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

net/publication/333827581

Incorporating Veined Rock Mass Characteristics into Engineering Design and

Caving

Conference Paper · June 2019

CITATIONS READS

3 1,123

5 authors, including:

Robert Bewick Andres Brzovic

WSP Codelco Chile Division El Teniente
39 PUBLICATIONS   554 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   260 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Rock Structure of Primary Ore at The El Teniente View project

Rock Structure around tunnels View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert Bewick on 21 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARMA 19–304

Incorporating Veined Rock Mass Characteristics into

Engineering Design and Caving
Bewick, R.P.
Golder, Sudbury, ON, Canada
Campbell, R., Brzovic, A., and Schwarz A.
PT Freeport Indonesia, Phoenix, AZ, USA
Pierce, M.
Peirce Engineering, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Copyright 2019 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 53rd US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium held in New York, NY, USA, 23–26 June
2019. This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical
review of the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent
of ARMA is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The

ABSTRACT: Block caves and other mass mines are the future of global copper supply due to the depletion of surface mines with
high production rates and the reduced rates of discovery of easily accessible copper resources. Many current and proposed caving
mines are hosted within geological environments that have produced discontinuous fault systems in massive to moderately jointed
but complexly veined rock masses. Rock mass characterization in such veined rock masses is challenging and requires attention to
vein and open discontinuity data from both a data collection and interpretation standpoint. Depending on composition, abundance,
and persistence, veins can work to weaken the rock mass to varying degrees. Although difficulties related to the characterization of
veined rock masses are stated in the literature and solutions have been proposed, practitioners continue to struggle with the
geomechanical significance of massive to moderately jointed, veined rock masses. In addition, the success of attempts to apply design
methods that were developed originally for non-veined rock masses to veined rock masses is questionable. Assuming the rock mass
can be characterized to gain both an appreciation of the veining and open discontinuities, a design engineer is left to decide how to
incorporate this characterization into various design methods. While both veins and open joints need to be taken into consideration
for excavation and cave design, there are limited guidelines on how to use the data reliably and effectively. In this article, both
engineering design methods and caving assessment methods are discussed, and suggestions are provided to outline when and how to
incorporate veins and joints into design.

1. INTRODUCTION A joint, in contrast to veins, has low to no tensile strength

Recent experience in copper porphyry rock masses at depths
below approximately 500m suggest that they are commonly
massive to moderately jointed and veined to varying intensities
and infilling composition. Veins are healed discontinuities with,
generally, one to 100 mm thickness and of limited persistence,
normally occurring in sets which intersect to form highly
interlocked angular rock blocks. The mineralogical infill
material creates both cohesion and tensile strength and thus
these strength components predominately control a rock mass’s
strength and behaviour opposed to rock mass quality.
Porphyry deposits typically exhibit well-defined patterns of
alteration and distribution of various vein types (Sillitoe 2010)
that can help characterize specific rock masses within a mining
area. This means that the following key characteristics are
important:
• intact rock strength (non-veined and veined);
• tensile and shear strength of the veins;
• vein condition (infilling mineral, alteration, thickness,
persistence, orientation, and spacing); and
• the spatial distribution of vein types and their abundance
within a deposit.
(ISRM 1981). For conventional design approaches where rock
masses are typically viewed to be well jointed and of low to no
tensile strength (e.g., the Geological Strength Index, GSI, for
the estimation of rock mass strength), the following key
characteristics control behaviour and rock mass strength:
• intact rock strength;
• joint bound rock block size; and
• block forming joint surface conditions.
Since veined rock masses are cohesive and have tensile strength
(i.e., massive to moderately jointed) their behaviour is
controlled by a cohesion weakening friction strengthening
process (e.g., Martin 1993). Spalling behaviour thus dominates
regardless of if the spalling is along veins or both through vein
bound rock blocks and along veins. This mode of failure is
evident in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2a-b where a veined rock mass
exhibits both spalling through predominately homogeneous
(non-veined rock; Fig. 2b), and through vein bound rock blocks
and along veins (Fig. 2a). Therefore, rock mass strength
estimation and rock engineering design approaches need to be
based on the pre-dominate rock mass behaviour and failure
mechanism. Thus, brittle rock mass strength estimates and
design approaches need to be used (e.g., Martin 1993, Castro et
al. 1997, Diederichs 1999, Bewick et al. 2019) with focus on
rock mass strength opposed to rock mass quality.
Fig. 1. Side wall of an underground excavation with zoomed in
views (a) and (b) detailed in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Zoomed in views from Fig. 1. a) Zoomed in view
showing veining and failure both along veins and through vein
bound rock blocks. b) Zoomed in view showing conventional
spalling and some failure along veins.
For jointed rock masses, since they have low to no tensile
strength along the block bounding discontinuities, their
behaviour is controlled by rotation and loosening processes.
The block rotation process is the fundamental failure
mechanism assumption in the Hoek-Brown-GSI (HB-GSI)
approach for the estimation of rock mass strength and assumes
that the rock blocks themselves do not fracture and the rock
mass as low to no tensile strength.
The two failure processes, those for massive to moderately
jointed (Fig. 3a) and well jointed rock masses (Fig. 3b), are
shown for comparison to highlight the differences. Clearly
design in the two rock masses is different and driven by the rock
engineer’s ability to properly characterize and assess the
strength of the rock mass. While work has been done to address
the characterization challenge (e.g., Laubscher and Jakubec
2000, Pierce et al. 2009, Brzovic et al., 2014, Kaiser et al. 2015,
Bewick et al. 2019) there are currently no clear
recommendations on how to fully incorporate the
characteristics of veined rock masses into engineering design.
Very few approaches that take veining into account are
available (e.g., the mining rock mass rating system, Laubscher
and Jakubec 2000). Thus, in this article, we focus on providing
some guidance.
Fig. 3. a) Conventional spalling in a veined rock mass with
some failure along veins. b) Rock block loosening and rotation
(after Muller 1966) in a well jointed rock mass.
2. VEINS – MISLEADING ROCK MASS
CHARACTERIZATION AND DESIGN
Veins in porphyry deposits form as a result of the complex
magmatic-hydrothermal systems that give rise to this deposit
type (Seedorff et al. 2005). Fluid overpressure during cooling
and decompression of hydrous magma overcomes the tensile
strength of the rock and fractures are generated in three-
dimensional networks (stockworks) or oriented sets.
Hydrothermal fluids invade the fractures and precipitate a
variety of minerals depending on the prevailing temperature
and pressure conditions, wall rock composition, and potential
mixing with external fluids. Tensional forces during extension
or strike-slip deformation also generate faults and fracture
systems that can also be healed by infill minerals to become
veins. Vein types common to porphyry deposits that are healed
in situ but readily break mechanically when handling core
include: pyrite or chalcopyrite dominant, commonly with
sericite ± clay halos, gypsum or anhydrite, calcite, molybdenite-
bearing veins, and quartz. Veins are commonly the locus of
minor fault reactivation and certain members of a vein set may
display slickensides or contain breccia and gouge when broken.
Certain vein types may be abundant and visually conspicuous
but cohesive. An example is quartz dominant veins, which
when well cemented to the wall rock have little effect on
lowering the strength of the rock mass.
While veins weaken (to varying degrees) a massive to
moderately jointed rock mass, they are easily disturbed during
diamond core drilling/handling and blasting during excavation
construction. As a result, if a practitioner does not consider the
geologic setting, depth below surface, and the mining
environment and-or use tools that can help identify truly open
discontinuities (such as acoustic and optical televiewers), there
is a high likelihood that the rock mass will be assessed as being
well jointed when, in fact, it is not. Two examples are shown
in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. In Fig. 4a, the excavation appearance
Fig. 4. a) Tunnel side wall excavated via drill and blasting
shows massive rock mass conditions whereas the core in Fig.
showing massive but veined rock mass conditions. b) Drill core
4b suggests heavily jointed ground. When the core in Fig. 4b
for the area where the tunnel is located showing the appearance
is inspected, there is clear evidence that the core breaks are
of ‘fractured’ ground conditions.
completely along veins and the data collection should thus have
identified a massive to moderately jointed but veined rock mass The consequence of this is that blocky rock mass conditions
and core with 100% RQD versus heavily jointed ground would be assumed, lower rock mass quality estimates
conditions and 0% RQD. While this example seems extreme it generated, lower rock mass strength assessed, and both
is factual and was found in practice in a number of heavily unconservative and inappropriate designs developed. The
veined rock masses. Similar misleading ground conditions can unconservative and inappropriate designs would include, for
be observed underground as well. In Fig. 5, a veined rock mass example, ground support, fragmentation, and caveability.
is shown both mechanically excavated (Fig. 5a) and drill-and- While many would think that well jointed rock mass conditions
blasted (Fig. 5b). The drill-and-blasted excavation suggests are more conservative, they are not. Ground support would not
‘blocky’ ground conditions whereas the mechanical excavation be conservative because:
shows massive to moderately jointed but veined conditions. • spalling, bulking, and potential for rockbursting would
Understanding how the appearance of an excavation boundary not be considered relevant for a well jointed rock mass.
compared to the rock mass away from the excavation boundary The ground support selected would thus be potentially
‘looks’, is fundamental. Practitioners need to assume in veined inappropriate and not safe.
rock masses at depth that the open discontinuities they see are
healed in situ (whether in the excavation boundary rock or
diamond drill core) and it is the excavation and coring process
that is making the rock mass look like something it is not.

Fig. 5. a) Tunnel side wall excavated by mechanical cutting
showing massive but veined rock mass conditions. b) Tunnel
side wall excavated by drill and blasting showing the
appearance of ‘block’ conditions. Rock mass in (a) and (b) are
the same and near each other.
Improper identification of rock mass conditions can have a
marked impact on fragmentation forecasts. A case example,
provided in Fig. 6, illustrates the influence of improperly
identified veins (opened during drill core transport) as open
joints. When the initially identified joints are correctly
converted to healed veins, fragmentation is severely impacted.
The resultant forecast yields a coarse fragmentation profile
which will require hang-up management and, most likely,
preconditioning to achieve the required production targets.
Which is important to identify upfront and not late in a study.
Caveability is a similar story. Planning for more massive rock
mass conditions is more conservative than planning for blocky
rock mass conditions where caving would occur at a lower
hydraulic radius (HR) due to gravity. In massive rock mass
conditions, larger HRs are often found to be needed to exploit
fault systems and cave back stress for stress induced caving
assistance. Thus, the common rule-of-thumb in core logging
where loggers are advised to assume a discontinuity is open if
they cannot confirm the break to be mechanical in nature is
flawed in veined rock masses.
100
BCF with Some Veins as Joints
80 BCF with Reduced Joints
60
% Passing
COARSER
40
20
0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 1000.00 10000.00
Block Size (m 3 )
Fig. 6. Block Cave Fragmentation (BCF) simulation of the same
rock mass with veins incorrectly classified as joints (‘finer’
curve) versus veins correctly classified as healed features
(‘coarser’ curve).
3. EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS – IS
ROCK MASS QUALITY RELEVANT?
Rock mass classification cannot be used with confidence in
massive to moderately jointed and veined rock masses. This is
because the classification tools such as the Rock Mass Rating
(RMR, Bieniawski 1975) and the Norwegian Geotechnical
Institute’s Q system (NGI-Q, Barton et al., 1974) were
developed for blocky rock masses and both do not account
properly for veining. Furthermore, the GSI (Hoek et al., 1995),
which is a characterization system, was also developed for well
jointed and blocky rock masses (GSI <65) and the strength
scaling equations used to estimate the rock mass strength from
the Hoek-Brown parameters σci (compressive strength at zero
confining pressure determined from triaxial compression tests)
and mi (Hoek-Brown envelope fitting parameter) are thus not
applicable for massive to moderately jointed rock masses (GSI
≥65; see Bewick et al., 2019 for a detailed discussion on this),
let alone massive to moderately jointed veined rock masses.
Rock mass classification systems are of value and should be
used, but veins are not joints and thus do not contribute to
number of joint sets, joint spacing, RQD, and joint condition
ratings / parameters in the GSI, RMR, and Q indices. When
veins are properly accounted for in these indices, massive to
moderately jointed and veined rock mass conditions are
identified, and proper engineering design can take place
considering appropriate failure mechanism such as spalling and
rockbursting. Thus, what is concluded is that, rock mass
strength and not rock mass quality dominates engineering
design.
Laubscher and Jakubec (2000) discuss the unconfined strength
reduction effect of veining on rock block strength and
incorporate veins in their IRMR-MRMR classification system.
Based on empirical evidence, they proposed that the unconfined
strength of a homogeneous piece of rock can be reduced by up
to 40% when densely veined, and proposed an unconfined
strength reduction nomogram as shown in Fig. 7 to account for
the influence of vein network infilling material type (e.g.,
calcite, quartz, and chlorite, etc.) and vein density (e.g., number
of veins per meter). The major limitations of this approach are
that the confined strength is not considered and the case
histories forming the base of the MRMR system are The rock block strength may also be derived from unconfined
predominately from jointed rock masses. It is thus not clear laboratory tests involving a combination of failure on veins and
how well the IRMR-MRMR system can capture massive to homogeneous rock if enough data is available (i.e., if the data
moderately jointed and veined rock masses for design purposes. set covers the range between well-defined veins and intact
strength). The results of tests by Bewick et al. (2019) suggest
that the lower bound rock block strength is approximately 40-
4. VEINING AND ROCK ENGINEERING 65% of the scaled intact rock strength, which is like the lower
DESIGN bound value suggested by Laubscher and Jakubec (2000).
Yoshinaka et al (2008) report that rock block strengths for
Since both veined and non-veined rock masses at depth are
weathered and/or extensively flawed rocks could be even lower,
often massive to moderately jointed, the design framework
in the range of 20-60% of the scaled intact strength. Synthetic
needs to be focused on the determination of a meaningful range
Rock Mass (SRM) modeling techniques have also been used to
of rock mass strength and spatial variability; not rock mass
quantify rock block strength as a function of scale, vein
quality. While conventional rock mass strength estimation
strength, and vein density (Pierce et al., 2009; Garza-Cruz et al.
approaches (e.g., HB-GSI) rely predominately on
2014; Stavrou and Murphy, 2018) and provide results that are
understanding rock block bounding joint orientation,
also generally consistent with the empirical relation of Jakubec
persistence, spacing, and surface conditions for the scaling from
and Laubscher (2000). They also suggest, however, that vein
laboratory determined intact rock strength to the rock mass,
patterns and continuity may need to be more carefully
massive to moderately jointed rock masses rely on
considered.
understanding the tensile strength, spalling strength, and
confined strength which can be determined in the laboratory In summary, the veined rock block strength ranges from 80%
(Bewick et al. 2019). This involves understanding the to 40% of the intact rock strength obtained from triaxial testing
following key rock characteristics: (1) intact rock strength with on truly homogeneous intact specimens (50 mm), with the
understanding of specimen failure type (Bewick et al., 2015); potential for lower strengths in the presence of weathering
(2) alteration of the rock matrix and veining; (3) vein intensity and/or extensive flaws. For cases with insufficient data on vein
(such as veins per liner meter or other metric); (4) vein infilling; frequency, vein hardness, or laboratory test results on veined
and (5) vein types. Within this framework, rock mass strength, specimens, it is a reasonable approximation to assume that the
kinematic stability, and caving and fragmentation potential are rock block strength is 65% of the scaled homogeneous intact
discussed. rock strength (Bewick et al. 2019). These strengths should be
used as the starting point for rock mass strength determination
4.1. Rock Mass Strength using the GSI approach, if the GSI strength scaling equations
A veined rock mass is made up of veined rock blocks that may are applicable, or via spalling theory, if the GSI strength scaling
be bounded by open joints. These veined rock blocks are equations are not applicable, as discussed in the following
typically large in massive to moderately jointed rock (due to the sections.
wide joint spacings) and so have a lower strength than intact
(non-veined) 50mm diameter laboratory specimens due to both
scale and the presence of veins. Open joints are normally
weaker than the veins and so their presence will lower the rock
mass strength even further at scales larger than an individual
rock block, with the amount of degradation a function of the
excavation scale, joint patterns, joint parameters, and joint
continuity. The estimation of veined rock mass strength
involves first establishing rock block strength (accounting for
the presence of veins) and then establishing a strength envelope
based on the applicability of the GSI strength scaling equations.
4.1.1. Rock Block Strength
When lacking laboratory data, the concept proposed by
Laubscher and Jakubec (2000) is recommended in which the
rock block strength is obtained by: (1) reducing the intact (non-
veined) rock strength from the laboratory by a factor of 0.8 to
estimate a scaled intact strength; and (2) by reducing the scaled Fig. 7. Matrix to determine adjustment factor for estimating
intact strength based on the relative weakness of veins and vein unconfined compressive strength of veined rock depending on
frequency. It is recommended that the intact rock strength Moh´s hardness of veins and frequency (from Bewick et al.,
obtained from triaxial testing (which includes UCS tests) on 2019; Nomogram created based on Laubscher and Jakubec
truly homogeneous (non-veined) intact specimens (50 mm) be 2000).
used as the starting point. The adjustment factor for vein
strength and frequency can be estimated from Fig. 7 based on 4.1.2. Rock Mass Strength Envelope: GSI
Moh’s hardness of the veins and vein frequency. The maximum Applicable
value for this adjustment factor is 60% and so a maximum
scaling factor of 48% (which includes the 0.8 starting The GSI strength scaling equations are only applicable when
reduction) can result. the approximate edge length of the blocks making up the rock
mass is smaller than approximately 1/10 (range 1/5 to 1/20) of
the problem dimension (e.g., tunnel diameter, excavation span
and pillar height) (e.g., see Cundall et al. 2008 and Kaiser et al.
2015). If the GSI strength scaling equations are applicable, the
rock block strength, σbl, replaces the intact rock strength (σci)
and the constant mbl replaces mi in the equations of Hoek and
Brown (1997):
The value for mbl used in the above equation should be
determined from an overall fit through laboratory data points
obtained from veined specimens. When enough laboratory tests
do not exist, mbl can be assumed to be in the order of 1.3-1.9 mi
(Bewick et al., 2019).
4.1.3. Strength Envelope: GSI Strength Scaling
Equations Not Applicable
In massive to moderately jointed rock masses, the GSI strength
scaling equations are not applicable when the block edge
lengths are greater than approximately 1/10 of the problem
dimension. In this case, spalling behaviour at low confinement
and shear rupture at high confinement dominates the failure
process and thus brittle rock theory is used to derive a tri-linear
envelope, with a low strength plateau to the left of a spalling
limit and a high shear strength to the right, as illustrated in Fig.
8. The lower part of the envelope is valid for veined rock near
excavations (at low confinement) where spalling dominates,
and the upper part of the envelope is valid for well confined
conditions where shear failure dominates (such as pillar cores).
Even though the rock mass strength envelope for massive to
moderately jointed rock masses can be obtained in the
laboratory (Bewick et al., 2019), it is often impossible to obtain
laboratory test data of enough quality. Furthermore, it is
necessary to establish meaningful rock mass strength
parameters during studies or for locations where detailed rock
test data are not yet or will never be available. In such
situations, if the crack initiation (CI – spalling strength intercept
of y-axis in Fig. 8) threshold (spalling strength = rock mass
strength, Martin 2014) and spalling limit (Kaiser et al. 2000) are
not determined from laboratory test data, it is necessary to make
meaningful geomechanics assumptions. Kaiser (2016a-b)
provided guidance for this purpose and the following
simplifications are recommended:
(1) Estimate the laboratory intact (non-veined) failure
type envelope:
a. Estimate a range of UCSi (from homogeneous
non-veined specimens) and select a
representative value.
b. Estimate mi range using Table 8.3 as indicated
in Hoek et al. (1995).
c. Estimate tensile strength representative value
and range.
(2) Estimate the laboratory combined failure type
envelope (representative of rock block strength, σbl):
a. Estimate UCSbl as outlined in Section 4.1.1.
Where there is insufficient data to estimate
this, assume UCSbl ~0.65UCSi
b. Estimate mbl using mbl = 1.4mi (possible range
mbl = 1.3-1.9mi).
c. Estimate tensile strength representative value
and range.
(3) Estimate of rock mass strength:
a. For the low confinement range use mi = 0. CI
homogeneous (non-veined intact rock) = 0.3
UCSi (range between 0.2UCSi and 0.4UCSi). CI
combined = 0.24UCSbl (range between
0.2UCSbl and 0.30UCSbl).
b. Approximate spalling limit as σ1/σ3 = 15 (range
of σ1/σ3 = 10 to 20).
c. For the high confinement range, the confined
laboratory strength for the homogeneous and
combined failure types (rock block strength)
are both reduced by 0.8 (Bahrani and Kaiser
2017).
The above listed guidance is a reasonable starting point for rock
mass strength when the GSI strength scaling equations are not
applicable and likely underestimates the rock mass strength. As
soon as underground access is provided, the consequences of
the resulting estimated rock mass strength need to be confirmed
by field observation of near excavation behaviour.
Fig. 8. Tri-linear failure envelope (red) relative to a HB intact
rock strength envelope. For this example, the spalling strength
ranges from 0.3UCS to 0.5UCS, the confined strength is
reduced by a factor of 0.8, and the spalling limit ranges from
σ1/σ3 = 10 to 20, and crack growth suppression limit σ1/σ3 < 6
after Bieniawski (1967a, b, c). Modified after Bewick et al.
(2019).
4.2. Depth of Failure
For excavation design, the following two items need to be
addressed: (1) how should spalling be assessed; and (2) if
spalling is identified, how should the extents of the spalled zone • The strength of the veins should be assumed to have no
be estimated. As outlined earlier in the article in Section 4.1.3, cohesion or tensile strength due to the potential for
the spalling strength can be estimated by using the CI stress induced fracturing along the veins destroying
determined using UCS tests (Martin 2014). Nicksiar and
these strength components; and
Martin (2013) compiled the CI for 336 specimens of low
porosity igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rocks and • If joint sets are present, they should be assessed in
found that the ratio of CI to UCS ranged from 0.42 to 0.47 combination with the veining sets.
regardless of the rock type in uniaxial compression. This is
different than what was found in veined rock by Bewick et al.
(2019) where the CI to UCS ratio for specimens that failed
along veins ranged from 0.2-0.3.
Spalling initiates as a strain localization phenomenon, which
means that the spalling volume on the boundary of the tunnel is
relatively small. When the maximum tangential stress on the
boundary of a tunnel exceeds CI, spalling should be anticipated.
To forecast the extent of spalling (𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓 ) the empirical equation is
often used:
𝐷𝐷𝑓𝑓
= 0.49 + 1.25(𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 /𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈) (1)
𝑎𝑎

where 𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 is the maximum tangential stress on the boundary

of the tunnel and a is the tunnel radius.
If the rock contains veins, the depth of spalling should be
assessed using the UCS for the veined rock (UCSbl) and filtered
for UCSi to provide a bound to the range of potential strengths
and depth of spalling. If homogeneous, the UCS of the
homogeneous, intact rock, UCSi, should be used. In Equation
1, the UCS should be the mean of each failure type dataset (i.e.,
the intact homogneous specimen mean and separately the intact
specimens that fail with the influence of veining) (Rojat et al.,
2009).
4.3. Kinematic Stability Assessments
While veins are not joints and have tensile strength and
cohesion they still can form irregular wedges of rock and thus
should be included in the assessment of kinematically possible
wedges. Under enough stress, the vein network can fracture
and if oriented such that a kinematically feasible wedge is
formed, a wedge of ground can fall under gravity. An example
of this is shown in Fig. 9 where a wedge of ground was
dislodged in an area when a span was increased. The area was
in massive to moderately jointed veined rock. There were no
evident joints in the exposed side walls of the excavation or the
excavation back, the core suggested 100% RQD with intense
veining (as shown in Fig. 9b) and stress fracturing was evident
suggesting high enough stress magnitudes to fracture the rock
and veins. While the wedge in Fig. 9a appears to be bound by
relatively smooth and planar surfaces they have been covered
in shotcrete to preserve excavation stability after the fall of
ground. Back-analysis of the failure surface found that the
wedge was best related to the depth of estimated stress
fracturing in combination with a wedge formed by the
orientation of the vein sets in the area.
The following guiding comments on including veins into
kinematic stability support demand assessments are provided
for veined rock masses at depth approximately ≥500m:
• Vein sets should be assessed in stereonets;
• The vein sets need to be included in kinematic ground
support selection assessments;
Fig. 9. Failure from the excavation back in a veined rock mass
showing wedge like shape. (a) Wedge like geometry in
excavation back looking up into failure area (shotcrete has been
applied). (b) Core from area where wedge fall out occurred.
4.4. Caving and Fragmentation Potential
HRs for caving have historically been forecasted using the
MRMR and Laubscher’s caving chart (Laubscher and Jakubec,
2000) as well as other caveability assessment approaches such
as the stability graph (e.g., Golder 1981; Mawdesley 2003).
Fragmentation estimates have been generated commonly from
the BCF software package (Esterhuizen, 2005). While these
will continue to be used for forecasting, they present certain
limitations. For example, studies (e.g., Nadolski 2018) have
described BCF’s limitations, particularly around the ability to
forecast fines content and the provision of unreliable estimates
on primary fragmentation when veined rock masses are
considered.
Furthermore, BCF, Laubscher’s caveability chart, and the
stability graph were developed primarily from case studies in
jointed rock masses as opposed to the massive to moderately
jointed and veined rock masses typical of today’s deeper, more
competent, caving environments. The forecasting approaches
must therefore be calibrated to specific site experience and
augmented with more advanced methods of assessment to
become reliable and useful for mine planning and scheduling
purposes.
The lack of conventional caving cases beyond MRMR = 65
illustrate the limitations of applying the caveability chart to
massive or moderately jointed rock masses. It is the opinion of
the authors that rock masses exceeding MRMR = 65 should be
flagged for preconditioning. Depending on access above and
adjacent to the cave volume, provision for cave engineering
levels should be considered through pre-feasibility and
feasibility design stages (Cuello and Newcomb, 2018).
For fragmentation assessments, traditional tools may simply
provide misleading results for massive to moderately jointed
veined rock masses. Although the complexity related to more
advanced analytical methods is not always palatable (Jakubec,
2013), practitioners may simply be forced to spend the extra
time and money to gain a better understanding of likely caving
rates and fragmentation profiles.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREATMENT OF
VEINED ROCK MASSES
An example ‘action plan’ for the treatment of a veined rock
mass is provided below. For this case, practitioners have
worked to not only properly defined the characteristics of the
rock mass but also to confirm that the correct analytical tools
are applied for the problems at hand.
• Action 1: Revise geotechnical input parameters based on
characterization efforts targeting the in situ rock mass
discontinuity character. Programs include optical and
acoustic televiewer logging, photogrammetry, and triple
tube drill coring (completed at the drill rig with onsite
fracture identification and better incorporating of vein
identification).
• Action 2: Revise historical caveability and fragmentation
assessments based on updated geotechnical parameters as
per Action 1. Apply standard empirical estimation
techniques. Conduct sensitivity assessments as required,
including impact of potential preconditioning techniques
such as hydrofracturing.
• Action 3: Define and implement a three-dimensional
elastic cave back stress forecasting tool to evaluate the
potential for stress aided caving in the massive to
moderately jointed and veined rock mass conditions.
• Action 4: Define and apply rock mass strength and primary
fragmentation forecasting tools. Discrete Fracture
Network (DFN) and Synthetic Rock Mass (SRM) tools
provide a comprehensive framework for articulating both
structure and strength of the rock mass (at varying scales)
to form the cornerstone for assessing the distribution of
rock mass strength and primary fragmentation spatially
within the cave back.
• Action 5: Define and apply advanced secondary
(drawpoint) fragmentation forecasting tools. A start to be properly accounted for early in the life of new
combination of empirical and lab-derived comminution
and compaction relations provide the framework for
forecasting of secondary (drawpoint) fragmentation from
primary fragmentation (results of previous task), air gap
dimension and the height of draw. The main mechanisms
for secondary fragmentation would be accounted for:
impact breakage through the air gap, shearing-base attrition
in the flow zones and compression-based breakage in the
stagnant areas between flow zones. Work by Pierce et al.
(2010), Elmo et al. (2014), and Fuenzalida et al (2014)
illustrate the state-of-the-art application of these tools.
• Action 6: Using the actions above, develop correlations
between Cave Propagation Factor (CPF, Flores and
Karzulovic, 2003), caving rate and fragmentation and
create dynamic time/draw-based maps of CPF, caving rate,
primary fragmentation, secondary (drawpoint)
fragmentation and hang-up frequency for initial mining
blocks. Mine planners should be able to use these maps to
plan for production impacts, hang-up management,
undercut sequence adjustments, developing
preconditioning targets, and designs.
• Action 7: Calibration. Conduct back-analyses of current
caving scenarios (before and after mucking) to test tools
and understanding of rock mass strength, cave back
stresses and effect of preconditioning (where applicable).
The dynamic time/draw-based contour/hazard maps of
forecasted caving rate, secondary (drawpoint)
fragmentation and hang-up frequency developed in Action
6 would be tested here through comparison of forecasted
versus measured caving rate, drawpoint fragmentation and
hang-up frequency in specific sectors. These are the same
type of monitoring data used to develop the initial
correlations between CPF and caving rate and between
CPF and drawpoint fragmentation.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Veins are not joints and need to be properly accounted for in
rock mass classification, characterization, and engineering
design. While conventionally a rock mass that is more jointed
and blockier has been considered as being a more conservative
rock mass to design in, for caving operations blocky rock
masses are not conservative. As outlined in this article,
massive to moderately jointed and veined rock mass conditions
impact several cave engineering aspects including:
• Rock mass strength assessment and consideration for
when the HB-GSI strength scaling equations are
applicable or not;
• Excavation stability assessment for relevant failure
mechanisms such as spalling and rockbursting;
• Fragmentation and thus production ramp-up rate;
• Planning for / determination of the need for pre-
conditioning; and
• Caveability and undercut HR required to initiate caving.
While developments will continue to improve characterization
and engineering design in veined rock masses, there now
appears to be enough documented literature for practitioners to
review such that the veined nature of porphyry rock masses can
projects.
REFERENCES
1. Bahrani N, Kaiser PK. 2017. Estimation of confined
peak strength of crack-damaged rocks. Rock Mechanics
and Rock Engineering. 50(2): 309-26.
2. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering
Classification of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel
Support. Rock Mech. 6, 189-236.
3. Bewick RP, Amann F, Kaiser PK, Martin CD. 2015.
Interpretation of UCS test results for engineering design.
In: Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on
Rock Mechanics: ISRM Congress 2015 – Advances in
Applied & Theoretical Rock Mechanics. Montreal,
Canada: International Society for Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering. Paper 521.
4. Bewick RP, Kaiser PK & Amann F. 2019. Strength of
Massive to Moderately Jointed Rock Masses. J Rock
Mech Geol Eng. 11(3).
5. Bieniawski ZT. 1976. Rock mass classification in rock
engineering, in Exploration for Rock Engineering (ed.
Z.T. Bieniawski), 1: 97-106. A. A. Balkema: Cape
Town.
6. Bieniawski ZT. 1967. Mechanism of brittle fracture of
rock, parts I, II, III. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts. 4(4): 395-430.
7. Brzovic A, Schachter P, Santos C de los, Vallejos JA,
Mas Ivars D. 2014. Characterization and synthetic
simulations to determine rock mass behaviour at the El
Teniente Mine, Chile. Part 1. In: Caving 2014. Santiago
Chile.
8. Castro, LAM, Grabinbsky, MW, McCreath, DR. 1997.
‘Damage imitation through extension fracturing in a
moderately jointed brittle rock mass’, Proceedings of the
36th U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, 30 June–2 July,
New York.
9. Cruz, Garza TV, Pierce M. 2014. "A 3DEC model for
heavily veined massive rock masses." In 48th US Rock
Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. American Rock
Mechanics Association.
10. Cuello D., Newcomb G. 2018. Key geotechnical
knowledge and practical mine planning guidelines in
deep, high-stress, hard rock conditions for block and
panel cave mining. In Proceedings of the Fourth
International Symposium on Block and Sublevel
Caving, Caving 2018.
11. Cundall P.A., Pierce M, Mas Ivars D. 2008. Quantifying
the size effect of rock mass strength. In Proceedings of
the 1st Southern Hemisphere International Rock
Mechanics Symposium, vol. 2, pp. 3-15. Australian
Centre for Geomechanics (ACG).
12. Diederichs MS. 1999. Instability of hard rock masses:
the role of tensile damage and relaxation. PhD Thesis.
University of Waterloo.
13. Elmo D, Rogers S, Stead D, Eberhardt E. 2014. A
discrete fracture network approach to characterize rock
mass fragmentation and implication for geomechanical
upscaling, Transaction of the Institutions of Mining and
Metallurgy, vol. 123, no. 3, pp. 149–161,
https://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1743286314Y.0000000064
14. Flores G., Karzulovic A. 2003. Geotechnical Guidelines
for a Transition from Open Pit to Underground Mining:
Geotechnical Guidelines, Caving Propagation; Report to
International Caving Study II, July.
15. Fuenzalida, M., Garza-Cruz, TV, Pierce, ME &
Andrieux, P (2014) “Application of a methodology for
secondary fragmentation prediction in cave mines”, in
Proceedings Caving 2014, 3rd International Symposium
on Block and Sublevel Caving, Santiago, Chile.
16. Golder Associates Ltd. 1981. Prediction of Stable
Excavation Spans for Mining at Depths Below 1000
meters in Hard Rock. Report to CANMET 0SQ80-
00081.
17. Hoek E, Kaiser PK, Bawden WF. 1995. Support for
underground excavations in hard rock. Balkema. pp 215.
18. Hoek E, Brown ET. 1997. Practical estimates of rock
mass strength. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences. 34(8): 1165-86.
19. International Society for Rock Mechanics. 1981. Rock
characterization, testing, and monitoring – ISRM
Suggested Methods (ed. E.T. Brown). Oxford:
Pergamon.
20. Jakubec J. 2013. Role of defects in rock mass
classification. Ground Support 2013. Perth Australia.
21. Kaiser PK, Diederichs MS, Martin CD, Sharp J, Steiner
W. 2000. Underground works in hard rock tunneling and
mining. In: Proceedings of the International Conference
on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering.
Melbourne, Australia: Technomic Publishing Company.
p. 841-926.
22. Kaiser PK, Amann F, Bewick RP. 2015a. Overcoming
challenges of rock mass characterization for
underground construction in deep mines. In:
Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Rock
Mechanics: ISRM Congress 2015 – Advances in
Applied & Theoretical Rock Mechanics. Montreal,
Canada: International Society for Rock Mechanics and
Rock Engineering.
23. Kaiser PK, Bewick RP, Amann F, Pierce M. 2015b. Best
practice in rock mass characterization for brittle rock
masses. Rio Tinto: Rio Tinto Centre for Underground
Mine Construction; 2015b. p.149.
24. Kaiser PK. 2016a. Challenges in rock mass strength
determination for design of deep underground
excavations. ISRM.
25. Kaiser PK. 2016b. Ground support for constructability
of deep underground excavations – Challenges of
managing highly stressed ground in civil and mining
projects. In: Sir Muir Wood lecture of International
Tunnelling Association at World Tunnelling Congress.
San Francisco. p. 1-33.
26. Laubscher, D.H., Jakubec, J. 2000. The MRMR Rock
Mass Classification for Jointed Rock Masses. In
Underground Mining Methods: Engineering
Fundamentals and International Case Studies, pp 475–
 481, Society of Mining Metallurgy and Exploration,
SMME.
27. Mawdesley C. 2003. Predicting Rock Mass Caveability
in Block Caving Mines. PhD Thesis. University of
Queensland.
28. Martin CD. 1993. Strength of massive Lac du Bonnet
granite around underground openings. PhD Thesis.
University of Manitoba, Canada.
29. Martin CD. 2014. The impact of brittle behaviour of
rocks on tunnel excavation design. In L. R. Alejano, Á.
Perucho, C. Olalla, & R. Jiménez, (pp. 51–62). In
Proceedings EUROCK 2014, Rock Engineering and
Rock Mechanics: Structures in and on Rock Masses,
Vigo. Taylor and Francis Group, London, UK.
30. Muller L. 1966. Rock Mass Behaviour – Determination
and Application in Engineering Practice.
31. Nicksiar, M., Martin CD. 2013. Crack initiation stress in
low porosity crystalline and sedimentary rocks.
Engineering Geology 154(64–76).
32. Pierce M, Gaida M, DeGagne D. 2009. Estimation of
rock block strength. In: Diederichs M, Grasselli G,
editor. ROCKENG09, 3rd Can-US Rock Mechanics
Symposium. PAPER 4360.
33. Pierce, M., D. K. Weatherley, and T. Kojovic (2010) "A
hybrid methodology for secondary fragmentation
prediction in cave mines." In Proceedings of Caving
2010, the Second International Symposium on Block and
Sublevel Caving, pp. 567-581. Australian Centre for
Geomechanics, April.
34. Rojat, F., Labiouse V, Kaiser PK, Descoeudres F. 2009.
Brittle rock failure in Steg Lateral Adit of the Lotschberg
Base Tunnel. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 42, 341–359.
35. Seedorff, E., Dilles, J.D., Proffett, J.M., Jr., Einaudi,
M.T., Zurcher, L., Stavast, W.J.A., Johnson, D.A., and
Barton, M.D. 2005. Porphyry deposits: characteristics
and origin of hypogene features, in Hedenquist, J.W.,
Thompson, J.F.H., Goldfarb, R.J., and Richards, J.R.,
eds., Economic Geology 100th Anniversary Volume:
Society of Economic Geologists, Littleton, Colorado, p.
251-298.
36. Sillitoe, R. 2010. Porphyry Copper Systems: Economic
Geology, v. 105, p. 3-41.
37. Stavrou, Anastasios Murphy, William. 2018.
Quantifying the effects of scale and heterogeneity on the
confined strength of micro-defected rocks. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Minings Sciences. 102.
131–143. 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.01.019.
38. Yoshinaka, R., Osada, M., Park, H., Sasaki, T. & Sasaki,
K. 2008. Practical determination of mechanical design
parameters of intact rock considering scale effect.
Engineering Geology 96: 173-186.

View publication stats