See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271191453

A Critical Review of the Stability Graph Method for Open Stope Design

Conference Paper · June 2012

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4353.0561

CITATIONS READS
8 5,934

1 author:

Fidelis Tawiah Suorineni

Thinkrox Inc
66 PUBLICATIONS   683 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

underground mininig View project

Mining Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fidelis Tawiah Suorineni on 21 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Critical Review of the Stability Graph Method for Open Stope Design

Fidelis T. Suorineni
MIRARCO/Geomechanics Research Centre (GRC), Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

Abstract
The stability graph was introduced in 1981 by Mathews and co-workers in Golder Associates. This period
coincided with the shift from open pit mining to underground bulk or mass mining in North America
between 1970 and 1990. Since then, the stability graph has gained wide recognition around the world,
resulting in the expansion of the original database from the 26 cases in 1981 to 483 cases to date. Several
developments have taken place following its initial inception aimed at improving its reliability in
predicting the stability state of open stopes. This paper critically reviews the developments of the stability
graph to date. It is shown that there is a tendency for authors to arbitrarily choose between the original
and modified stability number factors. The graph which was originally proposed for wide orebodies has
also been applied to narrow-vein orebodies with disregard to the underlying assumptions. New factors
have also been added to the existing stability graph factors. Different transition zones and stability graphs
have also been proposed in the literature. The consequences of this unsystematic approach in the use of
the stability graph are: incomparable data that cannot be combined, different interpretations of the
stability states of given stopes, and confusion for inexperienced users of the method, and practitioners
who are unaware of the various developments. This paper stresses that as an empirical method, the
reliability of the stability graph method is largely dependent on the size, quality, and consistency of the
database, and proposes a unified approach to the use of the stability graph for open stope design. It also
cautions against direct application of the method to narrow vein orebodies.

Biography
The author is a Senior Research Engineer at the Geomechanics Research Centre in MIRARCO.
He is also an Adjunct Professor in the Bharti School of Engineering, Laurentian University,
Canada. He has extensive experience in university teaching, research, and consulting in Ghana
and Canada. He is an active member of the CIM, SME, IOM3 and CARMA.

1. Introduction
Tatman (2001) provides an excellent commentary on mining in North America between 1970 and 1990,
with particular emphasis on the shifts from open pit mining to underground bulk mining. Between 1970
and 1980 there was a rapid decline in underground mining in North America in favour of open pit mining
as low grade gold deposits became economic. Underground mining rejuvenated in the late 1980s at which
time most expertise in underground mining was lost to open pit mining. Hence, many of the management
and technical staff employed to operate the new wave of underground mines, coming from the surface
mining operations, brought little experience in underground mining. The experience with large volume
mining in open pits was thus directly transferred to underground as bulk mining methods. The stability
graph method for open stope mining (bulk mining method) was developed by Mathews et al. (1981) at the
beginning of the shift from surface to underground bulk mining for application to wide orebodies.

The stability graph method for open stope design has since been in use for approximately three decades
now. The method became popular following the expansion of the original database from 26 case histories
from 3 mines to 175 case histories from 34 mines, and the re-calibration of the stability number factors by
Potvin (1988). The extended stability graph by Mathews, Hoek, Wyllie & Stewart (1981) and Trueman &
Mawdesley (2003) contained over 400 case histories from Mt Charlotte Mine in Australia, and other
mines.

The stability graph (Figure 1) is a plot of a stability number (N’) (Equation 1) against a shape factor (S),
also referred to as hydraulic radius (HR) (Equation 2).

 RQD  J r  (1)
N '    A  B * C 
 n  J a
J 
Where N’ is the stability number, RQD = Rock Quality Designation, Jn = Joint set number, Jr = Joint
roughness number, Ja = Joint alteration number, A = Stress factor, B = Joint orientation factor and C =
Gravity factor.

Stope surface area (2)

HR 
Stope surface perimeter
In the stability graph method, the stability of each stope surface is assessed independently. The
conventional stability graph is divided into three zones: stable, unstable (or transition zone) and cave.
These zones are used to predict the potential stability states of the stope surfaces. Empirical charts for the
determination of factors A, B and C are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1. The stability graph (Nickson, 1992)

2. State-of-the-art
Several developments have taken place since the introduction of the stability graph in 1981, all aimed at
improving its accuracy in predicting the stability of open stopes. The most significant limitations
identified to date in the original and modified stability graphs are as follows:

 The sliding failure modes in footwalls are poorly represented by the gravity factor C.
  The stress factor A does not account for instabilities caused by tension.
 Complex stope geometries are often oversimplified.
 Poor blasting effects are usually ignored.
 Fill surface stability is not accounted for when these form some of the stope surfaces.
 Stand-up time is not considered.
 Effects of faults are not considered.
 Subjectivity in defining the stability graph zones.

In the past 30 years, efforts by various researchers have been focused on eliminating the effects of some
of these limitations. The most significant developments are chronicled in Table 1. The developments
catalogued in Table 1 have resulted in different values of the stability number (N’) for the same stope
surface, and different transition zones. Various types of stability graphs have also emerged.

Figure 2. Empirical charts for determination of factors A, B and C (Potvin, 1988)

The use of different definitions of the stability number factors, and different transition zones have resulted
in incomparable data with the following potential problems on the use and further improvement of the
stability graph:

 The databases cannot be combined.

o Mixing data computed from different definitions of the stability graph factors in a single
database leads to spurious conclusions in design.
 The use of different transition zones in the stability graph prevents experiences gained from one
site from being used at another and undermines the fundamental basis of empirical design, which
is the accumulation of expert knowledge for use in similar conditions.
 The existence of different stability graph zones means that the potential stability state of a stope
surface will vary depending on which version of stability graph is used. This is a source of
 confusion for inexperienced users of the stability graph and practitioners who are unaware of its
various developments.

Table 1. Chronology of modifications to the stability graph

Period Developments
1980 - 1985 1. Introduction of stability graph – 26 case histories
(Mathews et al., 1981)
1985 - 1990 1. Calibration of stability graph factors and zones – 175 cases
(Potvin, 1988)
1990 - 1995 1. Tentative cablebolt support line (Potvin & Milne, 1992)
2. Re-definition of unstable/cave (supportable transition boundary –
cablebolt support line) (Nickson, 1992)
3. 1st partial statistical definition of stable/unstable zone (Nickson, 1992)
4. Proposed dilution lines added to stability graph (Scoble & Moss, 1994)
1995 - 2000 1. Re-definition of the transition zones (Stewart & Forsyth, 1995)
2. Modified gravity factor for sliding failure (Hadjigeorgiou, Leclaire &
Potvin, 1995)
3. Second partial statistical definition of stable/unstable zones
(Hadjigeorgiou et al., 1995)
4. Introduction of radius factor RF (Milne, Pakalnis & Lunder,1996)
5. Calibration of proposed dilution lines ELOS (Clark & Pakalnis, 1997)
6. Modified gravity factor for footwalls with shallow dips <70 (Clark &
Pakalnis, 1997)
7. Proposed volumetric index (Germain & Hadjigeorgiou, 1998)
8. First complete statistical analysis of stability graph using Baysian
likelihood statistic (Suorineni, 1998)
9. Introduction of fault factor (Suorineni, 1998; Suorineni et al. 1999)
10. Modified stress factor to include tension and stress-dependent transition
zones (Diederichs & Kaiser, 1999)
2000 - 2005 1. Expanded database to about 400 cases and modified stability graph zones
from Australian database (Trueman et al., 2000; Mawdesley et al., 2001)
2. Second complete statistical analysis using logistic regression – 483 case
histories (Trueman & Mawdesley, 2003)
3. Time-dependent stability graph (Suorineni, Henning & Kaiser,. 2001a)
2005-2010 1. Numerical modeling to validate the B-factor
2010 – to (Bewick & Kaiser, 2009)
date 1. Second modification to stress factor to include tension
(Mitri, Hughes, & Zhang, 2011)

Additionally, and more importantly, it is apparent in the literature that with time, the assumptions
underlying the stability graph development hypothesis have been lost, and some propositions for the use
of the stability graph violate these assumptions. The most significant of the assumptions are:

 The method is applicable to 2-way span exposed excavation surfaces.

 Only joints with trace lengths equal to or greater than 3m should be considered in determining Q’.
 The open stope stability graph method only applies to good ground conditions and no backfill
forms any of the surfaces
 Faults are not in the proximity of the stope surface
  Stopes are mined within 6 months and time is not a factor on their stability

3. Objectives
The objectives of this paper are to:

 Bring to light the confusion created by researchers in the arbitrary choice between Mathews et al.
(1981) and Potvin (1988) stability number (N) factors.
 Bring to light the confusion created by researchers by the different transition zones
 Create awareness among users of the various types of stability graphs and provide proper
guidance on when each should be used.
 Caution users against use of the stability graph for open stope design in narrow vein orebodies.
 Give directions for further improvements to the stability graph.
 Bring the scattered stability graph knowledge to a common source for quick referencing.

The overall goal is to improve on the use of the stability graph so that experiences gained in one mine can
be used as guidance in another and to suggest areas for further research to improve the reliability of the
stability graph method for open stope design.

4. Consequences of the modifications and non-coordination

4.1 Consequences of arbitrary use of stability graph factors and new transition zones

Figure 3 shows a stability graph with the major published stability graph zones. As expected, the stability
graph zones are more database size dependent than on the response of stopes. The figure illustrates the
dilemma faced by the inexperienced user of the stability graph with no knowledge of these potential
contradictions. Points X and Y are stability states of two stope surfaces. According to the Nickson–Potvin
transition zones, stope surface X will cave while according to Trueman and coworkers the stope surface is
stable. The ELOS contour predicts this stope surface, will suffer an overbreak of 0.5 m primarily due to
blasting and is therefore stable, in agreement with Trueman and coworkers. On the other hand, stope
surface Y can be stabilized with support according to Nickson and Potvin, but will suffer failure-major
failure according to Trueman and coworkers. This stope surface will suffer an ELOS>2 m that is
equivalent to caving (major stability problems). Which interpretation is correct)?

4.2 Many types of stability graphs

The literature shows various types of stability graph have emerged for various applications since the
development of the original graph. The original graph (Figure 1) qualitatively evaluates whether a given
stope surface is stable, unstable or cave; and is useful for open stope sizing during planning. This graph
cannot tell specifically how much dilution is going to be incurred.

Quantitative dilution levels are important since from this knowledge a mine can decide what dilution
levels are acceptable to design its stope sizes. Acceptable dilution levels vary from mine to mine and will
also depend on the ore type being mined or mining method used. Because the original stability graph does
not provide quantitative dilution values, the ELOS concept (Clark and Pakalnis, 1997) (Figure 4) was
introduced. Figure 4 gives dilution for stope surfaces as average overbreak depth.
Figure 3. Stope stability with Figure 4. ELOS stability graph Figure 5. Likelihood contours
respect to different transition (Clark & Pakalnis, 1997) stability graph (Suorineni et al.,
zones (Suorineni, 2010) 2001b)

Hutchinson and Diederichs (1996) used the stability graph for cablebolt design where the type of
cablebolt, its spacing and length can be selected.

The original and modified stability graph boundaries were eye-balled. Various researchers (Nickson,
1992; Hadjigeorgiou et al., 1995; Suorineni et al., 2001b) have since defined the stability graph zones
using statistics. The stability states of open stope surfaces plotted on the stability graph can best be
described as probable or most likely. Hence, Diederichs and Kaiser (1999), Suorineni (1998), Trueman et
al. (2000) have used statistics to interpret the stability states of stope surfaces on the stability graph
(Figure 5).

4.3 Consequences of not paying attention to the underlying assumptions

Based on the assumptions in Section 2 application of the stability to narrow vein orebodies without
further adjustments cannot be justified. Open stopes in narrow vein orebodies are most likely one-way
span excavations with the ratio of spans greater than 4:1 to which the shape factor does not apply.

Lizotte (1993), Echo Bay Mines Ltd. and Pakalnis and Associates (1998), and Clark (1998) investigated
the impact of longhole blast patterns on narrow vein mining and all concluded that in narrow vein open
stope mining blast induced overbreak can result in high levels of unplanned dilution, in the best designed
stopes. While Mathews et al. (1981) concluded including a factor in N’ was important, this factor was not
considered but cannot be ignored in the case of narrow vein orebodies.

The original stability graph factors were not calibrated. This justifies the use of the calibrated factors by
Potvin (1988) in preference to the original factors. Future work is planned to unify the application of the
stability graph to both wide and narrow orebodies, and to coordinate the development of a consistent
stability graph database.

5. Conclusions
A key lesson from the review is that empirical databases should not be used blindly. The Potvin calibrated
stability graph factors should be used in place of the original stability graph factors. New stability graph
factors such as the fault factor and stress factors for tension need to be calibrated to be accepted by
industry. Time and blast induced fractures should be included in N’, particularly for narrow vein
orebodies. Finally, there must be consistency in the use of the stability graph to improve its reliability,
and a unified stability graph is required for application to wide and narrow vein orebodies. Such a unified
stability graph must be based on systematic and consistent database.

References
Bewick, R. & Kaiser, P.K. (2009). Numerical assessment of factor B in Mathews’ method for open stope
design, 3rd CAN-US Rock Mechanics Symposium (CD-ROM)). Toronto, ON: Canadian Rock Mechanics
Association.

L.M. Clark, L.M. (1998). Minimizing dilution in open stope mining with focus on stope design and
narrow vein longhole blasting. M.A.Sc. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Clark, L.M. & Pakalnis, R.C. (1997). An empirical approach for estimating unplanned dilutionfrom open
stope hangingwalls and footwalls. 99thAnnual General Meeting, CIM (CD-ROM). Vancouver, B.C:
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.

Diederichs, M.S., & Kaiser, P.K. (1999). Tensile strength and abutment relaxation as failure control
mechanisms in underground excavations. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36, 69–96.

Germain, P. & Hadjigeorgiou, J. (1998). Influence of stope geometry on mining performance. 100th
Annual General Meeting, CIM (CD-ROM). Vancouver, B.C: Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy
and Petroleum.

Hadjigeorgiou, J., Leclaire, J. & Y. Potvin, Y. (1995). An update of the stability graph method of open
stope design. 97th Annual General Meeting, CIM (pp. 154-161). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Canadian Institute
of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.

Hutchinson, J.D., & Diederichs, M.S. (1996). Cablebolting in underground mines. Richmond, BC:
Bitech.

Lizotte, Y.C. (1993). Narrow vein blasthole stoping: Current drilling and blasting technology. (Tech
Report), Ottawa: Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology.

Mathews, K.E., Hoek, E., Wyllie, D.C., & Stewart, S.B.V. (1981). Prediction of stable excavation spans
at depths below 1000m in hard rock mines. (Tech Report DSS Serial No. OSQ80-00081), Ottawa:
Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology.

Mawdesley, C., Trueman, R., & Whiten, W. (2001). Extending the Mathews stability graph for open-
stope design. Trans. Institut. Min. Metallurg. (Section A: Mining Indust.), 110, A27–A39.

Milne, D. M., Pakalnis, R. C., & Lunder, P. J. (1996). Approach to the quantification of hanging-wall
behaviour. Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy. (Section A. Mining Industry) 105,
A69-74.

Mitri, H.S., Hughes, R., & Zhang, Y. (2011). New Rock Stress Factor for the Stability Graph Method.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 48, 141–145.
 Nickson, S.D. (1992). Cable support guidelines for underground hard rock mine operations. M.A.Sc.
thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

Pakalnis, R.C. & Associates (1998). Development of stope design guidelines for narrow vein open stope
mining in terms of minimizing dilution. CANMET Project No. 5-1228.

Potvin, Y. (1988). Empirical open stope design in Canada. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B.C.

Potvin, Y & Milne, D. (1992). Empirical cable bolt support design. Proceedings of International
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Sudbury, ON, Canada.

Scoble, M.J. & Moss, A. (1994). Dilution in underground bulk mining: Implications for production
management, mineral resource evaluation, II. Geol. Soc. Sp. Publ., 79, 95–108.

Stewart, S.B.V., & Forsyth, W.W. (1995). The Mathews method for open stope design. CIM Bull., 88,
45–53.

Suorineni. F.T. (2010). The stability graph after three decades in use: Experiences and the way forward.
International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment 24, 307–339.

Suorineni, F.T. (1998). Effects of faults and stress on open stope design. Ph.D. thesis, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON.

Suorineni, F.T., Henning, J.G., & Kaiser, P.K. (2001a). Narrow-vein mining experiences at Ashanti: Case
study. International National Symposium, Mining techniques of Narrow-vein Deposits. Val’Dor, QC:
Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum.

Suorineni, F.T., Tannant, D.D. & Kaiser, P.K. (2001b). Likelihood statistic for interpretation of the
stability graph for open stope design (Technical Note). Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 38, 735–744.

Suorineni, F.T., Tannant, D.D., & Kaiser, P.K. (1999). Fault factor for the stability graph method of
open-stope design. Trans. Institut. Min. Metallurg. (Sect. A: Mining Indust.) 108, A92–A104.

Tatman,C.R. (2001). Mining dilution in moderate- to narrow-width deposits. Chapter 70: In W.A.
Hustrulid & R.L. Bullock (Eds.), Underground Mining Methods, Engineering Fundamentals and
International Case Studies (1st Edition pp. 615-626). Colorado, USA: SME.

Trueman, R. & Mawdesley, C. (2003). Predicting cave initiation and propagation. CIM Bull., 96, 54–59.

Trueman, R., Mikula, P., Mawdesley, C., & Haries, N. (2000). Experience in Australiawith the
application of the Mathews method of open stope design. CIM Bull., 93, 162–167.

View publication stats