain around the stope, and

decline

Strain
FEM- 2D (HORIZONTAL SECTION)

Insitu model

Shaft

Excavation model
 MESHING
Densed mesh area around the stopes, rib pillars
and shaft

1,355 6-noded triangular elements and around 2,872 nodes

 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
σ =σ
APPLIED
H v

σh = 1.5 σv

Horizontal stress along the strike of the ore body , MPa H  v

Horizontal stress perpendicular to the strike of the ore body  h  1.5 v

, MPa
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Strain around the shaft ,stopes and rib pillars

Strain

INTENSITY OF PLASTIC STRAIN

 STRENGTH OF LINING MATERIAL σθθ τrθ σrr

σYY
τxy σrr τrθ σθθ
σxx σxx
τxy
t
σYY

a r Plastic zone
q

Concrete lining

Schematic diagram of the critical radial pressure estimation

    yy    xx   yy  Where,
Pcr   xx   cos2q   xy sin 2q Pcr = Critical Pressure
 2   2 
σcc = Uniaxial compressive strength of
 cc 
 2  SF  Pcr  (a  t ) 2 concrete or shotcrete,
(a  t )  a
2 2 SF = Factor of safety, considered 1.5
t = Lining thickness, considered 0.3 m
(Brady and Brown, 2007) a = Finished radius of shaft,
considered 3 m
Strain around the shaft ,stopes and rib pillars

Strain
STRENGTH OF LINING MATERIAL VALUE

 XX  YY  XY Pcr  cc
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
-1.64 -7.37 0.13 1.71 29.55
-2.30 -7.98 -1.84 1.81 31.28
-3.33 -2.67 -2.51 0.94 16.19
-4.32 -7.05 -3.47 2.65 45.79
-4.81 -3.74 -3.50 1.71 29.50
-5.63 -2.82 -3.33 0.98 16.92
-1.22 -6.22 2.13 1.16 20.08
-1.46 -8.94 1.42 1.62 27.98
-2.73 -9.05 -0.51 2.79 48.23
-1.13 -7.83 1.58 2.20 38.01
-1.30 -8.27 1.44 2.68 46.33
 ASSUMPTIONS
• All finite element models were analyzed considering plastic
material behaviour.

• Effect of joints and bedding planes are embedded in RMR or GSI

value of rock mass. Effect of joints or bedding planes is not
analyzed explicitly.

• No dynamic loading is applied in the model

 CONCLUSIONS
• LABORATORY TESTING:
UCS of Serpentenite: 152.56MPa , Quartzite: 110 MPa and Orebody:113.18 Mpa

• of Serpentenite: 11.82 MPa , Quartzite: 3.5 MPa and Orebody:10.33 Mpa

T

• PRINCIPAL STRESSES:
Major: 15.7 to 22.2 MPa and Minor: 2.28 to 5.04 MPa

• PLASTIC STRAIN:
It ranges from 0.03204 to 0.128158
SUPPORT MECHANISM

Shaft:
0.3 m lining and reinforced concrete strength 35~40 MPa,
E is 30 GPa

Decline: Fore-poling

Reinforced concrete beam of 1m width and 0.5 m thick and an I-beam of 20

mm made of steel is placed in between two concrete beams.
Ribbed Steel rods of 38 mm dia, 3m in length, spacing of 200 mm and
inclined at 100 with the horizontal. These ribbed steel rods are connected
with the nearest I beam
 REFERENCES
• Deb D, Mukhopadhyay S. K. and Suman R. 2007,“Efficacy of Numerical Analysis on Stability
of Stope applying Three Dimensional Finite Element Method for a chromite ore body”,
Journal of the Mining, Geological & Metallurgical Institute of India, vol. 103, pp.83-93.

• Gioda, G., and Swoboda, G., 1999, “Developments and applications of the Numerical
Analysis of Tunnels in Continuous Media”; International Journal for Numerical and
Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, pp. 1-2.

• Brady B.H.G and E.T. Brown, 2007, “Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining”, Third
Edition, Springer publication, pp. 577.

• Kot F. Unrug, 1984, “Shaft design criteria”, University of Kentucky, Lexigton, Kentucky
40506 0046, USA, International Journal of Mining Engineering, pp 1-12.

• Martin, C.D., and Maybee, W.G., 2000, “The Strength of Hard Rock Pillars”; International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, pp.1239-1246.

• Agustawijaya, D.S., 2006, “The Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Soft Rock”; International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, pp.241-246.

• Isadore Irvin Matunhire, 2007, “Design of Mine Shafts”, Department of Mining

Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, pp 1-11.
THANK YOU