International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599

Pillar design by combining finite element methods,

neural networks and reliability: a case study of the
Feng Huangshan copper mine, China
J. Denga, Z.Q. Yueb,*, L.G. Thamb, H.H. Zhuc
a
Department of Mining and Geotechnical Engineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong
c
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
Accepted 28 February 2003

Abstract

This paper presents a mine pillar design approach by combining finite element methods (FEMs), neural networks (NN) and
reliability analysis. This practical approach is presented by examining an actual cylindrical mine pillar in a copper mine and taking
into account uncertainties in ore pillar material parameters including modulus, Poisson’s ratio, density and uniaxial compressive
strength. The ore pillar had to be able to safely and effectively support a drilling room that occupied an open space of 3.8 m high and
55 m long and 20 m wide and at a depth of 360 m below ground surface. Three-dimensional FEM was used to simulate the mining
operations and to estimate average pillar compressive stress at each operation step. A pillar performance function was established in
implicit form taking into account pillar strength and pillar dimension. NN was incorporated in the FEM to substantially reduce the
number of finite element calculations in establishment of the relationship between pillar compressive stress and basic random
variables. Trained NN was then used to generate a database for the implicit performance function. The database was used to
determine the reliability index and failure probability for each trial pillar diameter. Relationship between pillar reliability index and
each of the coefficients of variation of the basic random variables was used for optimal design of pillar diameter. The optimal pillar
design was used in the mining construction and functioned well.
r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Underground mine; Mine pillar design; Finite element method; Reliability; Neural networks; Case studies

1. Introduction
Pillars are key structural columns that are commonly
encountered in underground mining. They are usually
made of in situ intact ores and do not have additional
reinforcements. Their main function is to provide
temporary or permanent support to ore ceiling of
drilling rooms during excavation and mining. Because
of their importance in safe and economical extraction of
underground ores, mine pillars and their design have
been investigated by a number of researchers and
engineers over the past few decades [1–5].
One of the fundamental tasks in the analysis and
design of mine pillars is to determine an adequate pillar
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +852-2859-1967; fax: +852-2559-
5337.
E-mail address: yueqzq@hkucc.hku.hk (Z.Q. Yue).
size for a given mining site where geological setting, ore
materials and mining method have been explored. A
number of conventional methods such as ultimate
strength and progressive failure methods have been
developed and used in the analysis and design of mine
pillars. Such conventional methods are based on
deterministic approach and adopt a factor of safety as
an indicator to show the safety extent associated with a
pillar. The factor of safety Fs is defined as the ratio of
pillar ore compressive strength over actual external
vertical stress acting on pillar. It can be expressed as
follows:
R
Fs ¼ ; ð1Þ
S
where R is the pillar compressive strength, and S the
average external stress vertically acting on a pillar

1365-1609/03/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1365-1609(03)00042-X
586 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599
horizontal cross-section. A pillar is considerable to be
stable as Fs > 1:
Such conventional deterministic-approach-based
methods are simple and widely used in both metal and
non-metal mines. Sometimes, these methods, however,
are questionable because failures in pillars did occur
even though the failed pillars had been considered
stable, i.e., Fs > 1 [6]. Such failure cases show that
improvements are needed in mine pillar design.
Furthermore, it has been well recognized that determi-
nistic-approach-based methods have some intrinsic
limitation in handling uncertainties in material proper-
ties, non-regular geometries, and different mining
operations [7,8]. In this study, we will present a practical
design method by combining finite element analysis,
neural networks (NN) and reliability analysis for mine
pillars. The method will take into account mining
operations and uncertainties in ore properties.
Reliability analysis, as a logical extension of determi-
nistic-approach-based analyses, has found many appli-
cations in structural and civil engineering in the past few
decades [7,8]. It can explicitly take into account
uncertainties of material parameters and geological
models in analysis and design. Its results can be
expressed quantitatively using statistical parameters
such as probability of failure or reliability index of
safety extent. Because of these features, reliability
analysis has been applied to mining engineering and,
in particular, pillar design in recent years. For example,
Pine [9] presented a reliability analysis for pillar design,
where normal probabilistic distributions were assumed
for random variables and safety margin. Quek and
Leung [10] presented a reliability-based stability analysis
of rock excavations. Liu et al. [11] presented a reliability
design method for pillars, where an analytical solution
was used for estimating pillar compressive stress.
In reliability analysis, it is necessary to establish a
performance function for pillar stability and safety.
Similar to the conventional factor of safety (1), this
performance function gðX Þ may be defined as follows:
gðX Þ ¼ R  S;
where X indicates constants and random variables
associated with a pillar and its surrounding conditions.
Pillar performance is considered in a failure state if
gðX Þo0:
For a given underground mining, the average pillar
compressive stress S is usually estimated using some
classical methods [2]. Such classical methods were
developed using very simplified geomechanical models
for pillar and its loading system. The average pillar
compressive stress S can then be expressed in the forms
of analytical formulae associated with some basic
parameters. It is evident, however, that such simplified
geomechanical models cannot correctly represent the
loading history experienced by a pillar because of
different mining operations and complex excavation
geometries. As a result, the pillar compressive stress
could be determined incorrectly using the classical
analytical formulae. This inaccurate estimation in pillar
compressive stress would lead to wrong assessment of
pillar performance.
To correctly estimate pillar compressive stress, it
becomes necessary to take into account excavation
process and geometries in geomechanical models. It may
not be amenable to obtain analytical or closed-form
solutions for pillar compressive stress when such
complex geomechanical models are used. Therefore,
numerical methods, such as three-dimensional (3D)
finite element methods (FEM), have to be used to
calculate the pillar compressive stress from the geome-
chanical models. Such numerical methods cannot give
the pillar stress as an explicit and analytical formula.
Pillar performance function (2) has to be an implicit
function in terms of some probabilistic variables, given
geomechanical models and selected numerical methods.
For each value of the performance function, a complete
numerical computation (e.g., a 3D FEM simulation) has
to be executed on the geomechanical model when there
is any variation in material properties and geometrical
dimensions. Furthermore, differentiations of the perfor-
mance function with respect to the probabilistic vari-
ables cannot be readily available and have to be
calculated numerically on the basis of substantial
computational time and efforts.
A few attempts have been made to cope with the
difficulties in reliability analysis that the performance
functions are not expressed in explicit and analytical
formulae. Der Kiureghian and Ke [12] suggested a first-
order second moment (FOSM) method in conjunction
with probabilistic finite element analysis. This method is
especially applicable to cases where the performance
function in the space of independent standard normal
variables is not highly nonlinear after Rosenblatt
transformation. For highly nonlinear structural limit
states, the FOSM method together with FEM simula-
tion may not be sufficiently accurate and effective.
ð2Þ
Faravelli [13] proposed a response surface method to
accommodate the reliability analysis of large and
complex structural systems and to reduce high compu-
tational costs. A polynomial function between the
response variable and the design variables was used to
approximate the unknown implicit limit state (perfor-
mance) function. As discussed by Guan and Melchers
[14], there is no guarantee that a fitted surface is in fact a
sufficiently close fit in all the regions of interests. Pine [9]
proposed to use a generalized point estimate method to
deal with implicit performance function problem.
Furthermore, Monte Carlo simulation (MCS), as a
widely used method in reliability analysis, could be used
in such situations discussed above [15]. The conven-
tional MCS was found to be very time-consuming when
 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599
pillar compressive stress had to be calculated using 3D
FEM. Some variance reduction techniques have to be
proposed for reduction of the required number of MCS
cycles.
In this paper, based on MCS principles, we present an
NN technique to establish a database for the relations
between pillar probabilistic material parameters and
pillar compressive stress. The training and validation
sets for the relations between pillar parameters and
pillar compressive stress are obtained from 3D FEM
calculations. The database is then used to carry out
reliability analysis and design for mining pillar. This
approach was presented by examining an actual pillar in
a copper mine in southern China. It is clear that such
approach can practically integrate the advantages
associated with FEMs, NN and reliability analysis into
pillar design. As a result, mining pillar or other
underground structures can be analyzed and designed
by taking into account rock material uncertainties,
excavation and backfilling process and actual excava-
tion geometries.
In the ensuing, we introduce the copper mine and
associated underground mining method and conditions
for pillar design. Next, we discuss the 3D FEM
simulation of the underground mining. In order to
assess the pillar performance, we then establish an
implicit performance function combining pillar com-
pressive stress from the 3D FEM analysis and pillar
strength from an analytical equation. In Section 5, we
present the practical design approach by combining
Fig. 1. Location of Feng Huangshan Copper Mine in Anhui, China.
587
reliability analysis, FEM and NN. We then discuss
the results of the reliability-based pillar design. In
Section 7, we summarize this study and give useful
conclusions and recommendations for possible applica-
tions of the present procedure to other mining pillar
design.
2. Feng Huangshan copper mine
The copper mine is the Feng Huangshan Copper
Mine, which is located in southern Anhui Province
and on the south bank of the Yangtze River, south-
eastern China (Fig. 1). It is one of the major non-ferrous
metal mines in China. The ore body looks like a thin
plate near vertically inserting in ground. Its length and
width on horizontal surface are about 600 and 20 m,
respectively. Its depth is deeper than 400 m. The two
plate surfaces dip at an angle between 75 and 85 to
horizontal.
The plate-shaped ore rock forms a thin interface
material between granodirorite and marble. The
granodiorite is located above the ore rock and forms
the longitudinal hanging walls for ore excavation. The
marble is situated below the ore rock and becomes
the longitudinal footwall for ore excavation. The ore
rock is made of Cu2O-ferroferrite and Cu2O-garnet. The
Protodyakonov rock strength index is between 16 and
26. The average ore grade, i.e., percentage of useful part
weight in a whole orebody weight, is 0.93%. Table 1
588 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599

Table 1
Properties of surrounding rocks, ore and backfills

Property Granodiorite Marble Copper Cemented tailings

(hanging wall) (lying wall) (ore body) (backfills)

Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa) 38.0 28.5 60.0 3.5

Tensile strength (MPa) 1.2 2.3 5.6 0.5
Young’s modulus (MPa) 8000 21,000 65,000 1000
Poisson’s ratio 0.16 0.26 0.31 0.30
Cohesion (MPa) 0.60 2.16 4.30 0.65
Internal friction angle (deg.) 53 50 51 35
Density (kN/m3) 28.0 28.0 40.4 22.1

Strike longitudinal direction. Sub-stope B is 35 m. A temporary

Ground
Level -60
Level -120
8 7
Level -180
Level -240
5 6
Level -300
Level -360
1 2 (m)
Fig. 2. Outline of longitudinal vertical section of Feng Huangshan
Copper Mine along orebody strike. Note: 1—sub-stope A (backfilling);
2—sub-stope B; 5—ore pillar; 6—drilling room; 7—drift; and 8—shaft.
Details in the circle can be found in Fig. 3. The arrow is the ore
transportation flow.
summarizes the mechanical and strength properties of
the ore rock, the granodirorite, the marble and the
backfilled materials.
Fig. 2 illustrates a vertical profile along the long-
itudinal direction of the plate-shaped ore rock to outline
the ore mining in Feng Huangshan Copper Mine. At
each 60 m depth interval, a horizontal drift is formed.
All the drifts connect to the vertical shaft to transport
the ore blocks. A modified backfill mining method,
called non-pillar continuous mining method, is used for
mining operation. Each of the vertical holes for blasting
is of 165 mm in diameter and 50 m in length. Stope
identified in the circle in Fig. 2 is one of typical cases in
the mining operations. After they are blasted in stope,
the ore blocks are drawn down into transportation cars
on the drift located at depth 360 m below ground. Then
the ore blocks are removed along the shaft up to ground
surface.
Fig. 3 shows the detailed layout of the mining
method. Each stope is divided into sub-stope A and
sub-stope B. Sub-stope A is 15 m long along the ore
ore wall, which is 5 m wide, is needed between sub-
stopes A and B to support an ore pillar. Ore rock in sub-
stope A is extracted at first. Ore blocks in sub-stope A
are directly drawn down to the drift. Once ore rock in
sub-stope A is completely extracted, ore tailings mixed
with Poland cement will be used to backfill the open
space of sub-stope A. Until sub-stope A is completely
backfilled, mining activities will commence in sub-stope
B. The temporary ore wall would function as a barrier to
prevent backfilling materials in sub-stope A from
collapsing into sub-stope B during excavation of sub-
stope B. Blasted ore blocks in sub-stope B are drawn via
a vibrating machine. This vibrating machine requires
sub-stope B to be 35 m long [16]. Sub-stope B will be
backfilled once its ore is completely extracted. The
mining operations will commence and are repeated for
next stope.
Method of extraction is drilling and blasting. Those
mining works are carried out in drilling room, top
section of stope. A special drilling machine is used to
drill holes in stope below drilling room. This drilling
machine requires the drilling room to be 3.8 m high. The
drilling room therefore occupies an open space of 20 m
wide, 55 m long and 3.8 m high. The roof area is equal to
1100 m2 (=20 m width  55 m length). The drilling room
roof, composed of in situ ore rock, could collapse if it is
improperly designed and constructed. For safety and
economy, the excavation for drilling room space would
leave one cylindrical ore pillar of 3.8 m high in the
central area of temporary ore wall in drilling room. The
pillar becomes an intact part of the roof and bottom
ores. The pillar should be an intact ore block and have
no discontinuities such as joints and fractures. The pillar
functions as a column structure to support roof strata
and to reduce ground subsidence. The cylindrical pillar
diameter should be neither too small to support roof
loading and nor too large to impede drilling and other
work and to reduce mining productivity. Accordingly,
the ore pillar becomes the most critical structure for
successful mining operations. Structural analysis and
design of the pillar are to determine the best location
and the optimal diameter. In the ensuing section, a 3D
 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599 589

Fig. 3. Outline of the underground mining method. Note: 1—sub-stope A (backfilling); 2—temporary ore wall; 3—sub-stope B; 4—basement
structure; 5—ore pillar; 6—drilling room; 9—blasting cut borehole; L1—length of sub-stope A; L2—length of sub-stope B; L3—width of ore body;
and H—height of level. The figure B-B is the longitudinal section of the stope along the strike of the ore-body; (A-A) dip cross-section of the stope;
(C-C) plan of the drilling room.

FEM simulation is presented for geomechanical analysis
of the ore pillar.
3. FEM simulation and analysis
In this study, a 3D FEM is used to simulate the
excavation and backfilling activities associated with the
mining method discussed above. The 3D geomechanical
model occupies a regular rectangular rock region as
shown in Fig. 4(a). The rectangular length is 400 m and
follows the ore strike (longitudinal) direction. Its width
is 180 m and follows the ore dip (wide) direction. Its
height is 400 m and in vertical direction. Its upper
surface is ground surface. The four vertical surfaces of
the rectangular rock block are assumed to be fixed in
horizontal directions and smooth in vertical direction.
The horizontal upper surface is assumed to be traction
free. The horizontal bottom surface is assumed to be
fixed in vertical direction and smooth in horizontal
directions. Such external boundary conditions are also
illustrated in Fig. 4(b).
FEM meshes are also shown in Fig. 4(a) and (b). As
we know, the materials within and adjacent to stope will
experience high stress changes and redistributions
during excavation and backfilling. Therefore, the FEM
meshes for this stope region are relatively dense
whilst the meshes for the outside regions are relatively
sparse.
Excavation and backfill activities in a stope can be
simulated using 3D FEM [17]. As shown in Fig. 5, it
needs eight steps to complete ore extraction and tailing
backfill in a single stope. Accordingly, the finite element
simulation will have nine steps. The one additional step
is the first step to simulate the in situ gravity stress in the
ground. The nine simulation steps are listed in Table 2.
Vertical normal stress in the ore pillar is calculated
during each simulation step. Fig. 6 shows a typical
example for variation of the average normal stress in the
pillar with the eight mining steps in a stope. Values of
the rock property parameters shown in Table 1 are used
in the 3D FEM simulation. For simplicity, the present
3D FEM simulation considers only elastic behavior of
the ore, its surrounding rocks and the tailing materials.
4. Pillar performance function
In order to carry out reliability assessment of pillar
performance, it is necessary to establish performance
function (2) that can accommodate the construction
process and the complex geometries of underground
590 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599

e
rik A
St B
A B

C
Stope Orebody

(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Finite element simulation of backfill mining method in Feng Huangshan Mine: (a) three dimensional FEM mesh; and (b) mesh and the
boundary conditions on cross-section ABC. Note: Details in the circle are shown in Fig. 5.
Average Pillar Compressive Stress (MPa)

34

33

32

31

30

29

28
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Excavation Step
Fig. 5. FEM mesh and excavation steps of the stope in longitudinal
Fig. 6. Variation of the average compressive stress on ore pillar
section Note: i represents the ith excavation step whilst backfilling
circular cross-section with excavation steps from 3D FEM simulation.
steps are not listed.

Table 2
Steps of 3D FEM simulation for copper mining operations
Step Brief of 3D FEM simulation
0 Simulate in situ gravity stress in ground
1 Excavate drilling room at top of sub-stope A
2 Excavate drilling room at top of sub-stope B
3 Excavate lower portion of sub-stope A
4 Excavate upper portion of sub-stope A
5 Backfill sub-stope A
6 Excavate lower portion of sub-stope B
7 Excavate upper portion of sub-stope B
8 Backfill sub-stope B and drilling room
mining. In the ensuing, we will discuss the calculation of
the average pillar compressive stress S using FEM. We
will then discuss how to assess the pillar strength.
4.1. Pillar compressive stress
Stresses induced by stopping activities are normally
non-uniformly distributed in ore pillar. Such inhomo-
geneous stresses can have concentrations at some local
regions in the pillar. Such stress constructions may cause
initial failures at local zones even though the maximum
average vertical stress is still within the rock compressive
strength limit. Such initial failures could then propagate
through the pillar. Analyses of such progressive failure
in mining pillars may be found in some recent
publications (e.g., [2–5]).
It is noted that actual distribution of the induced
stresses in ore pillars are also affected by many factors
including pillar dimensions, pillar rock properties, pillar
 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599
rock geological structures and inhomogeneity, original
surrounding rocks, excavation steps and sequences.
It is not an easy task to accurately describe local
stress concentrations or predict progressive failures in
ore pillars even though FEMs are used for stress
analysis.
In stress analysis approach for pillar design, it is,
therefore, usually assumed that the overburden load is
uniformly distributed over pillar horizontal cross-
section [2–5]. The average pillar vertical stress is then
used in the pillar failure criterion (1) or (2) for checking
the possibility or extent to which the pillar could fail in
compression.
In the present studies, we adopted the average vertical
stress approach in the reliability design of ore pillar
diameter. This average vertical stress in ore pillar S is
determined from the 3D FEM. It is equal to the mean
value of the summation of the vertical stresses at all the
Gauss points in the finite element blocks within the
pillar. It can be expressed as follows:
1X K
S ¼ sðg; E; n; yÞ ¼ szzk ; ð3Þ
K k¼1
where sðg; E; n; yÞ is an implicit function of the ore
density (g), the ore Young’s modulus (E), the ore
Poisson’s ratio (n), as well as other parameters; szzk is
the vertical stress at the kth Gauss point in finite element
blocks within the pillar, and K is total number of the
Gauss points.
From Fig. 6, the average compressive stress acting in
the pillar increases with the sequence of mining
activities. The pillar experiences the maximum average
compressive stress at the eighth step. Further numerical
simulations with different input parameters also show
this result of maximum stress at the eighth step. It is
noted that at the eighth step, ore extraction in sub-stope
B has completed whilst backfilling of tailings in the open
space has not commenced yet. At this step, one side of
the temporary ore wall is the empty sub-stope B while
the other side is the backfilled sub-stope A. The eighth
step is considered to be the most critical step in the
mining activities. Therefore, pillar average compressive
stress at the eighth step is used in the following
reliability analysis.
4.2. Pillar strength analysis
Pillar strength is dependent upon three factors:
(a) pillar rock mass strength; (b) pillar shape and size;
(c) geological structural features such as shear bands,
faults and joints. Pillar strength may be defined using
the following equation:
R ¼ sm f
where R is the average pillar strength or pillar bearing
capacity, sm is the compressive strength of pillar ore
591
rock mass and can be determined from compression test,
and f is a shape parameter relevant to pillar shape and
size.
4.2.1. Rock mass compressive strength
The rock mass compressive strength may be defined
as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s1s ¼ s3 þ msc s3 þ ss2c ; ð5Þ
where s1s is the strength (i.e., the major principle stress
s1 ; at failure); s3 is the minor principle stress; sc is the
uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of intact rock;
m and s are two material parameters depending on the
properties of the rock and the extent of joints or
fractures.
When it is applied to pillar structure with s3 ¼ 0;
Eq. (5) becomes
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffi
sm ¼ ss2c ¼ ssc : ð6Þ
Pillar material parameter s can be calculated using the
following empirical formula [18]:
 
RMR  100
s ¼ exp ; ð7Þ
6:3
where RMR is the rock mass rating for rock quality. In
this study, s is found to be equal 0.08 for the pillar ore
and its random variation is not considered.
4.2.2. Pillar shape and size parameter
The present study has shown that the pillar shape and
size parameter f can be expressed as follows:
w
f ¼ 0:778 þ 0:222 ; ð8Þ
h
where w and h are the pillar width and height. When the
pillar has a non-square horizontal cross-section, the
following effective pillar width weff is used instead of w
in Eq. (8)
Ap
weff ¼ 4 ; ð9Þ
P
where Ap and P are respectively the area and perimeter
of pillar horizontal cross-section.
4.2.3. Pillar performance function
Using Eqs. (2)–(8), we can express the pillar perfor-
mance function gðX Þ in terms of the limit state of
serviceability as follows:
pffiffi  w
gðX Þ ¼ ssc 0:778 þ 0:222  sðg; E; nÞ: ð10Þ
h
This pillar performance function is based on an
average pillar compressive stress (3) and an overall pillar
strength (4). The parameters in Eq. (10) may be
ð4Þ
classified into two categories. One category includes
the constant parameters s; w and h that are equal to
0.08, 3.4 and 3.8 m, respectively. The other category
592 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599
Table 3
Probabilistic parameters of ore rock
Variables Type of distribution
Elastic modulus Normal
Density Normal
Poisson’s ratio Normal
Uniaxial compressive strength Normal
includes basic random variables. For simplicity and
without loss of generality, we consider only ore material
properties as random variables. The properties are the
Young’s modulus E; the density g; the Poisson’s ratio n;
and the UCS sc : Ground investigations were conducted
to define the probabilistic characteristics of these
properties. Table 3 lists statistical values of the basic
random variables for ore properties.
According to an internal geological report [19], the
mine site and its surrounding region do not have any
major faults and other geological features indicting
active tectonic activities. It is located within one of the
sedimentary basins in the Yangzhou Block of the Lower
Yangtze Region [20]. Tectonic activities in the Block
have been low since Later Cretaceous age. The Block is
also a low-seismicity region and has a few earthquakes
recorded in thousand years history. Hence, the finite
element simulation considers only the in situ gravity
stress in the first step (i.e., Step 0 in Table 2). In situ
stresses in the rocks due to any tectonic movements were
not considered in the finite element analysis.
5. Reliability analysis using neural networks
According to Eq. (10), it is clear that the pillar
performance function gðX Þ is an implicit function in
terms of the basic random variables and is obtained via
the 3D FEM. This implicit function impedes the
utilization of conventional reliability analysis methods.
fug ¼ fQg ð11Þ
MCS is a technique applicable to probabilistic problems
with explicit or implicit performance functions. Sub-
stantially large amount samples of the average pillar
compressive stress sðg; E; n; yÞ; however, are needed for
reliability analysis if we use MCS directly. A significant
number of 3D FEM calculations are required to obtain
a database for pillar compressive stress. In order to
reduce the number of 3D FEM calculations in use of
MCS for the reliability analysis, we use a so-called
multi-layer NN to generate a database for the pillar
compressive stress. Multi-layer NN has been considered
fu þ Dug ¼ fQ þ DQg ð12Þ
as a universal approximate operator for generalization
of robust and reliable database for further analysis
[21,22]. In this study, a NN algorithm is used to
approximate the relationship between the pillar average
Mean value Standard deviation Coefficient of variation (COV)
63000 MPa 15750 0.25
32.8 kN/m3 3.28 0.10
0.23 0.0345 0.15
53.00 MPa 7.95 0.15
compressive stress S and the random variables g; E and
n: After it has been trained or learned from a limited
number of samples, the NN can generate a large
database for the pillar compressive stress values easily
and accurately. In this section, a rigorous theoretical
background is provided for incorporating NN algorithm
with FEMs. A practical approach is then proposed for
reliability design combining FEM and NN.
5.1. Theoretical background
Without loss of generality, we assume that the basic
random variables are continuous functions in linear
elastic FEM calculations. If the pillar compressive stress
can be verified to be a continuous function, a three-
layered NN can be definitely obtained as a representa-
tion of sðg; E; n; yÞ according to Kolmogorov’s
mapping NN existence theorem [22]. This theorem can
be briefly described as follows:
‘‘Given any continuous function q: ½0; 1 n -Rl ; qðxÞ ¼
y; q can then be implemented exactly by a three-
layered feed forward neural network. This neural
network has n processing elements in the first (x-
input) layer, (2n þ 1) processing elements in the
middle layer, and l processing elements in the top
(y-output) layer.’’
Basic equations for elastostatic analysis with FEM
can be expressed as follows:
½K
where ½K is a stiffness matrix and a function of the
material parameters and geometrical variables; fug is a
matrix for nodal displacement vectors; and fQg is a
matrix for nodal load vectors and can also be considered
as a random variable.
Solution of fug from (11) is influenced by variation of
stiffness matrix and external loads. For given small
variations ½DK and fDQg in ½K and fQg; respectively,
Eq. (11) can be re-expressed as follows:
½½K þ ½DK
or
½K fug þ ½K fDug þ ½DK fug þ ½DK fDug
¼ fQg þ fDQg: ð13Þ
 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599
Using (11), Eq. (13) can be simplified as follows:
½K fDug ¼ fDQg  ½DK fug  ½DK fDug:
It is noted that the changes in structural response
should be much smaller than the original structural
response [23]. This leads to
½K fDugpfDQg  2½DK fug
or
fDugp½K 1 ffDQg  2½DK fugg;
where ½K 1
and fug are continuous functions of
material and geometrical parameters. Therefore, there
must exist a finite-value quantity that is larger than the
absolute values of Du: According to the definition of
continuous function, the structural displacements are
also continuous functions of the material and geome-
trical parameters.
The stress components are calculated from the
following linear stress–strain relations:
fsg ¼ ½D feg;
fsg ¼ ½D ½B fug;
where ½D is a material stiffness matrix; fsg and feg are
stress and strain components, respectively; and ½B is a
matrix relating strain components to node point
displacement vectors and consists of derivatives of the
interpolation functions.
Elements of ½D and ½B are continuous functions of
the material and geometrical parameters. Consequently,
the stress components are also continuous functions of
the material and geometrical parameters. Therefore,
Kolmogorov’s mapping NN existence theorem can be
applied to the 3D FEM calculations for generalization
of the database for accurate representation of relation-
ship between the pillar compressive stress and the basic
random variables.
5.2. Practical design approach
Based on the above discussions, we have developed a
practical design approach by combining 3D FEM, a
three-layered NN and reliability analysis. Fig. 7 is a flow
chart showing the practical design approach for a trial
pillar dimension. It basically involves (a) using FEM to
determine the pillar performance functions for trial and
validation sets for NN simulation; (b) using MCS
principles to determine sampling number and values of
the random variables; (c) determining NN architecture
and trained and validated NN for the performance and
(d) assess probabilistic result for the performance
function from the NN database.
In order to approximate the relationship between S
and the random variables g; E and n; a training set is
designed at first. Number of training set should be kept
to a minimum to increase the computational efficiency.
593
The training set design should conform to three
ð14Þ principles, i.e., completeness, equilibrium and represen-
tative. In this case, the training set number is selected to
be 25. A so-called modified central composite design was
employed to design the training set [24].
Table 4 shows the results of training vector design. In
ð15Þ Table 4, mi ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ are the mean values of g; E; and n;
respectively; si ði ¼ 1; 2; 3Þ are the standard deviations of
g; E and n; respectively; Si ði ¼ 1; 2; :::; 24Þ is the average
ð16Þ pillar compressive stress value corresponding to a given
variation of g; E and n: The vector {m1 þ a1i s1 ; m2 þ
a2i s2 ; m3 þ a3i s3 ; Si } represents the ith vector of the
training set, where i ¼ 1; 2; y; or 25. For a random
variable of the normal probabilistic distribution, the
probability of its value exceeding three times of its
standard deviation is equal or less than 0.13% [25].
According to this statistic theory, we consider that the
above data sets can provide an excellent representation
of the variation patterns associated with the three
random variables.
ð17Þ We then carried out the 3D FEM calculation for each
combination of the random variables g; E and n to
ð18Þ
generate the corresponding value of the average pillar
compressive stress Si ði ¼ 1; 2; y; 25Þ: In Table 4, the
second, third and fourth columns are used as the input
vectors of training set, whilst the last column are used as
the output vectors of training set. These 25 set data are
used as the input and output parts of the training set.
A three-layered feed-forward NN is established to
approximate the mapping between the average pillar
compressive stress and the three basic random variables.
The number of the hidden nodes is selected by trial and
error. It varies from 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11. The predictive
ability of the NN would increase in principle as the
hidden node number increases. Many numerical tests,
however, indicate that increase rate of the NN predictive
ability would decrease after seven hidden nodes. There-
fore, the NN was constructed with the input layer of
three neurons, the hidden (middle) layer of seven
neurons and the output layer of one neuron, as shown
in Fig. 8. The three random variables E; g and n listed in
Table 3 are used as the input variables and the average
pillar compressive stress as the output variable. A
random generation method is used to obtain a valida-
tion set. The pillar compressive stress values in the
validation set were also calculated from the 3D FEM
geomechanical modeling.
The NN training process commences by initializing all
weights to small non-zero values. Then a sub-set of the
collection of the training samples is presented to the
network, one at one time. The error incurred by the NN
can be assessed using the following formula:
1X P X m
Er ¼ ðtj;p  oj;p Þ2 ; ð19Þ
2 p¼1 j¼1
594 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599

Start

Define the problem in terms of variables Quantify the probabilistic characteristics of random variables

Establish the performance function using FEM Generate N sample values of random variables

Input structural design parameters

Calculate one value of the performance function using one set

of realizations of these random variables and FEM results

No

Number of performance function values are

enough for NN training and validation?

Yes

Prepare the NN training set Determine the neural network's architecture

Train the neural network

Error of NN training acceptable? No Add neuron in NN hidden layer

No

Yes

Prepare the NN independent validation set

Merge validation set into training set No Error of NN validation acceptable?

Yes
Calculate N values of the performance function by inputing N sets of
realizations of these random variables into the trained neural network

Extract probabilistic information from N values of the performance function

Reliability index or failure

probability is acceptable?

Yes

End

Fig. 7. Flow chart for practical pillar design approach involving FEM, NN and reliability analysis.

where Er is the error of the output of network, P is the The weights are then updated in such a way so that
number of training set (P ¼ 25), m is the number of the error is to be reduced. This process should be
network output neurons, tj;p is the target of network repeated as necessary. Among many different training
training set, oj;p is the real output of the network. algorithms for NN, the back-propagation method is
 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599 595

Table 4 Table 5
Training set design for neural network Comparison of neural network results with FEM results

Training vector m1 þ a1i s1 m2 þ a2i s2 m3 þ a3i s3 Si Samples Output of NN Outcome of Relative error
(MPa) FEM (MPa) (%)
aji 1 1 1 S1
1 +1 1 S2 Training set 33.6810 33.6832 0.0067
1 1 +1 S3 31.5273 31.5285 0.0041
1 +1 +1 S4 31.5418 31.5315 0.0325
+1 1 1 S5 38.5333 38.5322 0.0029
+1 +1 1 S6 38.5517 38.5507 0.0026
+1 1 +1 S7 30.1654 30.1653 0.0005
+1 +1 +1 S8 30.1652 30.1661 0.0032
2 2 2 S9 36.8690 36.8691 0.0004
2 +2 2 S10 36.8691 36.8683 0.0023
2 2 +2 S11 29.6601 29.6605 0.0013
2 +2 +2 S12 28.9963 28.9997 0.0117
+2 2 2 S13 29.0120 29.0098 0.0080
+2 +2 2 S14 40.4150 40.4154 0.0012
+2 2 +2 S15 42.2255 42.2265 0.0022
+2 +2 +2 S16 26.9305 26.9304 0.0005
3 3 3 S17
3 +3 3 S18 Validation set 31.6223 31.5858 0.1155
3 3 +3 S19 32.8045 32.6724 0.4027
3 +3 +3 S20 32.1842 32.0799 0.3242
+3 3 3 S21 34.5915 34.6301 0.1116
+3 +3 3 S22 30.3865 30.6505 0.8699
+3 3 +3 S23
+3 +3 +3 S24
0 0 0 S25
NN and the results directly from the 3D FEM
calculations. The absolute relative errors are less than
0.9%, which indicate that the trained NN can be used to
Input Hidden Output estimate the average pillar compressive stress for
Layer Layer Layer different values of the basic random variables.
Random samples of g; E and n and the UCS are
E
generated using their probability distribution data in
Table 3. Number (N) of samples is selected according to
σ MCS principles [8,15,24]. Error associated with the
γ . number of simulation cycles is obtained by approximat-
. ing the binomial distribution with a normal distribution
. and estimating the 95% confidence interval of the
µ estimated failure probability. It can be described as
Fig. 8. A three-layered NN for establishing database for reliability
follows [24]:
analysis.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1  pTf
e% ¼ 2 100%; ð20Þ
NpTf
adopted because it can provide the most efficient
learning procedure for three-layered NN and is parti- where e%; is a percentage error, pTf is a true failure
cularly capable of solving prediction problems [21,26]. probability. Accordingly, N can be calculated using the
The standard back-propagation method is a gradient following formula:
descent algorithm. In this method, the network weights 4ð1  pTf Þ
are moved along the negative direction of performance N¼ : ð21Þ
ðe%Þ2 pTf
function gradient. In this study, we adopt a variable
learning rate technique because of its high efficiency in In this study, N is found to equal 1,000,000. The set
training an NN iteratively. ðg; E; mÞ is used as an input data set of trained NN. The
After we have trained 6970 epoches, the NN reaches corresponding output of the NN is the value of the
the sum-squared error goal. The maximum training average pillar compressive stress. The NN calculation
relative error in the training set is 9.99  106, and the process is easy, simple and robust.
maximum test relative error in the test set is 3.25  104. Consequently, the pillar performance function was
Table 5 shows a comparison of the average pillar evaluated for 1,000,000 samples of the three random
compressive stress between the outputs of the trained variables using the NN. The probabilistic characteristics
596 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599

of the performance function were extracted from the
database of 1,000,000 different values and from the
normal distribution of the ore UCS. All the random
variables were assumed to be uncorrelated. Any one of
these samples is an independent identical distribution
variable.
We further assumed that Nf is the number of the pillar
performance function database whose value is less than
zero and N is the total number of the pillar performance
function database. Then the probability of failure pf can
be estimated using the following counting equation:
Nf
pf ¼ P½gðX Þo0 ¼ : ð22Þ
N
The reliability index (b) can be expressed below using
pillar reliability index (b) for different pillar diameters in
the range between 3.0 and 4.0 m. Fig. 13 illustrates the
effects of the COV of the ore UCS on the pillar failure
probability (pf ) for different pillar diameters in the range
between 3.0 and 4.0 m. In Table 6, we present the digital
data for the reliability index and failure probability
corresponding to ore COV value at different pillar
diameters.
From Figs. 9–12, it can be observed that the reliability
index decreases as each of the four COVs associated
with E; g; n; and UCS increases. It increases as the pillar
4.5
d=3.0m
4.0

Pillar Reliability Index

d=3.2m
sample statistics [24]. d=3.4m
mg 3.5 d=3.6m
d=3.8m
b¼ ; ð23Þ 3.0 d=4.0m
sg Criterion
2.5
where mg and sg are, respectively, the mean value and
the standard deviation of the pillar performance 2.0
function. This reliability index is a useful and effective 1.5
probabilistic parameter to assess the pillar performance 1.0
by taking into account both the complex geometry of 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
the mine model and the uncertainties in the input data. COV of Modulus
It is a probabilistic parameter complementary to the Fig. 9. Effects of COV of ore modulus E on pillar reliability index b at
probability of failure [7–9,11]. If the performance different pillar diameters d:
function is normally distributed, pf and b can have the
following relationship: 4.5
d=3.0m
pf ¼ FðbÞ; ð24Þ 4.0 d=3.2m
Pillar Reliability Index

d=3.4m
where Fð
Þ is a cumulative distribution function of 3.5 d=3.6m
d=3.8m
normal distribution. 3.0 d=4.0m
Criterion
2.5

6. Results and analysis 2.0

1.5
The above practical design approach is applicable to a 1.0
given structural geometry. For different structural 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
geometries, it becomes necessary to do the similar COV of Density
analysis again. In the pillar design for Feng Huangshan Fig. 10. Effects of the COV of ore density g on pillar reliability index b
Copper Mine, the height of the cylindrical pillar was at different pillar diameters d:
fixed to be 3.8 m by the mining machine and the pillar
was located at central area of the temporary ore wall in
4.0
drilling room. Therefore, this pillar design was concen- d=3.0m
d=3.2m
trated on the diameter of the pillar horizontal cross- 3.5
Pillar Reliability Index

d=3.4m
d=3.6m
section. The reliability analysis was carried out for each 3.0 d=3.8m
of the pillar diameters of 3.0, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8 and 4.0 m. 2.5
d=4.0m
Criterion
For each pillar diameter, our attention was focused on
2.0
pillar reliability analysis by taking into account the
effects of the random ore parameters E; g; n and sc 1.5
(UCS). The random nature of the four ore material 1.0
parameters is represented by their standard coefficients 0.5
of variation (COV) in Table 3. 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Figs. 9–12 illustrate, respectively, the effects of the COV of Poisson's Ratio
COV of the ore Young’s modulus (E), the ore density Fig. 11. Effects of the COV of ore Poisson’s ratio n on pillar reliability
(g), the ore Poisson’s ratio (n), and the ore UCS on the index b at different pillar diameters d:
 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599 597

4.0 diameter increases. Such observations can be found in

d=3.0m
Table 6. It is noted that in plotting these figures and
Pillar Reliability Index

3.5 d=3.2m
d=3.4m table, we chose one COV as a variable whilst we fixed
3.0 d=3.6m
d=3.8m
the other three COVs equal to their standard values
2.5 d=4.0m given in Table 3. Furthermore, because the reliability
Criterion
index and the failure probability of the pillar are
2.0
complementary to each other, we used the reliability
1.5 index to assess the pillar stability [9,11].
According to Liu et al. [11], the reliability index of a
1.0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 stable mine pillar should be greater than 2.29. If
COV of UCS consequences of failure are moderately serious, the
minimum value of the reliability index is 2.30 [9,18].
Fig. 12. Effects of COV of ore UCS on pillar reliability index b at
different pillar diameters d: Hence, we chose the reliability index=2.30 as the
acceptance criterion for the pillar design in the present
study. This criterion is also plotted in Figs. 9–12 for
0.10 comparison. Since the standard COV values for the ore
Pillar Failure Probability

0.09 modulus, density, Poisson’s ratio and UCS are 0.25,

d=3.0m
0.08
0.07
d=3.2m 0.10, 0.15 and 0.15, respectively (Table 3), therefore, it
d=3.4m
0.06 d=3.6m
can be confirmed from the results in Figs. 9–12 that the
0.05 d=3.8m ore pillar with a diameter greater than 3.4 m can result in
0.04 d=4.0m
the pillar performance reliability index greater than 2.30
0.03 for stopes in Feng Huangshan Copper Mine. At this
0.02
0.01
minimum diameter 3.4 m, the reliability index of pillar
0.00 safety is equal to 2.51 whilst the corresponding pillar
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 failure probability is equal to 0.006. It is clear that the
COV of UCS larger the pillar diameter, the higher the pillar safety
Fig. 13. Effects of COV of ore UCS on pillar failure probability pf at reliability and the lower the pillar failure probability. It
different pillar diameters d: was therefore suggested that the optimal pillar diameter
should be between 3.4 and 4.0 m. Furthermore, it is
evident that the measured COV values of the ore
Table 6
Complete data set for mine pillar reliability analysis material parameters play an important role in the above
design assessment. If there was any increase in actual
Diameter (m) Items Coefficient of variation of ore’s UCS COV values for the four parameters, the optimal pillar
0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 diameter would have to be increased accordingly.
From Table 6, it can be observed that the correspond-
3.0 Fs 1.64
pf 0.0109 0.0203 0.0415 0.0842 ing conventional factor of safety ðFs Þ would be in the
b 2.29 2.05 1.73 1.38 range of 1.69–1.75 for pillar diameter in the range of
3.4–4.0 m. It is further noted that the conventional
3.2 Fs 1.66 factor of safety ðFs Þ is 1.64 and 1.66 for pillar diameter
pf 0.0036 0.0154 0.0306 0.0703
equal to 3.0 and 3.2 m, respectively. Therefore, the
b 2.69 2.16 1.87 1.47
present reliability design indicates that the minimum
3.4 Fs 1.69 factor of safety ðFs Þ should be 1.69.
pf 0.0003 0.0060 0.0261 0.0644
b 3.43 2.51 1.94 1.52
7. Summary and conclusions
3.6 Fs 1.71
pf 0.0001 0.0032 0.0225 0.0582
b 3.71 2.73 2.00 1.57 In the above, we have presented a practical design
approach for mining or underground structure. The
3.8 Fs 1.74 approach combines FEMs, NN and reliability analysis.
pf 0.0001 0.0030 0.0110 0.0469
The procedure has been presented by examining an
b 3.71 2.75 2.31 1.68
actual cylindrical mine pillar in a copper mine and
4.0 Fs 1.75 taking into account both mining operations and
pf 0.0001 0.0014 0.0041 0.0307 uncertainties in ore material parameters. The ore
b 3.71 2.98 2.65 1.87 material parameters include modulus, Poisson’s ratio,
Note: Fs =Factor of safety; pf =probability of failure; b=reliability density and UCS. Different diameters of the cylindrical
index. pillar have been assessed to find the optimal design
598 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599
diameters for the ore pillar. A 3D FEM has been used to
simulate the mining operations and to estimate the
vertical compressive stress acting on the pillar at each
operation step. The pillar strength has been calculated in
an analytical form and the effect of pillar dimensions are
taken into account. A pillar performance function has
been established in an implicit form in terms of the four
probabilistic material parameters and pillar diameter.
A NN technique has been developed for mapping
between pillar compressive stress and probabilistic
material parameters. The trained NN has been used to
generate a database representing pillar performance
function. MCS principles have been employed to
analyze the reliability of the mine pillar because a large
number of the performance function values can be
obtained easily and quickly with the help of robust
generalization capability of the NN technique. Relia-
bility analysis and design have been applied to the pillar
design taking into consideration the actual material
variations, geometry and external loading associated
with the underground mining.
The paper has further presented the effects of each of
the material parameters on the failure probability and
the reliability index for the pillar design in Feng
Huangshan Copper Mine. The results have shown that
the range of optimal pillar diameters is between 3.4 and
4.0 m. If the optimal pillar diameter 3.4 m had been
used, the corresponding reliability index of pillar safety
would have been equal to 2.51 whilst the pillar failure
probability and the factor of safety would have been
0.006 and 1.68, respectively. The ore pillar with the
optimal diameter would have been able to safely and
effectively support a drilling room that occupied a space
of 3.8 m high and 55 m long and 20 m wide and at the
depth of 360 m below ground surface. Under the
guidance of the above design and analysis, the actual
pillar in a drilling room in Feng Huangshan Copper
Mine was constructed with a diameter 3.5–4.0 m.
According to a technical report prepared by the mine
company [19], the pillars kept stable during stope
excavation and mining.
The practical design approach presented above
integrates the advantages associated with FEMs, NN
and reliability analysis. It is believed that this design
approach is applicable to other underground structures
taking into account random material property varia-
tions, complex geometries and external loading history.
However, it is noted that selection of the training set and
method in using NN has to be cautious. Ill-conditioned
training set and training method can elongate the
training time and give substantial errors in relations
between probabilistic parameters and required system
response. More random parameters usually require
more training samples and longer training time. Further
studies are needed to improve NN generation accuracy
and reduce the number of training set. In addition, the
random material parameters are assumed statistically
independent in this paper. Although it may make little
difference in most cases [7], this assumption could cause
errors if some of the random material parameters are
correlated.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial
supports from the Research Grants Council of Hong
Kong and the Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust.
The authors would also like to thank Professor J A
Hudson for his valuable comments and suggestions for
improvement of the manuscript.
References
[1] Bieniawski ZT. Rock mechanics design in mining and tunneling.
Rotterdam: Balkema, 1984.
[2] Brady BHG, Brown ET. Rock mechanics for underground
mining, 2nd ed.. London: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
[3] Hoek E, Brown ET. Underground excavations in rock, revised 1st
ed. New York, USA: Chapman & Hall, 1997.
[4] Martin CD, Maybee WG. The strength of hard-rock pillars. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:1239–46.
[5] Mohan GM, Sheorey PR, Kushwaha A. Numerical estimation of
pillar strength in coal mines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2001;38:1185–92.
[6] Bao CG. Some basic points on probabilistic analysis of
geotechnical engineering. Chin J Geotech Eng 1989;11(4):94–8
[in Chinese].
[7] Harr ME. Reliability based design in civil engineering. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1987.
[8] Melchers RE. Structural reliability analysis and predictions, 2nd
ed. New York: Wiley, 1999.
[9] Pine RJ. Risk analysis design applications in mining geomecha-
nics. Trans Inst Min Metall, Section A 1992;101:A149–58.
[10] Quek ST, Leung CF. Reliability-based stability analysis of rock
excavations. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr
1995;32(6):617–20.
[11] Liu MY, Chi XW, Zhang YL. Reliability design for pillars.
J Wuhan Univ Technol (Mater Sci Ed) 1998;20(1):54–6
[in Chinese].
[12] Der Kiureghian A, Ke BJ. The stochastic finite element method in
structural reliability. Probab Eng Mech 1988;3(2):83–91.
[13] Faravelli L. Response surface approach for reliability analysis.
J Eng Mech, ASCE 1989;115(12):2763–81.
[14] Guan XL, Melchers RE. Multitangent-plane surface method for
reliability calculation. J Eng Mech 1997;123(10):996–1002.
[15] Xu ZJ. Monte Carlo simulation. Shanghai: Shanghai Science and
Technology Press, 1985 [in Chinese].
[16] Gu DS, Wang HY, Li JX. Vibrating ore-drawing techniques.
Changsha: Central South University Press, 1990 [in Chinese].
[17] Gu DS, Deng J, Li XB. Three-dimensional numerical simulation
of excavation and backfilling in mining engineering. Trans
Nonferrous Met Soc China 1999;9(2):417–21.
[18] Priest SD, Brown ET. Probabilistic stability analysis of variable
rock slopes. Trans Inst Min Metall, Section A 1983;92:A1.
[19] MCFHCM. Research on non-pillar continuous mining method in
Feng Huangshan Copper Mine. Internal technical report, Mining
 J. Deng et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 40 (2003) 585–599
Committee of Feng Huangshan Copper Mine (MCFHCM), 2000
(in Chinese).
[20] Shang YJ, Yue ZQ, Xia BD, Lin HM, Li GH. A tectonic escape
model for the formation of sedimentary basins in the Yangzhou
block of the lower Yangtze Region, Eastern China. J Asian Earth
Sci 2002;20(2):105–17.
[21] Scarselli F, Tsoi AC. Universal approximation using feed forward
neural networks: a survey of some existing methods and some new
results. Neural Networks 1998;11(1):15–37.
[22] Hecht-Nielsen R. Neurocomputing. San Diego: Addison-Wesley,
1989.
599
[23] Lu JG, Yu J, Wang H, Chen XD, Zhou J, Xiao SD. Structural
approximate analysis method based on neural network. Sci China
(Ser A) 1994;24(6):653–8 [in Chinese].
[24] Haldar A, Mahadevan S. Reliability assessment using stochastic
element analysis. New York: Wiley, 2000.
[25] Li XP. Probability theory. Shanghai: Tongji University Press,
1998 [in Chinese].
[26] Meulenkamp F, Grima MA. Application of neural networks
for the prediction of the unconfined compressive strength
(UCS) from Equotip hardness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
1999;36:29–39.