Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55

Geotechnical study of the optimum design of the Chandmari

Coppermine, Rajasthan, India
V.K. Singh *, T.N. Singh
Slope Stability Division, Central Mining Research Institute, Dhanbad, Bihar, India
Received 7 July 1998; accepted 18 November 1998

Abstract

Geotechnical mapping was undertaken to determine the critical orientation of structural discontinuities. The
geomechanical properties were determined in the laboratory and subsequently modified to approximate those of the
in situ rock mass. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to determine the influence of the slope design parameters on
the safety factor. It was also used in determining the most suitable remedial measures for the critical slope. The
analyses using the limit equilibrium method of open pit slopes indicate that an 148 m deep open pit is stable with 60°
overall slope angle. Underground mining using an open sub-level stoping method is being conducted to exploit the
remaining ore in the high slopes which could not be mined by open cast mining. Slope monitoring did not reveal any
movement in and around the pit. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Geotechnical study; Open cast mine; Slope design; Slope stability

1. Introduction an estimated 22 250 000 t with an average grade

This paper deals with the geotechnical study
and slope design of the Chandmari open cast and
underground coppermine. The ore body strikes
NNW–SSE with an average dip of 65° due west.
It is centrally swelled and pinches south. Mineral-
ization is confined to amphibole felspathic quartz-
ite that is exposed towards a hanging wall. The
footwall is characterized by felspathic quartzite.
A dyke dipping at 80° towards the hangingwall
is also present in the pit ( Fig. 1). Chalcopyrite is
the major mineral of the deposit, which contains
* Corresponding author. Fax: +91-326-202429;
e-mail: director@cscmri.ren.nic.in
of 1.274 wt% Cu. The orebody dips at a steep
angle of ca 60° with an average true width of
ca 30 m.
Since the mineralized body is quite small and
dips steeply, the profitability of the mine is largely
dependent on the steepest possible final slope
angle. Earlier (before this geotechnical study), the
open pit was designed with an overall slope angle
of 45°. The study for an optimum slope design of
the open pit was sought by the mine management.
The rock discontinuities were mapped at the
exposed benches of the pit as per ISRM (1978).
The shear strength parameters were estimated by
testing the samples in the laboratory. Stability
analysis was done using the limit equilibrium

0013-7952/99/$ – see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0 0 1 3 -7 9 5 2 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 08 0 - 5
48 V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh / Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55

Fig. 1. Geological map of the open copper pit.

method. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to
determine the most effective remedial measure for
any critical slope.
The swelled up ore body (40 m width and 313 m
length) has been mined with a stripping ratio of
1:4.51 from the open pit of 500 m length and
200 m width. The ultimate pit depth is 148 m.
The pinching (narrow) part of the ore body lies
at a depth of ca 100 m. It was not viable to exploit
this with open cast mining. Hence, exploitation of
this ore body has been planned by sub-level open
stoping underground mining. The slopes were
monitored to detect any movement in the
rockmass.
indicated the presence of four steeply dipping sets
and a single sub-horizontal joint set, that is, a
bedding joint ( Table 1).
The joints are moderately to widely spaced
[between 20 and 90 cm, ISRM (1978)]. The spac-
ing of the bedding plane is >3 m and the rock
mass may be described as massively bedded. The
wide spacing of the joints contributes to a rock
quality designation (RQD) rating of >80%.
The discontinuity sets J1 and J2 may be classed
as systematic joint sets. J3 and J4 are sub-system-
atic and J5 is non-systematic joint sets (ISRM,
Table 1
Mean orientation of joint sets (719 observations)

2. Geotechnical field investigations Joint set Mean orientation of the joint sets

Dip direction (°) Dip amount (°)

Geotechnical mapping was carried out in and
around the partially developed open pit. The statis- J1 N011±7 82±3
tical analysis of the orientation data was done with J2 N338±7 82±5
the help of the  computer programme (Jeran J3 N100±10 81±5
J4 N219±18 24±8
and Mashey, 1970). J5 N273±8 81±6
The statistical analysis of the discontinuity data
 V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh / Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55
1978). J1, J2 and J3 joint sets can be said to have
high persistence, being traceable to distances of
20 m in the direction of the dip.
Attempts were made to measure the roughness
precisely in the field. However, only a few disconti-
nuities were found to be suitable for roughness
measurement due to the inaccessibility of the large
exposed discontinuity surface. The dip direction
and dip amount were obtained with the help of a
Clar compass by putting circular discs 5, 10, 20
and 40 cm in diameter at various positions over a
few discontinuity surfaces (Hoek and Bray, 1981).
The effective large scale roughness angle, measured
from a 40 cm circular disc (Fecker and Rengers,
1971), in the direction of potential sliding is 3° for
the both amphibole felspathic quartzite and fel-
spathic quartzite joints.
The majority of the joints (>90%) are closed.
A few open fractures observed in the field appear
to be the result of the blasting operation. A small
number of joints are filled with siliceous material
which comes from the weathering of the parent
rock.
The lack of hydraulic channels within the rock
mass, the presence of properly maintained surface
drains and an annual rainfall of only 500 mm per
year mean that the slopes of the open pit can be
regarded as effectively drained.
3. Geotechnical laboratory investigations
It is widely believed that the scale effect associ-
ated with laboratory testing of the shear strength
of discontinuities may be overcome through meas-
urement of the residual angle of friction in the
laboratory (Coulson, 1970; Barton, 1973, Hoek
and Londe, 1974; Barton and Choubey, 1977;
McMahon, 1985; Bandis, 1990; Yu and Vayssade,
Table 2
Realistic values for the friction angles
Rock type Laboratory determined friction angle
(w ) of saw cut samples (mean) (°)
r r
Amphibole felspathic quartzite 32
Felspathic quartzite 30
49
1991; Huang et al., 1992). A realistic estimate of
the shear strength of discontinuities may be made
by adding the residual friction angle, determined
in the laboratory, to the large scale roughness
angle which is measured in the field (Mohammad
et al., 1997; Hoek and Brown, 1998). Residual
friction angles were determined from saw cut
samples in a shear box apparatus and the values
obtained were added to the large scale roughness
angles ( Table 2).
An assessment of the angles of friction derived
thus was verified by back analysis of two bench
scale slope failures. It is necessary to estimate the
effective cohesion of joint surfaces that had been
mobilized at the time of failure to arrive at the
angles of friction. Shear strength parameters of
5.1 t m−2 and 33° and of 4.8 t m−2 and 35° were
thus estimated for the felspathic quartzite and
amphibole felspathic quartzite rock mass, respec-
tively, for use in the ensuing stability analysis using
the back analysis method based on the limit equi-
librium method.
Residual friction angles of 32 and 30° were
adopted, as final friction angles during stability
analysis, for the J4 joint set and bedding planes in
the amphibole felspathic quartzite and felspathic
quartzite rock mass due to the remarkable planar-
ity of both types of structures. The considerable
persistence of the bedding plane and also the J4
joint set in the dip direction led to the assignment
of a zero value of cohesion for use in the stability
analysis.
Statistical homogeneity can be measured using
the two way analysis of variance technique
(Croxton et al., 1982) and also using the fractal
method ( Kulatilake et al., 1997). It helps in identi-
fication of different homogeneous sectors within
the mine. If the strength significantly varies in
different parts of the pit then the pit has to be
Large scale mean field Realistic value of
roughness angle (i) (°) friction angle (w +i) (°)
3 35
3 33
50 V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh / Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55

divided into different homogeneous sectors with

the same strength. This helps achieve optimum
slope design of the mine.
Statistical homogeneity/heterogeneity in the
strength of the rock mass, at different locations
and also at different depths in the open pit, was
determined using the two way analysis of variance
technique. To achieve this objective, extensive dia-
metrical point load testing was carried out at
different depths on NX size borehole samples of
both the rock types drilled at nine different loca-
tions of the open pit. The location of the different
boreholes are presented in Fig. 1. The analyses
show that the strength does not vary significantly
at different locations and depths of the pit.

4. Slope design using the limit equilibrium method

The limit equilibrium method is a widely

Fig. 2. Stereoplot showing the kinematic analysis for the
accepted and commonly used design tool in slope
different types of failure.
engineering. The first step in the slope design is to
identify all kinematically possible failure modes. Table 3
Stereographic projection is a simple and meaning- Dip ring analysis for the hangingwall slope (18 rings 5.0° each;
ful method of identifying the different failure types. 172 observations)
This kinematic test was carried out on the lower
Sample No. Range (°) Number Percentage
hemisphere of the equatorial equal area projection.
1 0.0–5.0 0 0.0
4.1. Slope design of hangingwall slope 2 5.0–10.0 0 0.0
3 10.0–15.0 0 0.0
The kinematic test of the hangingwall slope is 4 15.0–20.0 0 0.0
5 20.0–25.0 0 0.0
presented in Fig. 2 to show the types of failure 6 25.0–30.0 0 0.0
possible. The critical discontinuity must lie within 7 30.0–35.0 0 0.0
20° of the slope face for plane failure to occur. 8 35.0–40.0 0 0.0
Only the J1 joint set strikes approximately parallel 9 40.0–45.0 0 0.0
to the hangingwall slope face. The mean dip direc- 10 45.0–50.0 5 2.9
11 50.0–55.0 4 2.3
tion of J1 joint set is N011°, which is oblique to 12 55.0–60.0 6 3.5
the mean dip direction of the hangingwall slope 13 60.0–65.0 16 9.3
face of N030° (Fig. 2). Structures with dip direc- 14 65.0–70.0 14 8.1
tions between N010 and N050° (i.e. within ±20° 15 70.0–75.0 14 8.1
of the slope face) were therefore analysed with the 16 75.0–80.0 36 20.9
17 80.0–85.0 57 33.1
use of the  program to determine the number 18 85.0–90.0 20 11.6
of joints with dips >35°, the condition for sliding
to occur ( Table 3).
It is evident from Table 3 that all the joints dip range 60–65° (Table 3). Furthermore, these joints
from 45° to 90°, but <8.7% joints occur in the have approximately the same strike and dip direc-
dip rings from 45 to 60°. However, the proportion tion as the hangingwall slope face.
of joints that daylight increases sharply in the dip If a slope angle >60° is specified, the number
 V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh / Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55
of critical joints that could daylight in the slope
face would be significant. The main objective in
the overall slope design is to minimize the risk of
failure. Hence, it is important to minimize the
number of potential failure planes that could day-
light in a given slope.
A computer based limit equilibrium method was
used in the stability analysis. Plane failure analysis
for overall slope was done with the use of the 
program (Singh, 1992) that calculates the safety
factor for four different conditions (Table 4).
The drained slope with a tension crack ( F2
condition of Table 4) was adopted as representa-
tive of the situation at the mine site because of the
mine’s location in a semi-arid region and the
potential for development of tension cracks along
the steeply dipping J1 joint set. A depth of 20 m
was assumed for tension cracks in accordance with
the observed persistence of the J1 set.
A preliminary stability analysis indicated that
joints with dips of <56° would be stable should
they daylight in a hangingwall slope of 60° dip.
So, detailed stability analysis with a joint dip <56°
was considered to be unnecessary. Similarly it was
judged that analysing the stability of joints with
dips >60–65° would be inappropriate as these
joints would not daylight in a 60–65° slope. So, it
was decided to conduct stability analysis with a
58° joint dip (the most critical joint orientation)
for an overall slope angle in the range of 60
and 65°.
The 60° hangingwall slope (drained slope with
Table 4
Safety factor for the hangingwall slope
Failure plane inclination (°) Tension crack depth (m)
60° overall slope
55 20.0
58 20.0
65° overall slope
55 20.0
58 20.0
63 20.0
Friction angle=35°, overall slope height=148 m, cohesion=4.8 t m−2; unit weight=2.68 t m−3. F1 is the safety factor for the slope
with water up to half of the depth of the tension crack, F2 is the safety factor for the drained slope with the tension crack, F3 is the
safety factor for the drained slope without the tension crack and F4 is the safety factor for the slope with water up to half of the
depth of the slope, but without the tension crack.
51
tension crack, i.e. F2 of Table 4) is stable for
failure plane dipping at 58°. The same 60° slope
becomes unstable with a 55° joint dip ( Table 4).
It is evident from Table 3 that only 10 joints (5.8%)
dip <58°, which may form critical plane failure
geometry. As such these few observations are not
representative of the overall structure and also do
not come from the same area. At the same time
65° slopes become unstable with both 55 and 58°
joint inclinations and become critically stable
( F2=1.15) with a 63° joint dip with a critical
tension crack depth ( Table 4). It is critically stable
because the cut-off value of the safety factor for
the slope design was selected to be 1.2, due to the
need for long term stability for the mine slopes.
So, more critical joints are exposed in the 65° slope
face. Therefore, an overall slope angle of 60° is a
logical choice.
4.2. Slope design of footwall slope
The kinematic analysis of footwall slope indi-
cated that J5 is the only critical joint set for plane
failure with a dip direction of N270° ( Fig. 2). Dip
ring analysis revealed that only one joint is found
to be dipping at <55° in the relevant dip directions
range of N250–N290° ( Table 5). However, ca 9%
joints are dip between 60 and 65°. Hence, it was
decided to carry out stability analysis again with
a 58° joint dip, the most critical orientation for a
footwall slope angle in the range of 60–65°.
The single daylighting joint (Table 6) is stable
F1 F2 F3 F4
0.56 0.78 0.79 0.39
0.62 1.26 1.16 0.20
0.52 0.63 0.65 0.44
0.48 0.64 0.65 0.37
0.53 1.15 1.08 0.13
52 V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh / Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55

Table 5 strikes (N136°) approximately parallel (within

Dip ring analysis for the footwall slope (18 rings 5.0° each; 75 ±20°) to the hangingwall slope face. It is stable
observations)
because the 73° dip of W1 is greater than the
Sample No. Range (°) Number Percentage logically selected overall slope of 60° during analy-
sis for plane failure. Further, only wedge W8
1 0.0–5.0 0 0.0 strikes approximately parallel to the footwall slope
2 5.0–10.0 0 0.0
3 10.0–15.0 0 0.0 face but dips at 20°, which is less than the internal
4 15.0–20.0 0 0.0 friction angle. Hence, this wedge kinematically is
5 20.0–25.0 1 1.3 also stable for the 60° overall slope.
6 25.0–30.0 0 0.0 The metabasic dyke will not cause instability
7 30.0–35.0 0 0.0 because of its location in the middle part of the
8 35.0–40.0 0 0.0
9 40.0–45.0 0 0.0 pit, which will be excavated during the mining.
10 45.0–50.0 0 0.0
11 50.0–55.0 0 0.0
12 55.0–60.0 4 5.3 4.4. Sensitivity analysis of slopes
13 60.0–65.0 7 9.3
14 65.0–70.0 6 8.0 The sensitivity or rate of change of the safety
15 70.0–75.0 8 10.7 factor is evaluated by changing significant parame-
16 75.0–80.0 13 17.3
17 80.0–85.0 30 40.0
ters in turn while keeping the values of other
18 85.0–90.0 6 8.0 parameters constant. This rate of change indicates
the importance of the parameters for the stability
of the slope.
in a 60° footwall slope, because it dips at an angle One of the options of the computer program
(between 20 and 25°) less than the friction angle  was used for the sensitivity analysis of the
(33°). However, the 65° slope is critically stable hangingwall slopes. The main aim of the sensitivity
with a few joints inclining between 60 and 65°. analysis was to determine the influence of different
Hence, a 60° pit slope angle is safe from plane parameters on the safety factor. The result, with
failure. various values of cohesion and friction angle
(within their possible ranges) at different water
4.3. Wedge failure analysis depths in the tension crack, are presented graphi-
cally in Fig. 3. The influence of water (in the
Kinematic tests for wedge failure analysis are tension crack) and cohesion (along the joints) on
presented in Fig. 2. Eleven wedges are formed by the safety factor is clearly evident from this figure.
the intersections of different joint sets and the An important conclusion which emerged from
dyke. It is evident from Fig. 2 that only wedge W1 these parametric studies is the decisive influence

Table 6
Safety factor for the footwall slope

Failure plane inclination (°) Tension crack depth (m) F1 F2 F3 F4

60° overall slope

55 20.0 0.63 1.19 1.07 0.69
58 20.0 1.80 10.10 1.86 0.98

65° overall slope

55 20.0 0.53 0.75 0.78 0.58
58 20.0 0.51 0.85 0.85 0.58
60 20.0 0.54 1.07 0.98 0.61

Overall slope height=77 m; friction angle=33°; cohesion=5.1 t m−2; unit weight=2.62 t m−3.
 V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh / Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55 53

Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis of the hangingwall slope.

of water in the tension crack, in comparison to
other parameters, on the safety factor. The slopes
are stable without water in the tension crack with
any combination of cohesion and friction angle.
Hence, the slope is stable in the most likely geomin-
ing condition (drained slope with a tension crack).
For a half filled tension crack condition, the slope
is stable only with cohesion >5 t m−2. For a fully
submerged tension crack the slope is only stable
with cohesion >6.5 t m−2.
The cohesive strength available along the joints
may decrease with time due to weathering and the
slope may become unstable. Therefore, it is neces-
sary to avoid any entry of water in the tension
crack and its further extension to a greater depth.
Any visible tension crack should be filled with a
permeable material. The top of the crack is covered
by any impermeable material. The permeable
material within the crack will allow the flow of
ground water across the tension crack. The imper-
meable material at the top of the tension crack
will not allow surface water to enter the crack.
The suitably filled tension crack will change the
condition from an ‘‘undrained slope with a tension
crack’’ to an ‘‘undrained slope without a tension
crack’’. It is evident from Fig. 3 that a half sub-
54 V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh / Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55
merged slope without a tension crack is stable
even with the lowest cohesion and friction angle
values.
For constant material properties of the sliding
surface, an increase of the cohesion by 2.0 t m−2
causes an increase in the safety factor by 0.39
(Fig. 3). The influence of the friction angle by
contrast is smaller. Hence, artificial reinforcement
will be beneficial in retaining the maximum avail-
able shear strength of joints having critical orienta-
tion in the slope face. Sensitivity analyses of the
footwall slope has also revealed the same results.
5. Final pit sloping angle
It is evident from the earlier discussion that a
maximum 60° overall slope angle for the whole
Fig. 4. Open cast mining in the fracture rock mass and two
openings at the 374 and 354 m levels for the underground
mining.
open pit would be the best logical choice. It is
noteworthy that before this geotechnical study, the
open pit was designed at an overall slope angle of
45°. The height of the individual benches was
10–12 m. However, the mine management got
permission from Directorate General of Mines
Safety (the only federal safety enforcing agency in
India) to excavate the open pit with a maximum
60° overall slope angle, based on the present
geotechnical study. It is the steepest slope angle
permitted by DGMS for an 148 m deep open pit
mine in India. Bench height of 20 m was also
permitted by DGMS. Initially benches 10 m high
were developed but at the pit limits two benches
were joined together to give the maximum bench
height of 20 m ( Figs. 4 and 5). Open cast mining
has been successfully completed up to a depth of
Fig. 5. Benches (20 m) and the entry point for the 374 m
underground mining level.
 V.K. Singh, T.N. Singh / Engineering Geology 53 (1999) 47–55
148 m (Figs. 4 and 5), but at present only
underground mining is in progress ( Figs. 4 and 5).
6. Underground mining
Two levels, from 374 and 354 m RL benches of
the opencast mine, have been developed by
underground mining. At these two levels, the ore
body splits into two lenses (hangingwall and foot-
wall lodes). The width of the respective lodes are
12.5 and 18 m with 10 m intervening waste. The
strike length is 94 m. These two lodes are being
mined as hangingwall and footwall slopes sepa-
rately using the longitudinal sub-level open stop-
ping method. The 374 m level is a drill level stope.
The 354 m level is the extraction level for upper
level stopes and drill level for lower level stopping.
7. Slope monitoring
A slope monitoring programme has subse-
quently been undertaken. The observation stations
are located on the crest of the open pit and on the
in-pit benches. Monitoring stations have also been
installed on 384 and 404 m berms above the
underground working. An electronic distance
meter ( Wild DI4L) and a precise level ( Wild NA2)
have been used to determine displacements of the
rock mass. To date no movement has been
observed.
References
Bandis, S.C., 1990. Mechanical properties of rock joints. In:
Barton, N., Stephansson, O. ( Eds.), Proc. Int. Symp. Rock
Joints, Norway, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 125–140.
55
Barton, N., 1973. Review of a new shear strength criteria for
rock joints. Eng. Geol. 7, 287–330.
Barton, N., Choubey, V., 1977. The shear strength of rock joints
in theory and practice. Rock Mech. 10, 1–54.
Coulson, J.H., 1970. The effects of surface roughness on the
shear strength of joints in rocks. Technical Report MRD
2-70, Missouri River Division, Corps of Engineers,
Omaha, NE.
Croxton, F.E., Cowden, D.J., Klein, S., 1982. Applied General
Statistics, 3rd edn. Prentice–Hall, New Delhi, pp. 614–619.
Fecker, E., Rengers, N., 1971. Measurement of large scale
roughness of rock planes by means of profilograph and geo-
logical compass. Proc. Int. Symp. Rock Fracture, Nancy,
pp. 1–18.
Hoek, E., Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering, 3rd edn.
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hoek, E., Brown, E.T., 1998. Practical estimates of rock mass
strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (8), 1165–1186.
Hoek, E., Londe, P., 1974. The design of rock slopes and foun-
dations. General Report 3rd Cong. ISRM, Denver, pp. 1–40.
Huang, S.L., Oelgke, S.M., Speck, R.C., 1992. Applicability of
fractal characterization and modelling to rock joint profiles.
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 29, 89–98.
ISRM, 1978. Suggested methods for the quantitative descrip-
tion of discontinuities in rock masses. Commission on the
Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests in Rock
Mechanics, Pergamon, Elsevier Science, Oxford.
Jeran, P.W., Mashey, J.R., 1970. A computer program for the
stereographic analysis of coal fractures and cleats. United
States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, IC 8454.
Kulatilake, P.H.S.W., Fiedler, R., Panda, B.B., 1997. Box frac-
tal dimention as a measure of statistical homogeneity of
jointed rock masses. Eng. Geol. 48 (3), (4), 217–230.
McMahon, B.K., 1985. Some practical considerations of the
estimation of shear strength of joints and other discontinuit-
ies. Proc. Int. Symp. Fundamentals of Rock Joints, Centek
Publishers, Lulea, pp. 475–485.
Mohammad, N., Reddish, D.J., Stace, L.R., 1997. The relation
between in-situ and laboratory rock properties used in
numerical modelling. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34 (2),
289–298.
Singh, V.K., 1992. Influence of geotechnical factors on open pit
slope stability. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Mineral Engi-
neering, Banaras Hindu University, India.
Yu, X., Vayssade, B., 1991. Joint profiles and their roughness
parameters. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min Sci. Geomech. Abstr.
28 (4), 333–336.