Chapter 4

Mine Planning and Design MN 471
CHAPTER 4
NATURALLY SUPPORTED MINING SYSTEMS
4.1 Lecture Objectives and Expected Outcomes
The objectives of this lecture are:

 To explain the basis of naturally supported mining systems and discuss their
advantages and disadvantages.
 To present room-and-pillar mining system as a typical example of naturally
supported mining system.
 To explain the principles of designing room-and – pillar mining systems.
 To present the design of a typical sublevel stoping mining system.
At the end of the lecture, the student is expected to:

 Understand the philosophy and techniques of naturally supported mining systems.
 Be able to discern the conditions under which they are applicable.
 Be able to design room-and-pillar mining systems.
 Be able to design sublevel stoping mining system.
4.2 Nature of Naturally Supported Mining Systems
Naturally supported mining systems aim to preserve the structural integrity of the rock
surrounding excavations, i.e. stopes. Caving of surrounding rock is prevented by natural
supports from unmined ore or waste left in the stope, in the form of pillars and stope side
walls (also called ribs or abutments).
The main advantages of naturally supported mining systems arise from the natural supports.
They are:
 Cheap.
 Simple.
 Flexible.
Earliest miners typically opened out underground chambers to the maximum dimensions
which experience proved to be compatible with safety. This technique (often termed
gathering) led to irregular, open chambers and, although still practiced in some small mines,
has been largely replaced by more regular, planned layouts.
The main disadvantages of naturally supported mining systems are the following:
 There is low percentage extraction of ore owing to the fact that some ore must be left
as pillars.
 Selectivity is poor because pillars must be left where they are needed irrespective of
ore grade.
 The ground must be reasonably strong if major collapses are to be avoided.
Notes prepared by Assoc. Prof. Raymond S. Suglo Course Lecturer: B. O. Afum 4-1
4.3 Room-and-Pillar Mining Systems (RPMS)
4.3.1 Mining Method and Characteristics
Room-and-pillar mining systems are a typical example of naturally supported mining

systems. The method of mining consists of stoping part of the ore to create rooms. The
remaining ore and waste material are left as pillars to provide support. The pillars can be
circular or rectangular or as longitudinal walls. The arrangement of rooms and pillars can be
regular or irregular although the former is preferred in order to simplify design, planning
and mining activities. The relative dimensions of the stopes (called rooms) and the pillars are
determined by the strength of the ore and the weight of the overlying strata. The material left
as pillars varies from as little as 10% in shallow deposits with competent rock to well over
50% in less competent, orebodies at great depth. RPMS is normally applied to orebodies with
flat or near horizontal deposits but variations of the method can allow for orebodies with
inclination not exceeding 30o to be mined. Successful RPMS implementation requires
suitable geomechanical conditions such as competent orebody, stable hangingwall, and
usually low rock pressure and few or no cross-jointing in the immediate roof. Fig. 4.1 is a
plan of a typical room-and-pillar layout.
Fig. 4.1 Plan of a Typical Room-and-Pillar Excavation
(Rooms are denoted by R and Pillars by P and Preliminary Crushing is carried out by the Crusher C. D
is the dumping point (hopper) for shuttle cars. The small arrows show the direction of localised
excavations)
In deposits less than 7 m thick, the rooms are advanced in single full face cycle operations
which usually consist of drilling and blasting, loading and hauling the broken ore, making
the stope safe and recommencing the cycle (see Fig. 4.2). In thicker deposits, this full face
advance method is inconvenient and expensive, and it is usual to mine the upper section of
the orebody as in the full face method. The lower section of the orebody is subsequently
mined by a similar cycle of operations (see Fig. 4.3). In very thick deposits, the mining cycle
may require a series of benches.
Fig. 4.2 Sequence of Operations of Room and Pillar Mining
If the roof or floor of the rock is weak, the method may be applied in a modified form by
leaving a layer of ore adjacent to the floor or both as crown and sill pillars. The maximum
room height (i.e. pillar height) compatible with safety can be up to 30 m in competent rock
and as low as 2 m in weaker strata. Very thick deposits exceeding this maximum height may
be mined in two or more levels with a horizontal pillar of rock between levels.
The major advantages of room-and-pillar mining systems are their flexibility, i.e:
 Production rate can readily be varied according to demand.
 Mechanization is easy.
 The worked out areas act as access and haulageway and thereby reduce the amount
of secondary development.
 Ventilation can be adequate, easy and cheap.
Fig. 4.3 Room and Pillar Mining of an Orebody thicker than 7 m.

(The upper section is mined by full face advance and the lower section is mined later)
The major disadvantages are that in weaker ground there may be a gradual deterioration in
roof and pillar and maintenance of these can be costly. Also, because of the need to leave
substantial pillars of ore behind, the percentage of ore extraction can be low. This percentage
can, however, be greatly increased by subsequently mining the ore pillars after the deposit
has been mined to its boundaries; the pillars can be mined in a retreating sequence,
beginning at the boundaries and working back towards the initial access.
RPMS has been applied successfully to bedded deposits of sedimentary origin including coal
and copper-mineralised shales and industrial minerals such as limestone, salt and potash.
Some gold deposits have also been mined with the method. In all cases, the main objective is
to extract or stope as much ore as possible while maintaining stable rooms. Geomechanical
factors such as the strength of ore and thickness of the deposit impose a limit on room
dimensions. Increasing the pillar size or number of pillars and reducing the room width can
compensate for poor ground conditions. This, however, means reducing the ore extraction
since more ore is left in the pillars. On the other hand, small size pillars that are theoretically
stable may not always be safe in practice due to local geologic conditions. It is therefore
necessary to combine theory and practice in order to achieve optimum dimensions of rooms
and pillars.
Fig. 4.3 Room & Pillar Mining of an Orebody thicker than 7 m.

(The upper section is mined by full face advance & the lower section is mined later)
4.3.2 Design of RPMS
4.3.2.1 Design Approach and Limitations
Assuming that rock is an elastic, transversely isotropic material, a theoretical model can be
developed to calculate the total stresses and mining induced displacements around
excavations, including surface deflections. Boundary element and finite element analyses are
two methods that can be used. There are programs for such analyses but apart from being
sophisticated and therefore expensive in terms of computer units, their suitability come to
play only when the orebody has been exposed so that immediate environmental stresses can
be measured over a period of time. For an initial design, probably a more pragmatic
approach is to use the Tributary Area Theory (TAT) for pillar design, and the Plate Theory
(PT) for the design of stable rooms. This approach is suggested because it provides a
satisfactory solution without incurring very high costs in the analysis.
The TAT was outlined by Obert and Duvall (1967). Salamon (1967) utilized the idea to design
RPMS layout in South Africa. The limitations of the approach have been outlined by Brady
and Brown (1985) to include the following:
 The average axial pillar stress which is regarded as representing the state of loading
a pillar in a direction parallel to the principal direction of confinement is not simply
related to the state of stress in pillar which could be determined by proper stress
analysis.
 The TAT focuses attention on the pre-mining normal stress component directed
parallel to the principal axis of the pillar support system, which implies that other
components of the pre-mining stress are assumed to have no effect on pillar
performance. This may not generally be true.
 The effect of pillar location within the orebody is ignored.
The PT also has a disadvantage: generally, a rock mass has very low tensile strength due to
existence of joints, cracks or other planes of weakness. The common empirical approach,
erring on the side of safety, is to assume the tensile strength to be zero. The PT, however,
assumes that the rock strata in the immediate hangingwall of the openings have a finite
tensile strength. Because of the difficulty of assessing the actual value of the tensile strength,
the usual tendency is to use very high Factor of Safety (FOS) in the design procedure. Based
on observed performances of immediate hangingwall strata insitu, Obert and Duvall (1967)
suggest that the FOS value should be between 0 and 4.
Despite the shortcomings of the TAT and PT, they have been successfully employed in
designing RPMS in several mines throughout the world. They provide a useful way of
examining various possible extraction strategies, to determine the sensitivity of extraction
ratio to changes in rock and properties and mining layout. They are therefore particularly
suitable for the consideration of the general viability of ore extraction with RPMS. However,
if due to specific location or rock properties the layout requires special attention then it
might be appropriate to follow up the initial analysis with a more complex design technique
such as the finite element or boundary element analysis.
4.3.2.2 Design Procedure
The design procedure considers four possible modes of failure:

 Pillar failure.
 Bearing failure in roof.
 Bearing failure in floor.
 Beam failure in roof.
The principle is to select a suitable value of FOS, based on empirical knowledge of otherwise,
for each mode of failure to provide a basis for the design. Normally, two FOS are to be
identified namely the pillar strength FOS and bearing capacity FOS. The analysis is based on
three design criteria:
 The strength of the proposed pillars and therefore their ability to withstand the axial
stress imposed on them.
 The bearing capacity of immediate roof and floor.
 The ability of the roof span to support itself.
4.3.2.3 Pillar Strength
A generally accepted method for calculating the pillar strength is that proposed by Hardy and
Agapito (1977) which relates pillar strength to the uniaxial compressive strength of a sample
of known dimensions, e.g., 1 m3. The resultant relation, which can be applied as a scaling law,
is given as:
A B
V   Wp H s 
S p  Ss  s     (1)
V  H W 
 p  p s 
where Sp = strength of pillar, Ss = sample uniaxial compressive strength, Vs = volume of

sample, Vp = volume pillar, Wp = width of pillar, Ws = width of sample, Hp = height of pillar,
Hs = height of sample, A and B are empirical constants. These empirical constants cannot be
determined for an initial design; from a study on oil shale pillar performances, the values
suggested be Hardy and Agapito (1977) are A = 0.118 and B = 0.933.
An alternative relation for determining the strength of pillars, which was used by Salamon
and Munro (1967), is expressed by the empirical formula:
Sp  GWpT H RP (2)
where G, T and R are constants. For square pillars Salamon and Munro (1967) suggest the
values of these constants to be 7.18, -066 and 0.46 respectively. The constants given so far
must not be taken arbitrarily since different geomechanical environments can have different
constant values. It is advisable to determine these values for the particular environment
under consideration. However, they provide a good guide for initial pillar design. A simpler
expression is given by Benniawski as:
 W
S p  Sc  0.64  0.36  (3)
 H
where c is the strength of a cubical specimen of the rock.
The average pillar stress for square pillar is derived using TAT to be:
2
 Wp  Wo 
σ p  Pz   (4)
 W 
 p 
where p = average pillar stress, Pz = vertical normal component of pre-mining field stress
(Pz = h), Wp = width of pillar, Wo = width of room (see Fig. 4.4).
The Areal Extraction Ratio (AER) can be defined as the ratio of area mined to total area of
orebody and calculated as:
W  W  - W 2
 Wp 
AER  1-  
o p p
(5)
W  W  o p
2 W W
 p o


For pillars which are not square in shape, the pillar stress, p, may be calculated as:
Pz Wp  L p Wo  L o 
p  (6)
Wp  L p
where Wp, Lp are widths and length of pillar and Wo and Lo are the width and length of room.
The Factor of Safety (FOS) is calculated as:

Sp
FOS  (7)
σp
It is recommended that 1< FOS< 2 based on several investigations carried out on the stability
of pillars by Salamon. (See Fig. 4.5).
4.3.2.4 Bearing Capacity of Roof and Floor
The load applied by a pillar to the footwall and hangingwall in a stratiform orebody can be
compared directly with a distributed load applied on the surface of a half span. A useful
method of calculating the bearing capacity was proposed by Brinch (1970). This method
expresses the bearing capacity in terms of pressure or stress and assumes that the average
axial pillar stress is equivalently applied as a uniformly distributed normal load to the
adjacent rock. Schematic and conceptual representation of the problem is illustrated in Fig.
4.6. Under the above assumption, the bearing capacity is given by Brady and Brown (1985)
as:
qp 
1
2
 
yWp N yS y  2C cot  N g Sg - 1 (8)
where  = density of floor rock, Wp = width of pillar WL = length of pillar  = angle of friction,
C = cohesion, N and Ng are strength factors and S and Sg are shape factors and given by:
 
N g  e n tan tan 2  45   ;
 2
N  1.5N g - 1 tan  ;
 Wp 
S  1.0 - 0.4  ; and
 WL 
 Wp 
Sg  1.0  sin    .
 WL 
The FOS against bearing capacity failure is:
qb
FOS (9)
σp
4.3.2.5 Stability of Opening Roof Span
Estimation of the maximum stable room span is based on the assumption that the immediate
roof consists of laminae, which can therefore be treated by means of the PT. The approach is
therefore suitable for seams of moderate thickness as the assumption may not hold for very
thick seams.
Using the PT, Obert and Duvall (1967) derived the maximum tensile stress (tmax) at the
centre of the plate to be:
6 S 2
  max  (10)
t
where  = a constant related to the shape of the plate and can be taken as 0.0513 for square
pillars,  = unit weight of the plate material, i.e. density, S= span, t = thickness of immediate
roof or plate laminae.
As a guide, the modulus of rapture Ro can be taken to be 1/10 of the uniaxial compressive
strength. This gives an expression for the FOS as:
Ro
FOS (11)
σ i max
For reasons discussed earlier, an acceptable FOS under these circumstances would be
approximately 5.0 – 8.0
4.4 Illustrative Example on Layout Design of RPMS
Question: A near horizontal orebody with a dip of 15o is planned to be worked with room-
and-pillar mining system. An initial layout is designed to have 6 m room spans and 4 m
square pillars. The orebody is located at 150 m below ground surface and it is 4 m thick. The
unit weight of the overburden is 20 kN/m3. Analysis of pillar failures in the orebody indicates
that the pillar strength (Sp) can be defined by the formula:
Sp  15H -0.16
p Wp0.4
where Sp is in MPa and pillar height (Hp) and pillar width (Wp) are in m.
(a) Use the Tributary Area Theory (TAT) to determine the Factor of Safety (FOS)
against compressive failure of pillars and so state whether the initial layout is
acceptable or not.
(b) (i) Estimate the dimensions of room and pillars that will ensure maximum ore
extraction ratio, for a selected FOS of 1.5, assuming pillars will not be
recovered.
(ii) Hence present in three standard views the design of the mining system to
mine the orebody.
Solution:
(a) Unit weight of overburden,  = 20 KN/m3

Height of overburden, H = 150 m
Pre-mining stress, Pzz = H = (20 kN/m3)(150 m) = 3000 kPa = 3 MPa
2
 Wo  Wp 
  3 6  4  = 18.75 MPa
2
Average axial pillar stress, σ p  p zz 

 W   4 
 p 
Pillar strength, Sp  15H p

0.6
Wp
0.4
  
=  15 4 0.6 4 0.4 = 15(0.44)(1.74) = 11.36 MPa
Sp 11.36
FOS    0.61
p 18.75
FOS< 1: Therefore the initial layout design is unacceptable.
(b) The low FOS in the initial layout design necessitates redesign to achieve the required FOS
of 1.5. The redesign options are:
(i) To reduce the room span, thereby reduce the pillar stress level.
(ii) To increase the pillar width or
(iii) To reduce the pillar height.
Options (ii) & (iii) are intended to increase the pillar strength.
Options (i): Reducing room span. This implies reducing average pillar stress, p to achieve
FOS = 1.5
Sp 11.36
FOS   1.5
σp p
11.36
p   7.57 M Pa
1.5
Now, the reduced room span Wp can be found:

2
 Wo  Wp 
σ p  p zz    7.57
 W 
 p 
 W  4
2
3 o   7.57
 4 
1
 7.57  2
Wo    4 - 4  2.35m
 3 
Option (ii): Increasing pillar width, Wp, to increase pillar strength, Sp, to achieve FOS = 1.5
Pillar strength, Sp = 15 H p0.6W p0.4
Sp 15H -0.6 Wp0.4

FOS  
p
δp  Wp  Wp 
z
p zz  
 W 
 p 
Given that FOS = 1.5, Hp = 4 m, Wo = 6 m and pzz = 3 MPa

15H -0.6 Wp0.4
FOS   1.5
p
 Wo  Wp
Z

p zz  
 WP 
15 4 -0.6 Wp 0.4 
 2
 1.5
 6  Wp 
3 
 W 
 p 
15 4-0.6 Wp0.4   6  Wp 

2
 
31.5  W 
 p 
 
1.45 Wp2.4  36  12Wp  Wp2
1.45 Wp2.4 - 36 - 12Wp  Wp2  0
FWp   1.45 Wp2.4 - 36 - 12Wp - Wp

2
F(0) = -36
F(6) = (1.45)(73.716) - 36 - 72 – 36 = -37.111
F(7) = (1.45)(106.717) - 49 - 84 – 36 = -14.260
F(8) = (1.45)(147.033) - 64 - 96 – 36 = 17.198
Since the sign of F(Wp) changes from negative at F(Wp) between Wp = 7 and Wp = 8. We can
solve for the roof of F(Wp) by using Newton-Raphson iteration method. This method uses the
approximation:
FWp   0  FWpo   Wp - Wpo F'Wpo   0
where Wpo is an approximation to the required root Wp. Thus an iteration formula can be
constructed as follows:
FWpo   Wp - Wpo F'Wpo   0
- FWpo 
Wp - Wpo 
F' Wpo 
- F Wpo 
δ
F' Wpo 
FWpn 
Wpn  1  Wpn 
F' Wpn 
For 1st iteration, n = 1, Wp = 7 m
FWpn  F7 
Wp2  Wp - 7-
F' Wp  F' 7 
FWp   3.48 WP2.4  12Wp  36
F' Wp   3.49 Wp

1.4
- 2Wp - 12
F7  1.45106.717 - 49 - 84 - 36  -14.260
F' 7  3.4815.245 - 14 - 12  27.053
Wp2  7 -
- 14.260  7  0.527  7.527
27.053
For 2nd iteration, n = 2, Wp2  7.527
FWp2  F7.527 
Wp 3  Wp2 -  7.527 -
F' Wp2  F'7.527 
F7.527  1.45127.026 - 560656 - 90.324 - 36  1.208
F' 7.527  3.4816.876 - 15.054 - 12  31.675
1.208
W p3  7.527 -  7.527 - 0.038  7.489
31.675
For 3rd iteration, n = 3, Wp3  7.489
FWp3  F7.489
Wp4  Wp3 -  7.489 -
F' Wp3  F' 7.489
F7.489  1.45125.492 - 56.085 - 89.868 - 36  - 0.081
F' 7.489  3.4816.757 - 14.978 - 12  61.336
Wp4  7.489 
 0.081  7.489  0.002  7.491
31.336
We note that |Wp4 – Wp3| = |3| = 0.002 is an acceptable error. Therefore the root of the F
(Wp) can be approximated to Wp4 = 7.491  7.5 m.
Option (iii): Reducing pillar height, Hp, to increase pillar strength, Sp, to achieve FOS = 1.5
Sp Sp
FOS    1.5
p 18.75
 Sp  1.518.75  28.13 MPa
Now, the reduced pillar height can be found as:
S p  15H -0.6
p Wp  28.13 M Pa
0.4
15 Wp 0.4  15 4 0.4 

   0.93 m
0.6
Hp
28.13 28.13
10
H p  0.93  0.93 1.67  0.89 m
6
Summary of Options:
Option (i): Wo = 2.35 m; Wp = 4 m; Hp = 4 m

Option (ii): Wo = 6 m; Wp = 7.49 m; Hp = 4 m
Option (iii): Wo = 6 m; Wp = 4 m; Hp = 0.99 m
Option (iii) is unacceptable since it implies leaving ore in the roof or floor over the entire
mining area.
To select between (i) and (ii), we must find which of them has maximum area extraction
ratio (as criteria).
For option (i):
 Wo   2.35 
AER   
 W  W   2.35  4 
= 0.37
 o p 
For option (ii):
 Wo   6 
AER   
 W  W   6  7.49 
= 0.44
 o p 
The better option is option (ii), i.e., increasing the pillar width from 4 m to 7.49 m.
(b) (ii) The design of the room and pillar mining system should show the following:
 dimensions of the pillar and rooms;

 method, layout and technique;
 dip and strike sections plus the plan; and
 ventilation.
4.5 RPMS at Gold Fields Ghana Limited, Tarkwa (GFL)
The deposits that were mined with underground mining technology by Gold Fields Ghana
Limited are found in the Tarkwaian rock formation. The gold mineralization occurs in the
conglomerates of the Banket series. The banket auriferous reefs are generally low in grade,
averaging 6 g/t. The conglomerates and the quartzitic country rocks are hard, strong and
competent, the compressive strength being about 500 MPa.
In the Apinto area of the mine where RPMS is employed, the reef dips gently at 0 - 30o with
an average dip of 15o. In this area, the thickness of reef is about 2 m. Fig. 4.7 shows the layout
of the secondary development of a mining block for the RPMS. Reef drive (1) are developed
in the ore at about 76 m apart and raises (2) also at 76 m are developed to intersect the
drives. Three of such raises define the width of a mining block. From footwall drives (10), ore
passes (4) are developed into developed into the raises. In this way, the ventilation is
assured. Fig. 4.8 gives a complete design of the RPMS at GFL. The method of mining block
consists of mining out the 2 m thick orebody, leaving pillars to support the rooms resulting
from mining. The rooms measure 15 m and the pillars measure 6 m by 6 m. The technique of
mining consists of drilling with jumbo drills and blasting with dynamite and detonators. The
broken ore is loaded and hauled from the stopes using LHDs which off load into the ore
passes from where the ore is subsequently loaded trucks which transport the ore into bins.
Lecture Activity
(2) List all the data that you have required to design RPMS at GFL.
(3) Referring to the designs presented in Figs. 4.7 and 4.8, work out the following:
 Development efficiency (m3/1,000 t).
 Stoping efficiency (t/man-sh).

 Stoping cost ($/t).
4.6 A Computer Model for Layout Design of RPMS
A standard interactive Fortran programme developed for the analysis, using the concepts
discussed above, requires the following input data:
 Height of sample;
 Diameter of sample;
 Uniaxial compressive strength;

 Density of sampl;
 Depth of overburden cover;
 Initial room width;
 Maximum required pillar strength;
 Pillar strength FOS;
 Angle of friction;
 Cohesion;
 Bearing capacity.
The programme, a simplified flowchart of which is shown in Fig. 4.9, has two main parts.
The first section attempts to calculate pillar dimensions on the basis of the required pillars
strength FOS. For this an iterative solution is necessary and the Newton-Raphson method is
employed. On the basis of pillar dimensions now available, the bearing capacity FOS is
calculated and compared with the required bearing capacity FOS. If the outcome is
satisfactory, the extraction ratio is calculated and the result is printed out. If the result is
unsatisfactory, the second part of the programme calculates pillar dimensions on the basis of
the required bearing capacity FOS, again employing the Newton-Raphson iterative method.
The resulting pillar dimensions are used as basis for calculating the pillar strength FOS. If
the outcome is satisfactory, the extraction ratio is computed. In all cases, the stability of the
roof span is verified using the relation given in Equation (9). The analysis also requires the
analysis of the required room span and in order to allow a wide variety of conditions to be
examined, the program has a facility to vary the (i) room width; (ii) pillar height and (iii)
FOS.
4.6.1 Case Study with Computer Model
The model has been applied to the deposit at Panasqueira mine in Portugal which is the
largest producer of tungsten in Europe. The wolframite mineral occurs in a series of near-
horizontal, hydrothermal quartz veins in a schist country rock. The veins are 2 m thick.
Although there are two principal fault systems intersecting at angles between 40o and 90o
that seem to determine areas with more or less independent geomechanical behaviours, at
the scale of exploitation the rock mass can be considered to be continuous. The nature of the
veins can be likened to a bedded coal deposit with limited lateral extent: this explains why
the mine has been successful in employing the longwall mining method, changing on
recently to the room-and pillar mining method.
To date no in situ tests have been performed to permit the use of boundary or finite element
methods to study the state of total stress and induced displacements around rooms.
However, uniaxial compressive tests, tensile tests by diametral compression and bending
tests have been carried out on rock samples. The available geomechanical characteristics of
the rocks that are necessary to test the model can be summarized as follows:
Fig. 4.9 A Simplified Flowchart of the Room and Pillar Layout Design Model
PILDESN
 Uniaxial compressive strength averages at about 100 MPa;

 Density is 0.0275 MN/m;
 Internal angle of friction is 40 – 50o;
 The depth of the mine is 300 m;
 Cohesion is taken to be 56 MPa as suggested by Kulhway;
 Referring to Equation (2), the constants G, T and R have values 62, 0.46 and -0.66
respectively.
All other necessary input values can be varied, the results of which are summarized in Figs.
4.10 to 4.12. Fig. 4.10 illustrates the variant where room width (W o) and FOS are kept
constant at 5 m and 1.6 respectively. If the pillar height is kept at 2 m then a pillar width of
3.74 m is necessary to maintain the selected FOS. Under these conditions, the extraction
ratio, AER is 82% and the stress concentration factor is 5.5. An increase in pillar height will
enhance mechanization but the pillar width must by increased, which will eventually reduce
the extraction ratio.
In Fig. 4.11, the room width and pillar height are kept constant at 5 m and 2 m respectively
while varying the pillar width and the factor of safety. At the minimum recommended factor
of safety of 1.31 (see Fig. 4.12), the pillar width will be 3.3 m, corresponding to an extraction
ratio of 84% and stress concentration factor of 6.4. A reduction in the factor of safety beyond
1.31 to say 1.10 would allow reduction in pillar to as low as 2.99 and increase the extraction
ratio to as high as 6.5. Theoretically, however, 1.10 constitutes the lowest factor of safety for
pillar stability and will therefore need to be supported by strong evidence e.g. practical
observation.
From Fig. 4.12, one may think that keeping the pillar height at 2 m and the factor of safety at
1.6, height and higher extraction ratio could be achieved as the rate of change in Wo is higher
than the rate of change in Wp. If Wo = 7 m, Wp should be 4.77 m and the corresponding
extraction ratio is 83.6%. Increasing Wo to say 11.5 will increase the extraction ratio to
85.9%. The factor of safety of 1.6 will be satisfied with a pillar width of 6.6 m but the stress
concentration factor is nearing 7 and roof span stability is being sacrificed.
If the mine were completely new with no experience on the natural behaviour of the rocks it
would be appropriate to start with any of the combinations of W o, Wp and Hp which satisfy a
factor of a least 1.6, and then modify these parameters as experience builds on.
Before the 70s, longwall stoping was the main mining method employed at the Panasquiera
mine. Faces were generally advanced parallel to the reef drives that connect raises, using
scraper for mucking. Timber packs provided support for the back and a system of packwalls
parallel to the face served as a means of minimising loss of fines during blasting. Hand held
drilling machines on air-leg support were used. The stoping height was kept around 1.5 m.
This longwall mining method had to be abandoned eventually for RPMS because of
increasing cost of timber and labour. A useful observation had been made: roof deformation
started after a critical span of about 50 m and developed gradually into the middle of the
span.
The recent room and pillar mining started on test basis with 5 m  5 m square rooms and
large pillars measuring 15 m  15. The pillars were later reduced to 5 m  5 m, corresponding
to an extraction ration of 75%. In this method, the stoping height was around 3 m and low
profile trackless tramming equipment and electric/hydraulic jumbo drilling rigs were
employed. Over the years, the pillars have been reduced to 3 m  3 m in an attempt to
increase extraction ration. To facilitate equipment movement, the pillar height is being
increased to 2.3 m. Two factors militate against this action:
 Dilution will increase – the average thickness of the vein is 18 cm.;
 Pillar stability can be sacrificed – at the original 2 m height, although few, roof
collapses were observed when the pillars measured 3 m  3 m pillar. ‘
For the purpose of ore reserve estimation and mine planning, mineable horizons have been
divided into blocks measuring 100 m x 50 m, these being considered to be the practical
mining units. This arises from the fact that the wolframite mineral occurs erratically as
individual crystals within the quartz veins, making normal chemical assay methods
impracticable. Measurements of areas of quartz exposed in the side walls of mining faces or
development ends are used for ore reserve estimation. It is obvious that the design of room
and pillar layout for the exploitation of the veins should take these predetermined blocks into
account.
Based on the background information and results from the use of the model, it is considered
that within an evaluated, mineable block, measuring 100  50 m, could be supported by 3.74
m  3.74 m pillar at a factor of safety of 1.6 thus resulting in an extraction ratio of 82%. But
since the rock is very stable, the pillar size can be reduced to 3 m  3 m if extra pillars are left
whenever waste material occurs within the blocks, or, indeed, at distances not exceeding the
critical span beyond which the 3 m  3 m pillars will fail under shear stress – according to
Mendes, this about 200 m. however, for purely geometrical reasons, and to safeguard against
chances of 3 m  3 m pillar failing, the peripheral pillars should be increased in size as shown
in Fig. 4.13. To avoid dilution, it is considered that the pillar height should be kept at 2 m.
The layout of the proposed design for a block is shown in Fig. 4.13 and gives an overall
extraction ratio of 84.6%.
The model has shortcomings which arise from the assumption within the TAT and the PT.
again, like all models the quality of the results obtained from its application depends on the
validity of the input data. Given sensible input values, however, the model does provide a
good guide for the initial design of room and pillar layout. In the case studied, the model
indicates that 5 m  5 m rooms could supported with 3.74 m  3.74 m pillars within a factor
of safety of 1.6 corresponding to an extraction ratio of 82%. However, evidence from the
experience gained at the mine suggests that the pillar size can be reduced to 3 m  3 m. For
geometric reasons, and to minimize the risk of any failure, the final layout of the design has
44% of the pillar having larger dimensions with a resultant overall extraction ratio of 84%.
Fig. 4.13 Proposed Design of Room and Pillar layout for a Block
4.7 Sublevel Stoping Mining Systems
In sublevel stoping mining systems, ore is produced from a stope block in which extensive
development has been undertaken prior to stoping activity (see Figs. 4.14 and 4.15). Stope
pre-preproduction development consists of an extraction level, access raises and drives, drill
drives, slot raises and stope return air-way. An expansion slot is developed by enlarging the
slot raise, using parallel hole blasting, to the width of the stope. Ore is fragmented in the
stope using ring-drilled or long parallel blast holes, exploiting the free face provided by the
stope slot. Broken ore rills down into the draw points for extraction. Stope faces and side
walls remain unsupported during ore extraction while local and near – field support for the
country rock is developed as pillars.
Sublevel stoping mining systems are applied in massive or steeply dipping orebodies. For an
inclined orebody, resulting in inclined stope walls, the inclination of the stope footwall must
exceed the angle of repose of the broken rock by some suitable margin. This is required to
promote free flow of fragmented rock to the extraction horizon. Since open stoping requires
unsupported, free-standing stope boundary faces, the strength of orebody and country tock
must be sufficient to provide stable walls, faces and crown for the excavation. The orebody
boundaries must be fairly regular, since selective mining is precluded by the requirement for
regular stope outlines, which are associated with the use of long blast holes. Blast hole
penetration of stope walls, due to drilling inaccuracy, leads to dilution. Dilution from this
source is, relatively, a more significant problem in narrow orebodies. The minimum orebody
width for open stoping is about 6 m.
Pillar recovery is common practice in open stoping. Backfill material of various qualities may
be placed in the primary stope voids, and pillar mining performed by exploiting the local
ground control potential of the adjacent fill. Alternatively, pillars may be blasted into
adjacent stope voids, with the possibility of extensive collapse of the local country rock.
Successful ore recovery would then require draw of fragmented ore beneath less mobile,
barren country rock.
Fig. 4.14 Diagramatic Representation of a Stope when it is partially worked out by

Selective Stoping
Fig. 4.15 A Typical Design of a Sublevel Stoping Method

Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mine Planning and Design MN 471

The objectives of this lecture are:

At the end of the lecture, the student is expected to:

4.2 Nature of Naturally Supported Mining Systems

4.3 Room-and-Pillar Mining Systems (RPMS)

4.3.1 Mining Method and Characteristics

Room-and-pillar mining systems are a typical example of naturally supported mining

Fig. 4.1 Plan of a Typical Room-and-Pillar Excavation

Fig. 4.2 Sequence of Operations of Room and Pillar Mining

Fig. 4.3 Room and Pillar Mining of an Orebody thicker than 7 m.

Fig. 4.3 Room & Pillar Mining of an Orebody thicker than 7 m.

4.3.2 Design of RPMS

4.3.2.1 Design Approach and Limitations

 The effect of pillar location within the orebody is ignored.

4.3.2.2 Design Procedure

The design procedure considers four possible modes of failure:

4.3.2.3 Pillar Strength

where Sp = strength of pillar, Ss = sample uniaxial compressive strength, Vs = volume of

where c is the strength of a cubical specimen of the rock.

The Factor of Safety (FOS) is calculated as:

4.3.2.4 Bearing Capacity of Roof and Floor

The FOS against bearing capacity failure is:

4.3.2.5 Stability of Opening Roof Span

4.4 Illustrative Example on Layout Design of RPMS

(a) Unit weight of overburden,  = 20 KN/m3

Average axial pillar stress, σ p  p zz 

Pillar strength, Sp  15H p

FOS< 1: Therefore the initial layout design is unacceptable.

Now, the reduced room span Wp can be found:

Pillar strength, Sp = 15 H p0.6W p0.4

Sp 15H -0.6 Wp0.4

Given that FOS = 1.5, Hp = 4 m, Wo = 6 m and pzz = 3 MPa

15 4-0.6 Wp0.4   6  Wp 

1.45 Wp2.4 - 36 - 12Wp  Wp2  0

FWp   1.45 Wp2.4 - 36 - 12Wp - Wp

FWp   0  FWpo   Wp - Wpo F'Wpo   0

For 1st iteration, n = 1, Wp = 7 m

FWp   3.48 WP2.4  12Wp  36

F' Wp   3.49 Wp

F7  1.45106.717 - 49 - 84 - 36  -14.260

F' 7  3.4815.245 - 14 - 12  27.053

For 2nd iteration, n = 2, Wp2  7.527

F7.527  1.45127.026 - 560656 - 90.324 - 36  1.208

F' 7.527  3.4816.876 - 15.054 - 12  31.675

For 3rd iteration, n = 3, Wp3  7.489

F7.489  1.45125.492 - 56.085 - 89.868 - 36  - 0.081

F' 7.489  3.4816.757 - 14.978 - 12  61.336

Now, the reduced pillar height can be found as:

15 Wp 0.4  15 4 0.4 

Option (i): Wo = 2.35 m; Wp = 4 m; Hp = 4 m

For option (i):

For option (ii):

 dimensions of the pillar and rooms;

4.5 RPMS at Gold Fields Ghana Limited, Tarkwa (GFL)

 Stoping efficiency (t/man-sh).

4.6 A Computer Model for Layout Design of RPMS

 Uniaxial compressive strength;

4.6.1 Case Study with Computer Model

 Uniaxial compressive strength averages at about 100 MPa;

4.7 Sublevel Stoping Mining Systems

Fig. 4.14 Diagramatic Representation of a Stope when it is partially worked out by

Fig. 4.15 A Typical Design of a Sublevel Stoping Method

You might also like