The Geotechnical Monitoring Program For The Roadheader Project at Cullinan Diamond Mine

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 3RD SOUTHERN
AFRICAN ROCK ENGINEERING SYMPOSIUM

G.J. van Hout, P. De Haan
THE GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE

ROADHEADER PROJECT AT CULLINAN DIAMOND MINE
G.J. van Hout‫٭‬, P. De Haan †

‫٭‬De Beers Consolidated Mines, †TerraMonitoring
Abstract:
Twenty five years after the first roadheader trial at Cullinan Diamond Mine, a new
project was embarked upon to investigate the feasibility of rapid rock cutting
technology in kimberlite mining. Since the initial experiments in the late 1970’s, the
roadheader equipment and know-how of this technology have advanced to an extent that
a team consisting of Voest Alpine personnel and De Beers engineers decided to conduct
a new roadheader experiment.
The main objectives of the project aimed to prove high development rates, as well as
resolving the ventilation and dust problems experienced during previous experiments
and also to attain fully supported tunnels. The latter goal would be one of the biggest
factors in determining the success of the application of roadheader in kimberlite
development. Therefore an extensive geotechnical monitoring program was
implemented to establish the rock mass response in a tunnel cut by the roadheader
versus one developed by conventional drill and blast.
This paper presents a summary account of the geotechnical monitoring program, from
the feasibility period to the implementation stage. It also discusses the challenges faced
whilst installing the diverse variety of instruments, taking readings and finally during
the early interpretation phase. The results and analysis in this paper are limited to the
development phase of the roadheader. A second phase will be entered in the near future
when the drill and blast tunnel is fully developed and monitored from a neighbouring
tunnel but the most important and interesting stage will be when both tunnels are
subjected to the stresses from the undercut of the BB1E AUC panel cave, to be initiated
in June 2005.
The conclusions from the project at the time of writing are that the roadheader over the
entire project life cycle did not achieve the planned advance rate but that mechanically
cut excavations could offer benefits in terms of reduced support volumes due to less
tunnel overbreak and smoother tunnel walls. Most of the installed monitoring devices
provided valuable insight into kimberlite rock behaviour around tunnels and are now
considered to play a vital role in the monitoring of rock mass stability.
1 INTRODUCTION
Cullinan Diamond Mine, formerly known as Premier Mine, recently embarked upon a
new roadheader research project, 25 years after the first roadheader was employed on
this mine, the Paurat E169 (Bartholomew et al. , 1979).
Based on kimberlite rock strength, tunnel size and anticipated machine volumetric
cutting rate, the expected advance rate of the Paurat E169 was first reported as 11.7
m/day but later on adjusted to 4m/day due to practicalities associated with support
installation (McMurry, 1980). During its employment on mine over a period of 724
working days, the roadheader cut a total of 1419m, resulting in an average cutting rate
of almost 2m/day. The main challenges experienced during the initial trial were related
Page 1
to dust suppression, groundhandling, extension of ventilation pipes, support installation,

slabbing of the face while cutting and hard boulder inclusions (Finch, 1979, McMurry,
1980, Gould, 1980 and Geach, 1985). Similar problems were encountered at the other
roadheader trial at Finsch Mine in the late eighties (Wilkinson et al, 1990). Despite the
important geotechnical justifications for a potential roadheader application, no
geotechnical monitoring was performed on either trial.
The new roadheader trial programme on Cullinan Diamond Mine was designed to
address the logistical problems experienced on past trials and focused on profile control,
tunnel support, dust generation and control, ventilation, ore removal and advance rates.
The main purpose of the study was to cut kimberlite safely, with minimal damage to the
surrounding rock and a fully supported development end. More importantly, this is to be
achieved at a faster rate than conventional drill and blast development. Additional
justifications mentioned in the feasibility report (2003) are related to safety
considerations, continuous cutting methods, decrease the people’s exposure to the use of
explosives and harmful product gasses. Secondly, by fitting a roofbolter and a screen
handler on the machine, the roadheader should leave behind a fully supported tunnel.
2 THE VOEST ALPINE AM105 ICUT ROADHEADER MACHINE
From a geotechnical point of view, the major area of concern at the start of the project
was the dimension of the only machine available for the trial. The AM105 ICUTROC
roadheader (see figure 1 below) was not able to cut the standard sized tunnel with post
support dimensions of 4m by 4m. It was only able to cut an excavation 4.7m wide and
5.1m high mainly because of its size and also due to ventilation requirements such as
the stiff 1.2m diameter pipe suspended from the drift hangingwall.
Figure 1: Voest Alpine AM105 ICUT Roadheader in the Assembly Area. Note the
man standing on the cutter head in front of the machine.
Page 2
In addition, the tunnel profile design was not the standard circular profile above the
gradeline (figure 5.a) but one with a flat 1.7m central section at the top curving down to
the sidewalls with rapid rounded corners. The actual tunnels (figure 5.b) were often cut
with a wider horizontal section and sharper corners resulting in high induced
compressive stresses in the corner area, leading to local spalling (see figure 2). This
fracturing in the corner area was observed on numerous occasions during the project.
Figure 2: Spalling in roof corners due to relative sharp corners.
3 LOCATION OF RECENT ROADHEADER TRIAL
The inability to cut a standard sized tunnel of appropriate dimensions in relative weak
kimberlite affected the choice of area where the roadheader was earmarked to be
working. The approved compromise was to employ the roadheader on the 717 level, on
the western side of the BB1E AUC block cave, see figure 3.
A major disadvantage of this area was that there was a very limited geological and
geotechnical knowledge about the kimberlite rock conditions. Due to the uneconomical
grade in this portion of the pipe, a detailed geotechnical and geological investigation
was never warranted. This lack of detailed knowledge resulted in the actual norite-
kimberlite contact on the south side being 20m further north than anticipated and large
hard inclusions were encountered unexpectedly once the machine started cutting in the
kimberlite.
Page 3
BB1E BLOCK CAVE
Roadheader section
BB1E AUC BLOCK CAVE
Figure 3: Trial site for roadheader development on 717m level, west of the
BB1E AUC where undercut tunnels are spaced at 15 m, centre to centre.
4 TUNNEL SUPPORT FOR ROADHEADER TUNNEL
A major advantage of the current roadheader test over the previous trials was the
presence of a roofbolter on the machine. This allows the operator to install full grouted
resin bolts from the roadheader right up to the tunnel face, without having to move the
machine out, see figure 4. After the operators gained experience an average installation
time of 15 bolts per hour was achieved consistently. The mesh handler installed on the
roadheader never worked satisfactorily as will be explained later.
4.1. Recommended Tunnel Support
The support recommended for the roadheader tunnel (Barnett et al, 2003) consisted of
2.8m long, 16mm diameter gewi bars on a 1mx1m pattern from footwall to footwall, not
further than 1.5m from the face. A sealant to be applied over the entire tunnel area
within 4 days, but only after geotechnical tunnel mapping was complete. In good rock
conditions diamond mesh needed to be installed as secondary support, but not more than
15m from the face. Tendon straps on a 1mx1m pattern, both along and across the tunnel,
to be installed no more than 24m from the development end. Strongly fractured or wet
areas to include rings of six 4m anchors every 3m along the tunnel length. According to
the mine standard support rules, based on formulas developed by Dr Laubscher (1976),
the correct (in hole) bolt length for 4.7m by 5.1m tunnels in a rock mass with expected
Page 4
Mining Rock Mass Rating values between 40 and 50, is 2.8m. A bolt length not
exceeding 2.4m was the practical limitation of the roofbolter. The geotechnical
engineers accepted the 2.4m roofbolts as the roadheader tunnel had a very limited life
time and no personnel or machines need to be transported through that tunnel after the
project.
Figure 4: Roofbolter fitted on Roadheader allows installing roofbolts right at face

without having to remove this heavy machine.
4.2. Installed Tunnel Support
Subsequent to the initial support recommendations, the project team decided to increase
the bolt diameter from 16mm to 20mm to improve the mixing of the two component
based resin in 32 mm drilled borehole. The mesh and strap support (figure 5.a) was
replaced by vibro mesh (figure 5.b) and the bolt spacing was decreased to 0.9m to allow
appropriate overlap of the vibro mesh sheets. Thin Sprayed on Liners (TSL) trials were
performed to establish which sealant product was best suited for the local Cullinan
Diamond kimberlite conditions (Saydam, 2004).
Page 5
Figure 5a: traditional mesh and strap Fig 5.b: Vibro mesh sheet support in roadheader
support tunnel in drill/blast tunnel
From a ground support perspective, a major setback to the project was the technical
control problems of the mesh handler fitted on the roadheader. The original support
installation design comprised of an integrated approach to install the vibro mesh sheets
and bolts simultaneously from the roadheader machine by using the mesh handler and
roofbolter. Eventually the mesh needed to be handled and mounted manually from the
top deck, after the roofbolts had been installed. Woven mesh should be combined with
strong cable straps or shotcrete to ensure a good and tight interaction with the rock and
the roofbolts. Poor manual installation of the mesh and bolts (figure 6.a) and lack of
shotcrete to embed the mesh (figure 6.b) resulted in tunnel sections with weakened
support conditions.
Figure 6a: insufficient and irregular spaced roofbolts Fig 6b: dislocating Vibro mesh
(thick circles indicate required bolts, thin indicate actual installed bolts)
Page 6
To derive optimal tunnel support design, geological and geotechnical mapping should
be done concurrent with development, as close to the face as possible. Geotechnically,
the mapping is carried out to derive Rock Mass Ratings (RMR) and devise support to
suit local conditions. Such mapping in tunnels poses a serious challenge as it interferes
with development activities and in the case of mechanically excavated tunnels, the
cutting of curved surfaces (see figure 4) in addition to the smooth surface grooves and
marks created by the picks make it more difficult to identify and quantify features that
affect the calculation of RMR values.
5 THE GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
The Roadheader Feasibility Study report (2003) highlighted the importance of

geotechnical information. To study the rock mass behaviour around a roadheader tunnel
and a drill and blast tunnel, a collaboration project between De Beers, Voest Alpine
Bergbautecnik and University of Leoben in Austria was set up. The program aimed to
perform a comparative stability analysis between a drill and blast tunnel versus a
mechanically cut tunnel in almost identical geotechnical conditions as the tunnels are
separated by a 10m wide pillar only. It will run over more than three years, and drastic
changing stress regime will prevail when the neighbouring BB1E AUC panel cave
initiates an undercut face at the north, retreating southwards at a rate of about 8m per
month. Due to the extensive size of the project, a dedicated geotechnical officer was
appointed to the project. The specialised geotechnical monitoring equipment was
supplied and installed by a senior geotechnical contractor with 20 years of experience in
instrumentation and monitoring.
5.1. Location And Installation Timing Of Monitoring Devices
The project plan attempted to optimise the capability of comparing the stability of a drill
and blast tunnel with a mechanically cut tunnel. The team had full access to T68N, a
tunnel developed by drilling and blasting, see figure 7. This tunnel was equipped early
with most monitoring devices operational by the time that the roadheader came
alongside this tunnel, at a horizontal distance of 15m, centre to centre. The roadheader
started cutting T66 in the South, moving towards the North. So, the instrumentation in
T68N would provide information of the rock mass response to the approaching
roadheader development.
As the southern section of roadheader tunnel T66S becomes available at an early stage
in the roadheader project, it was presumed that geotechnical monitoring instruments in
T66S could be installed immediately after cutting. This would allow for monitoring of
early rock mass response to the roadheader advancing away from the instrumented
location but these instruments would also provide information of the rock mass response
to the drill and blast activities in T68S, virtually undeveloped during the time of the
roadheader project.
The spacing between the stations along a tunnel was set at 24m as this complied with
the planned mining cycle of the roadheader: After 24m of cutting and installing primary
support the machine was supposed to tram to another face so that permanent support
could be installed along that section. Some monitoring stations had to be moved due to
the intersection of water and the presence of hard quartzite inclusions in the kimberlite.
Page 7
T66N
T68N
Hard dyke blasted T68N_00, CSIRO HI cells

( 1) T68N_01, tape extensometers (Fig. 12)
Excavated by roadheader
Drill and blast tunnel developed before roadheader
T68N_02, tape extensometers and CSIRO HI cells (Fig. 21)

Hard dyke blasted
(,)
T66N_04, SMART cables T68N_04, tape extensometers (Fig. 13)
T68N_05, MPBX (Fig. 20) and T68N_06, SMART cables
0
T66N_07, tape extensometer (Fig. 14)
T68N_08, SMART cables
T68N_09, tape extensometers (Fig 15)
30 MAIN
T66S_06, tape extensometers
Drill and blast tunnel developed before roadheader
T66S_04, MPBX and T66_05, SMART cables (Fig. 17)

T66S_03, tape extensometers
T66S_01, CSIRO HI cells

and tape extensometers Drill and blast development after roadheader
Roadheader started here, moving North
T64S
T66S
T68S
Figure 7: Actual location of the stations with the different monitoring devices.
Tunnels are spaced at 15 centre to centre. Some annotations will be referred to later.
Page 8
5.2. The Geotechnical Monitoring Devices
As can be seen in figure 7, a number of monitoring stations were installed in the tunnels.
A major challenge was to keep the instruments intact and operational in the harsh
mining environment. Fortunately, at the early stages of the project there was very little
traffic of personnel and machinery in tunnel T68N and most of the instruments were
still intact at the date of writing. This is not only due to the low traffic volumes but can
also be attributed to the communication sessions held at the beginning of every shift
where mine personnel is made aware of the importance of these instruments towards
their safety.
Serious obstacles encountered during the installation of the monitoring devices were
related to the borehole drilling:
• Due to its high clay content, kimberlite deteriorates when in contact with water. So,
dry drilling is an absolute requirement, even foam drilling is not allowed. Dry
drilling generates high volumes of dust, difficult to prevent from entering into the
tunnel and thus polluting the air.
• Some of the monitoring equipment requires accurate drilled boreholes with smooth
sidewalls. This can only be achieved by rotary drilling, necessitating the
employment of expensive drilling contractors.
• The presence of extremely hard and strong quartzite inclusions resulted in loss of
diamond drill bits and necessitated drilling new holes at different locations.
• A significant number of percussion and diamond drilled holes were not ready in
time and did not have the correct length or direction as specified, due to various
practical and managerial reasons. It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss
these but the authors are confident that if a dedicated drill rig was available to the
project, 90% of these operational problems would not have occurred.
The following sections will discuss the instruments installed at the various stations in
tunnels T66, the roadheader tunnel, and T68, the drill and blast tunnel.
5.2.1. Images
The importance and the power of photographic images are often underestimated.
Towards the end of the project, a comprehensive presentation of annotated pictures
compiled of the pictures taken by various people during the roadheader cutting trial.
This document serves as a means to assist in the assessment of changing rock mass
conditions, especially once large stress changes prevail. Figures 8 to 10 are a few
examples from the more that 300 pictures taken over the duration of the project.
Page 9
Figure 8: Stress fracture slabs in sidewall dislodge when no areal support is installed.
Figure 9: Structurally controlled failure at face.
Figure 10: A large roof fall out when roadheader advanced 5m without support.
Page 10
5.2.2. Tape extensometer measuring tunnel closure
One of the most robust, relatively cheap and proven monitoring devices is the classic
portable tape extensometer where special designed hook anchors are grouted in the
country rock at fixed distances from the perimeter as shown in figure 11. There are six
monitoring stations for the tape extensometers and seven closure readings,
measurements of displacement between a pair of reference eyebolts as indicated by the
dotted lines in figure 11. Strain values are derived by dividing the change in length by
the original length of the line measured. Displaying these strains over time indicate the
tunnel wall closure between those reference points at the different stages of
measurement.
Figure 11: position of the 6 anchors on tunnel wall, 7 closure readings are taken
along the dotted line and associated strain values are derived.
The bottom station was protected by using a metal cap covering the nut anchor but
tightly embedded in cement grout. Sometimes the ventilation pipes and other equipment
prevented all closure readings to take place. Absolute tunnel positioning or exact station
displacements require at least one of the stations to be surveyed. The monitoring for this
project was limited to closure readings from which relative tunnel deformation can be
derived.
The tape extensometer stations in tunnel T68N (figure 7) were installed and monitored
before the roadheader started cutting T66N. Figure 12 displays the results from station
T68N_01, the most northern monitoring station in the kimberlite. From the graphs it is
clear that development in T66N did affect this tunnel with a sudden change when a hard
dyke inclusion was blasted (see 1 on figure 7), bringing the development face in T66N
almost in line the monitoring station. This change more than likely can be attributed to
the footwall unit as only the measurements from this unit (graphs B, C and E) show the
significant drop.
Furthermore, the footwall heave displayed in graphs B and C appears to continue over a
long period and as no support is installed in the footwall, it could result in ongoing
deformation until some reinforcement is applied. But the other closure measurements
(D, E and F) also indicate an ongoing trend of closure, however at a slower rate than the
footwall lift.
Page 11
a) d)
b) e)
c) f)
Figure 12: Tunnel strains at station T68N_01, the y-axis on all graphs represents a
displacement of 2 millistrain as indicated by the arrow on the top left graph. Note the
vertical line representing the date when a hard dyke in T66N almost next to the
station could not be cut by the roadheader and required blasting.
Closure readings of the station T68N_02, approximately 24m south of T68N_01 station,
reveal no clear indications of rock mass movements. As discussed later, records form
the CSIRO HI cells however indicate significant stress changes 5m into the rock.
The next tape extensometer station in the drill and blast developed tunnel is T68N_04,
results from this station are shown in figure 13. The first vertical line on the graph
represents the date that the roadheader passed this station, no significant closure was
observed. The large displacement at the footwall unit, about 50 mm was recorded the
same day after a blast was set off in 30 Main (about 55m away, see 0 in figure 7) to
break a hard quartzite inclusion that could not be cut by the roadheader. As discussed
later (figure 20), this event has also been recorded by another instrument installed in
station T68N_05, about 12m south of T68N_04. From graphs B, C and E it can be
concluded that only the footwall moved upwards. The other closure measurements (A,
D and F) show virtually no change, confirming readings from SMART instruments
installed at the same station. The SMART cables, discussed later, indicate no movement
in the footwall and hangingwall on the West side and only minor movement, less than
2mm, has been recorded in the sidewall.
The rock surrounding the next station T68N_07 has often shown wet marks and hard
quartzite inclusions were encountered during drilling in the pillar between T68 and T66.
Page 12
a) d)
b) e)
c) f)
Figure 13: Closure readings of station T68N_04. The y-axis on all graphs represents
15 millistrain.
a) d)
b) e)
c) f)
2 millistrain.
Page 13
The monitoring of the closure recordings in figure 14 do not indicate a clear influence
of the roadheader passing by but time dependant failure is clearly occurring, possibly
due to the wet and thus deteriorating kimberlite surrounding the station. The most
pronounced change is along the horizontal line between the bottom two units (graph F),
indicating a closure of about 6mm. To determine which side of the tunnel moves, graphs
A and D in figure 14 must be considered. Graph D corresponds to the East side and
shows little displacement but graph A, associated with the West unit, displays a
significant amount of closure. From this analysis, it may be concluded that the closure
recorded on graph E is more than likely the result of the bottom West unit moving
inwards, not the East side. This conclusion somehow confirm the readings of the
SMART cable anchors at station 8 where the units on the East side showed no rock
movement while the footwall and horizontal anchor in the West sidewall showed
displacement of the tunnel wall.
The last station in T68N, closest to the central tunnel 30 MAIN T68N_09 also did not
prevail a measurable rock reaction at the time the roadheader passed the station. When
the roadheader started cutting in 30 MAIN towards the west, 20m away from the station
(see in figure 7), the entire rock mass around T68N responded suddenly and it
initiated an ongoing movement that has reduced in rate as can be seen in figure 15.
Measurements along all lines indicate significant ongoing movement, more than likely
associated with pillar failure around the intersections of the undercut tunnels with 30
MAIN, see figure 7. Visual observations confirm that the support installed between
station T68N_09 and 30 Main is taking load.
a) d)
b) e)
c) f)
6 millistrain.
Page 14
Three tape extensometer stations in tunnel T66S were installed, see figure 7, long after
the roadheader cut the tunnel. Virtually no closure occurred in station T66S_01 while
large and ongoing closures are recorded in station T66S_03 (20mm or 4 millistrain over
4 months) and T66S_06 (35 mm or 5 millistrain over 4 months). The large closures in
T66S_03 are confirmed by the readings from the SMART cables, see figure 17 and will
be explained in next section.
The significant movements in T66S_06 more than likely can be attributed to its close
vicinity to tunnel 30 Main and the large span created at the intersection of T66 and 30
Main. No other instrumentation was installed in the proximity of T66S_06.
5.2.3. SMART Cables
The SMART (Stretch Measurement to Assess Reinforcement Tension) cable bolts

measure six anchor points, at customer specified locations, when the cable is subjected
to tensile load due to rock dilation. By means of six potentiometers connected to the
anchors in the readout head, displacements of these anchors can be measured. From this
relative displacements between the anchors and strain values of the associated cable
section can be calculated. From laboratory tests, a load-deformation relationship has
been derived that is then used to calculate the tensile load in that section of the support
unit between the two anchor points. These instruments have never been used before in
South Africa but various successful applications overseas have been published (Hyett et
al, 1997; Ruest et al, 1998; de Graaf et al, 1999, Gauthier et al, 2000; Bawden et all,
2000).
The readout head with the potentiometers easily fits into a 54mm (NX) hole as the
diameter of the head is only 33mm. The SMART cables were easily installed, fully
grouted in 76mm diameter drillholes, see figure 16. The head was grouted in the
borehole in a head-up configuration (positioned at the toe), offering protection from
mechanical damage from passing machinery or blasting induced.
Figure 16: Layout of a typical ring of 6m long SMART cables installed with the
measurement head at the toe of the borehole, dotted lines indicate anchor positions.
Page 15
Two stations of SMART cables installed in T68N have shown very stable readings,
indicating only small movements in the W sidewalls. The horizontal and bottom units at
the west side of both stations T68N_06 and T68_08 picked up some movement on the
tunnel sidewall when the roadheader passed but this was less than 2mm.
The only SMART cable station in T66S did not record any significant movements on
the eastern side. However, all three cables on the west side have shown considerable
movements and large induced forces on the cable anchor. Figure 17 shows the recorded
relative displacements of the extensometers in the cable anchor. As mentioned in the
previous section, the tape extensometer data at station T66S_03 validate the observed
movements in the SMART cables at station T66S_05, less than 10m away.
35
tunnel wall
F5 F6 F13
30
1m into rock
25
MOVEMENT (mm)
20
2m into rock
15
3m into rock
10
4m into rock
5m into rock
0
22/Nov/04 22/Dec/04 21/Jan/05 20/Feb/05 22/Mar/05 21/Apr/05 21/May/05
Figure 17: Anchor displacements in horizontal SMART cable at West of T66S_05.

The vertical lines indicate when blasting took place in T68S (see figure18).
Similar but less pronounced movements were recorded in the SMART cables in the roof
and footwall on the west side of station T66S_05. Movements were recorded from date
of installation, the movement rate increased when drill and blast operations in the
neighbouring tunnel T68S approached the station within 20-35m, annotated as F13 in
figure 18. The ground conditions in which these three cable anchors are installed are not
good (see * on figure 18) and the bullnose pillar less than 10m south of these units is
not well supported, see figure 18. The large span created by the break-away and T66S,
see dotted circle in figure 18, is inadequately supported by long cable anchors.
Dog earring in open boreholes on the west side of T66S, close to station T66S_03,
preceded the total collapse of the holes, indicating that the stress in the pillar exceeded
the strength of the local kimberlite. The orientation of the spalling indicated large
subvertical stresses, dipping towards the North. Holes on the opposite side of tunnel
T66S did not show any failure.
Loading in some sections of the fully grouted SMART cable anchor has already
exceeded the 24 tons yield load of the cable anchor.
Page 16
SMART cable, see figure 17
Face since 03/2003
T66S_05
T66S_03
F13
Direction of picture taken,
shown in figure 19
Estimated extent of a
zone of weak rock (*)
pillar supported lightly F6

F5
Large span created by break-away
F1
T64S T66S T68S
Figure 18: Close view of area where high rock mass movements have been recorded
by tape extensometers (T66S_03) and SMART cables (T66S_05) installed on the west
side of T66S.The face positions of drill and blast tunnel T68S during roadheader
project are indicated (F1-F13).
Page 17
Figure 19: condition of pillar east of the roadheader tunnel T64S, on the opposite
side of the pillar the recordings from the tape extensometer station and SMART
cables in T66S indicate large deformations. The roofbolts highlighted on the picture
are fully loaded, the plate on the left one is bend and the nut on the right one has
pulled through the plate.
5.2.4. Multiple Point Borehole Extensometer (MPBX)
The SMART cable unit records how a support unit, the cable anchor, reacts to a change
in rock conditions while the Multiple Point Borehole Extensometer (MPBX) records the
ground movements directly. The flexible six point borehole extensometer also comes
with an integrated electronic potentiometric readout head that is 33mm in diameter. The
units are very light, manufactured using fibreglass tubing and the aluminium anchor
points were positioned at 1m intervals. Only two MPBX units were ordered and
installed in sub horizontal holes in T68N and T66S, see figure 7. The unit in T68N was
installed long before the roadheader passed by. The accuracy, recording mode and
storage of data is the same as for the SMART cables as both instruments are made out
of same components and manufactured by the Canadian manufacturer, Mine Design
Technologies (MDT).
Calculated movements from the unit installed in T68N_05 are shown in figure 20. It
must be noted that the movements are relative to the measurement head, installed at the
collar of the hole. The largest change in movements seemed to have been induced by the
blast in 30 MAIN that was also noted in the tape extensometer station T68N_04, see
figure 13.
Page 18
MOVEMENTS RELATIVE TO MEASUREMENT HEAD AT COLLAR

5m from collar
3m from collar
5 2m from collar
1m from collar
MOVEMENT [mm]
4m from collar
7.5m from collar
blast in T66N, see (,) on fig 7

R/H passes station
blast in 30 MAIN, see (0) on fig 7
R/H starts cutting T66N
0
27/06/04 16/08/04 05/10/04 24/11/04 13/01/05 04/03/05 23/04/05
Figure 20: Anchor displacements in horizontal MPBX at T68N_05 West. The dotted
vertical lines indicate when blasting took place in the neighbouring tunnel T68S.
The horizontal MPBX installed in T66S_04 (see figure 7) on the east side did not show
any significant movement, confirming the readings from the SMART cables on the east
side of station T66S_05, coinciding with the MPBX station.
5.2.5. Other Monitoring Activities
Seismic Diagraphy work, a newly tested technology, was carried out by the University
of Leoben but the time of writing this paper, no final report was received yet.
Installation and recordings of magnetic anchors by means of a sonic probe extensometer
were done but problems with the readout unit or the probe resulted in unreliable results.
An ongoing investigation to resolve this has been initiated.
Some CSIRO Hollow Inclusion stress cells have been installed and regular recordings
were taken, strain and stress values have been derived to monitor stress changes in time.
Further analysis is being performed to establish the effects of the glue properties,
weathering and possible creep behaviour.
Lab tests performed during the roadheader trial were those of quartzite inclusions,
collected and sent to the lab by Voest Alpine personnel. The tests performed as per
Voest–Alpine standard procedures indicate UCS values exceeding 400 MPa for the
quartzite inclusions encountered during cutting tunnel T66.
6 CONCLUSIONS
From a geotechnical standpoint, the objectives of the roadheader trial were to evaluate
the rock mass stability around a drill and blast tunnel versus a roadheader tunnel.
Results of the monitoring during the roadheader life time have been presented in this
paper. A second phase will entered in the near future when the drill and blast tunnel is
fully developed and monitored from T66S but the most important and interesting stage
Page 19
will be when both tunnels are subjected to the stresses from the undercut of the BB1E
AUC panel cave, to be initiated in June 2005.
The conclusions from the project so far are that the roadheader over the entire project
life cycle has not achieved the planned advance rate, that mechanically cut excavations
could offer benefits in terms of reduced support volumes due to less tunnel overbreak
and smoother tunnel walls. Most of the installed monitoring devices provided valuable
insight in the kimberlite rock behaviour around tunnels and are now considered to play a
vital role in the monitoring of rock mass stability.
The quality of tunnel development in many cases has been poor, in terms of overbreak
(beyond designed cut), back-break (slabbing) and support quality was not satisfactory.
The stress effects in a mechanically cut tunnel are accentuated as those occur at the
immediate tunnel wall and require immediate attention to prevent small scale
unravelling and falls of ground. Mechanical cutting techniques in underground
production environment need to undergo major technological improvements in order to
become a viable alternative to drill and blast operations. As in the previous trial, it
prevailed again that the strength of inclusions in kimberlite is not within the cutting
capability of the roadheader.
Notwithstanding the meticulous planning and preparation upfront, many unanticipated
challenges were experienced during the implementation of the monitoring program. At
the start of the project, a great deal of effort was spent on details concerning the exact
location and timing of the installation of the geotechnical monitoring devices,
anticipating the roadheader machine would achieve its schedule strictly. As mentioned
before, this presumption was wrong, but also, other unforeseen difficulties and further
challenges prevailed during this project. Underground geotechnical monitoring creates
more drawbacks than expected when compiling the feasibility study report in the office.
Serious obstacles experienced during this roadheader trial, related to the geotechnical
monitoring varied widely. Drilling difficulties due to dust generation, hard inclusions
and lack in air pressure were experienced. Logistical obstructions were created when
attempting to install the monitoring devices as part of the roadheader development
cycle. Installing the monitoring devices in general went well but subsequent reading and
interpretation for some instruments did not go as smoothly as expected. The magnesonic
probe extensometer in particular suffered from repeatability problems for reasons still
not clear.
Future monitoring projects must be designed in such a way to reduce the risk and
impact of the above mentioned issues. Management and personnel must be aware that
underground monitoring is difficult. Often the program is not able to achieve the goals
set upfront due to problems caused by the harsh underground conditions and
unpredictable challenges.
The major benefit of the current roadheader trial is the relatively successful application
of traditional geotechnical monitoring devices such as pictures, digital tape
extensometer and CSIRO HI cells combined with the more recent available instruments
such as the SMART instrumentation. A secondary benefit of the trial is the acceptance
and buy-in from underground personnel of the monitoring program and management
has clearly realised the huge benefits of rock mass monitoring.
Future work includes the continuation of monitoring the installed devices but also the
calibration of numerical geotechnical models used to assess the stability of the rock
mass during the different stages of cave mining.
Page 20
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to all their colleagues who were instrumental during the
development and implementation of the geotechnical monitoring program, in particular
Mr. O Tsetsewa and Dr. R Nothnagel without whom the project would not have been
possible. The authors wish to thank Dr AR Guest for his input during the entire project
and for his assistance with writing this paper. The authors acknowledge the permission
of the Director Operations and Group Consultant-Geotechnical to publish this paper.
8 REFERENCES
Bartholomew, W.G. and McMurry, S 1979. Investigations into Heading Machines, De Beers
Consolidated Mines- Premier Mine Division. Internal Report.
Barnett W., van Hout G.J, 2003. Geotechnical Tunnel Support Recommendations for the Roadheader
Project. Internal Report
Bawden, W.F., Lausch, P. and Dennison, S. 2000. Lessons in control of mine costs from instrumented
cable bolt support case studies. In Proceedings, North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, Seatlle.
de Graaf, P.J.H., Hyett, A.J., Lausch, P., Bawden, W.F., and Yao, M. 1999. Trout lake and Callinan
mines: case studies of cable bolt support design improvements through multifaceted design, including
‘smart’ design technology as an aid to ground support design performance evaluation. In Proceedings
of 14th Mine Operators Conference of the Canadian Instituteof Mining, Bathurst, New Brunswick,
February.
Finch, A., 1979. Problems and delays encountered in the operation of the Paurat tunnelling machine. U.K.
Student Vacation Report
Gauthier, P. 2000. Optimisation des cables d’ancrage a la mine Bousquet. In Proceedings, 15th Colloque
Controle de Terrain, Val d’Or, Quebec.
Geach, H.H., 1985. Observations on the Paurat Tunneling Machine with Emphasis on the Cutting Bits.
Vacation Report.
Gould, S.M., 1980. Report on the Paurat. Internal Report.
Hyett, A.J., Bawden, W.F. Lausch , P., Moosavi, M., Ruest, M. and Pahkala, M., 1997. The S.M.A.R.T.
Cable bolt: An instrument for the determination of tension in 7-wire strand cable bolts. Proc. Int.
Symp. On Rock Support, Lillehammer, Norway
McMurry, S., 1980. Tunnel Driving and Support Systems using a Paurat Road Header at Premier Mine.
Internal document.
Mining Research Department, 2003. Roadheader Feasibility Study. Internal document
Ruest, M., Hyett, A.J., Bawden, W.F., Lausch, P. and Hennings, J. 1998. Instrumented SMART cable bolt
mine by field test at the Barrick Gold Bousquet II Division. In Proceedings 1998 North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium-NARMS Cancun 98, Mexico.
Saydam, S., 2004. The selection and utilisation of thin spray-on liner for roadheader tunnels, Internal De
Beers Technical Support Services Report 2004-03-29.
Page 21

The Geotechnical Monitoring Program For The Roadheader Project at Cullinan Diamond Mine

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

The Geotechnical Monitoring Program For The Roadheader Project at Cullinan Diamond Mine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 3RD SOUTHERN

AFRICAN ROCK ENGINEERING SYMPOSIUM

THE GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE

G.J. van Hout‫٭‬, P. De Haan †

to dust suppression, groundhandling, extension of ventilation pipes, support installation,

2 THE VOEST ALPINE AM105 ICUT ROADHEADER MACHINE

Figure 2: Spalling in roof corners due to relative sharp corners.

3 LOCATION OF RECENT ROADHEADER TRIAL

BB1E BLOCK CAVE

4 TUNNEL SUPPORT FOR ROADHEADER TUNNEL

4.1. Recommended Tunnel Support

Figure 4: Roofbolter fitted on Roadheader allows installing roofbolts right at face

4.2. Installed Tunnel Support

5 THE GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING PROGRAM

The Roadheader Feasibility Study report (2003) highlighted the importance of

5.1. Location And Installation Timing Of Monitoring Devices

Hard dyke blasted T68N_00, CSIRO HI cells

T68N_02, tape extensometers and CSIRO HI cells (Fig. 21)

T66N_04, SMART cables T68N_04, tape extensometers (Fig. 13)

T68N_05, MPBX (Fig. 20) and T68N_06, SMART cables

T68N_09, tape extensometers (Fig 15)

T66S_04, MPBX and T66_05, SMART cables (Fig. 17)

T66S_01, CSIRO HI cells

Roadheader started here, moving North

5.2. The Geotechnical Monitoring Devices

Figure 9: Structurally controlled failure at face.

5.2.2. Tape extensometer measuring tunnel closure

5.2.3. SMART Cables

The SMART (Stretch Measurement to Assess Reinforcement Tension) cable bolts

Figure 17: Anchor displacements in horizontal SMART cable at West of T66S_05.

SMART cable, see figure 17

Face since 03/2003

pillar supported lightly F6

Large span created by break-away

T64S T66S T68S

5.2.4. Multiple Point Borehole Extensometer (MPBX)

MOVEMENTS RELATIVE TO MEASUREMENT HEAD AT COLLAR

7.5m from collar

blast in T66N, see (,) on fig 7

5.2.5. Other Monitoring Activities

You might also like