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

net/publication/269984574

Empirical methods in mining geomechanics – Reflections on current state-

of-the-art

Conference Paper · June 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1217.9520

CITATIONS READS

3 4,075

1 author:

Fidelis Tawiah Suorineni

Thinkrox Inc
68 PUBLICATIONS   804 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

underground mininig View project

Mining Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fidelis Tawiah Suorineni on 24 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Empirical methods in mining geomechanics – Reflections on current state-of-the-art

F.T. Suorineni
UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT: Geomechanics rely greatly on empirical methods for excavation design

as a means of overcoming the complex nature of the rockmass and the associated difficulties in defining its
constitutive behaviour. These empirical methods include the Rockmass Rating (RMR) systems (Bieniawski,
1973), the Tunnelling Quality Index (TQI) or Q-system Barton et al. (1974), Mining Rockmass Rating
(MRMR) system (Laubscher & Taylor 1976), The Geological Strength Index (GSI) (Hoek 1994), Hard rock
pillar desigm chart (Lunder and Pakalnis, 1997), The Equivalent Linear Overbreak Sloughage (ELOS) stabil-
ity graph (Clark & Pakalnis 1997), the cavability prediction chart (Laubscher, 1994) and the Hoek and Brown
failure criterion (Hoek & Brown, 1980). This paper gives credit to the developers of these methods who
through their diligence and observation brought some sanity to somehow various chaotic periods in the history
of mining geomechanics. Current state-of-the-art shows some of these methods, while valid at the times of
their developments, have reached their limits in our time and new thinking is required. There is also evidence
that these methods are misused. The misuse sometimes leads to unjustified criticisms of the methods and
originate from lack of understanding of the various databases and the underlying assumptions that governed
the development of the various methods. The paper draws attention to the significant roles played by empirical
methods in geomechanics and emphasizes the need for further development and continuous improvement of
these methods to manage the complexity of the rock mass. To achieve this requires consistency in the expan-
sion of the existing databases, calibration of any new factors and the collection of more quality data. The pa-
per cautions users of these methods to pay due attention to the limits of the databases and their underlying as-
sumptions for reliable designs..

1 INTRODUCTION while in numerical modelling the constitutive physi-

1.1 Empirical methods in mining geomechanics
Predictive tools in geo-engineering can be grouped
into empirical methods and numerical modelling.
Empirical methods are based on field observations
of the rockmass behaviour and field experience.
They are a methodical documentation of expert
knowledge. Franklin (1993) defines empirical de-
sign as quantified judgment based on experience.
Numerical modelling codes are based on the phys-
ics of the problem and are attempts to predict the
rockmass behaviour from its constitutive physical
description. Mathews et al. (1981) stated that empir-
ical methods based on back analysis are powerful
predictive tools, particularly if combined with nu-
merical modelling and analysis techniques. The au-
thor believes in the power of empirical methods.
Both empirical methods and numerical modelling
rely heavily on the adequate characterization of the
rockmass. In empirical methods the rockmass char-
acterization is implicit in its observed behaviour,
cal descriptions must be externally linked to the
rockmass characteristics in question. To ensure that
the formulated rockmass constitutive equations be-
hind a numerical modelling code that respect physics
closely represent the behavior of the rockmass in
service numerical models often have to be calibrated
against field observations for their predictions to be
close to reality. For this reason Franklin (1993)
states that empirical methods often proof ‘closer’ to
the ‘truth’ than the apparently more precise predic-
tions of theoretical analysis, adding that based on re-
al data empirical methods provide a standard against
which theoretical predictions are measured and can
be judged.
The complexity of the rock mass cannot be fully
accounted for in our constitutive models that under-
lie numerical models. While these numerical models
can be tricked to give us the answers we want, the
rock mass is so arrogant it will behave in the manner
it wants. Müller (1988) noted that the dominating
geologic conditions at site do not care what kind of
theoretical ideas we may have and what our econom-
ic situations may be. He continued to state that the
geologic conditions will act in the way which is pre-
determined by their nature on one hand as well as by
the manner in which we treat it during excavation
and support.
1.2 Contemporary empirical methods
The following empirical methods are discussed for
their popularity and widespread use in geomechan-
ics:
− The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system
(Bieniawski 1973)
− The Tunnelling Quality Index (Q) system (Barton
et al. 1974)
− The Mining Rockmass Rating s(MRMR) system
(Laubscher & Taylor 1976)
− The Laubscher rules in block cave mining
(Laubscher 1994)
− The Geological Strength Index (GSI) (Hoek
1994)
− The open stope stability graph (Mathews et al.
1981; Clark & Pakalnis 1997)
− The Equivalent Linear Overbreak Slough (ELOS)
stability graph (Clark & Pakalnis 1997)
− The hard rock pillar design graph (Lunder & Pa-
kalnis 1997), and
− The Hoek and Brown failure criterion (Hoek &
Brown 1980).
It cannot be overemphasized that the great pio-
neers of rock mechanics, geomechanics and engi-
neering geology (including Karl Terzaghi, Ralph
Peck, Leopold Muller, Evert Hoek, John Franklin,
Denis Laubscher, Nick Barton, Z.T. Bieniawski and
Rimas Pakalnis) recognized the importance of geol-
ogy, observed and learnt from the arrogant rockmass
behaviour and guided by their intuition managed to
discipline it. Empirical methods are the outcome of
patient observations, intuition and keen interest in
geology.
This paper pays glaring tribute to these great men
by reflecting on their achievements. It then recogniz-
es that while some of these contributions worked
well to solve the problems of their time they have
now reached their limits and new thinking is urgent-
ly required. The paper then draws on the lessons
from medicine and science to suggest that for signif-
icant breakthroughs in rock mechanics or geome-
chanics, genuine, multidisciplinary approach sup-
ported by generous funding and rigorous supervision
is required.
2 REFLECTIONS ON CONTEMPORATY
EMPIRICAL METHODS
2.1 The rockmass rating (RMR) system
RMR (Bieniawski 1973) became the first widely ac-
cepted and used rock mass classification system fol-
lowing its development in 1973. Its popularity
stemmed from the fact that it could be used for ex-
cavation design in rock with significant capacity to
predict excavation stand-up time. RMR was also
adopted by Hoek and Brown (Hoek & Brown 1980)
for the determination of the Hoek and Brown failure
criterion parameters. RMR was later replaced by the
Geological Strength Index (GSI) in 1994 (Hoek
1994) for that role because it became ineffective in
performing that function for values of RMR less
than about 25.
Various critiques of RMR have been published,
out of which evolved the Modified or Mining Rock
Mass Rating (MRMR) system (Laubscher & Taylor
1976). MRMR later became the source of cavability
prediction in block cave mining, and remains so to
today. These later developments of the RMR are dis-
cussed in later sections.
Milne et al. (1998) provide a chronological devel-
opment of RMR between 1973 and 1989. Within
this period the RMR factors have been modified as
more experience in its application was gained.
Suorineni (2013) critically re-examined the origi-
nal RMR database for its validity, robustness. Focus
was on its application independent of the geological
environments or rock types and depth. The validity
of the method with regards to its stand-up time pre-
diction was also examined.
Figure 1 provides the composition of the RMR da-
tabase in terms of rock origin as published in
Bieniawski (1989).
Igneous
(20%)
Sedimentary
(63%) Metamorphic
(17%)
Figure 1. Composition of the 1989 RMR database with refer-
ence to rock origin.
Figure 1 shows that the RMR (1989) database
consists of 63% sedimentary rocks, 17%% meta-
morphic and 20% igneous rocks. Out of the 63%
sedimentary rocks about 45% are shale (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Composition of the RMR sedimentary rock origin by
rock type.
Figure 3 is a plot of depth (m) against frequency
data points. The figure shows that about 90% of the
RMR data came from depths less than 500 m below
surface.
Figure 3. RMR 1989 database composition relative to depth.
From Figures 1 to 3 it is obvious that RMR con-
sist of soft rocks dominated by shales from depths
less than 500 m below surface. The significance of
this revelation on the composition of the RMR data-
base is discussed under the Laubscher block caving
rules (Laubscher 1994, 2001) later in this paper. The
implication of the database as it relates stand-up time
is discussed next.
Sedimentary rocks, and in particular, shales are
susceptible to the vagaries of the environment on
exposure depending on their composition. Domina-
tion of the RMR database by sedimentary rocks
gives logic to the stand-up time concept (Figure 4).
Figure 4. RMR span-stand-up time concept (From Barton &
Bieniawski 2008).
While stand-up time may also also apply to some
igneous rocks such as olivine rich rocks, it is diffi-
cult to argue the concept of stand-up time for exca-
vations in these rocks. As pointed out by Müller
(1988) while timing is important in rock engineering
or geomechanics it can hardly be computed or even
assessed without deep geological knowledge and in-
tuition. This fact is further buttressed by the fact that
“one cannot wait until the rock itself announces its
stand-up time by roof falls and slabbing of the side
walls” (Müller 1988). One must make decisions be-
fore the stand-up time is reached.
Isaacson (2007) states that Albert Einstein’s intel-
ligence and breakthroughs hinged on his ability to
mix intuition with a feel for the patterns of nature to
be found in experimental data. He adds “The scien-
tist has to worm these general principles out of na-
ture by discerning, when looking at complexes of
empirical facts, certain general features.” These ob-
servations reflect on the complexity of the stand-up
time concept and what is required to make it mean-
ingful.
Thus, while RMR brought discipline and logic in-
to rockmass characterization at a time of chaos, and
contributed significantly to understanding this com-
plex medium, we must admit its limitations in con-
temporary applications.
2.2 Q-system
The Q-system (Barton et al. 1974) (Equation 1) is
well detailed in several publications, and the discus-
sion here is limited to what many never venture to
look – the foot notes and assumptions.
 RQD  J r  J w 
Q =     (1)
 n  J a
J  SRF 
where RQD = Rock Quality designation, Jn= joint
set number, Jr = joint roughness number, Ja = joint
alteration number, Jw = joint water reduction factor
and SRF = Stress reduction factor.
The Q-system is a major contribution to rock me-
chanics/geomechanics and Barton et al. (1974) de-
serve commendation. Today, there is a general feel-
ing that its applications have been too much
extended beyond its database limits. QTBM is one
such unproven versions of the extended application.
Palmström and Broch (2006) provide a critical re-
view of the Q-applications and chronicled its various
developments between 1974 and 2002. They advised
that potential users of the Q-system and for that mat-
ter any other empirical method, should carefully
study the limitations of the system before using
them.
The quotient (RQD/Jn) in Q is defined as the
block size, (Jr/Ja) the interblock shear strength and
(Jw/SRF) the active stress. What seems to be an im-
plicit problem in Q is the definition of the term
block size. The implication of interpreting RQD/Jn
as block size is that any rockmass will have at least
three continuous joint sets to define finite blocks.
Hence, for rockmasses with less than three continu-
ous joint sets Q will underestimate their self-support
capacity. This has implications in using the stability
graph for predicting cavability in block cave mining.
This is discussed later in a different section.
Some users do not pay attention to the detailed
guidelines in the use of the Q-system, in particular
the footnotes. The Q-system footnotes are critical in
its proper application. Oversights of the footnotes
have resulted in unwarranted criticisms of the meth-
od by some users. Here are some significant points
in Barton et al. (1974):
− Joint orientation relative to tunnel axis did not
appear to be a significant factor because the data-
base is from civil tunnels where tunnels are often
placed in the best orientation.
− Different personal, national and continental engi-
neering practices lead inevitably to variations in
methods of support, even for the same quality of
rock. The author adds that in mining, regulations
will also dictate support levels and practice.
− Support recommendations in the original Q sys-
tem support chart are for permanent support.
− Support recommendations assume good blasting
or excavation practice. For better drilling and
blasting or poorer drilling and blasting (deviation
from average) the Q system recommended sup-
port may tend to be conservative or inadequate
respectively. To account for poor blasting practice
adjust Jn and RQD accordingly.
− The joint set with minimum Jr/Ja should always
be used in computing Q.
The block size and interblock shear strength defi-
nitions seem to imply that every rock mass is made
up of discrete blocks defined by continuous joints.
This interpretation implies that the three rock masses
shown in Figure 5 will have the same Q value and
therefore the same self-supporting capacities. Obvi-
ously, this is not the case intuitively and in our expe-
rience.
Figure 5. Hypothetical rockmasses: A contains continuous joint
sets; B contains two discontinuous joint sets; C continuous and
one discontinuous joint sets.
For the reasons given above, Suorineni et al.
(2008) proposed a modified Q called Q-star (Q*)
(Equation 2) that accounts for inpersistent joint sets
in the conventional Q-system. Care was taken to re-
tain the original Q-system procedure.
 RQDo  J r* 
Q = 
*
J d   (2)
 J n  J a 
Where RQDo is RQD measured in the direction of
excavation, Jn is joint set number based on total
number of joint sets, Jd and Jr star account for non-
persistent joint sets and are determined from Tables
1 and 2 respectively.
Table 1. Values for Jd (Suorineni et al. 2008)
Number of persistent joint sets Correction factor, Jd
0 4
1 3.5
2 1.5
≥3 1
Table 2. Values for Jr-star (Suorineni et al. 2008)
Joint persistence (m) Description Jr-star
<1 Very low 5.0
1-2 Low 4.5
2-3 Moderate 4.0
3-4 High 3.5
≥4 Very high 3.0
By virtue of the fact that most of the initial data in
Q came from civil engineering tunnels, it is not sur-
prising that relative orientation was not considered a
significant factor for inclusion in the Q-system since
most civil tunnels are aligned in the best orientation
for stability. In mining, engineers have no luxury to
choose the drift alignment in the most stable orienta-
tion. Often, engineers have to deal with the effect of
relative orientation of excavations with geologic
structures in stability analysis.
Another implicit problem with the Q-system is
the difficulty in applying it to weak rockmasses. In
weak rock masses the Q-system parameters are diffi-
cult to determine and excessive deformation may be
the mode of failure rather than structural or brittle
failure. This weakness of the Q-system appears not
to be obvious to many users of the method. Løset
(1999) states as follows:
“The Q-system was primarily suited to hard joint-
ed rocks …….. but for the classes of poorest rock
quality the system has not provided detailed descrip-
tion of the support constructions. This means that for
weak rock masses the dimensioning of the support
must usually be verified by numerical modelling or
some other means of calculation.”
Løset (1999) identify 6 types of weak rock masses
as follows:
− Heavily jointed rocks in strong (Q<0.01)
− Zones with altered or strong rock (Squeezing or
swelling may take place)
− Weak rocks with joints (Young sedimentary rocks
(Sandstone) or weakly metamorphic rocks such as
shale, slate or phyllites)
− Weak rocks with excavation induced fractures
(e.g. Young homogeneous sedimentary rocks
(chalk, sandstone) or low metamorphic rocks
(Shale, phyllites)
− Weak rocks without joints or induced excavation
fractures (Young homogeneous sedimentary rocks
such as chalk, sandstone and mudstone), and
− Weathered rocks.
2.3 Mining rockmass rating (MRMR) system
MRMR is obtained by applying adjustment to RMR
to account for mining induced factors. Adjustments
are made to account for weathering, blast damage,
orientation and induced stresses.
By virtue of RMR database limitations discussed
in Section 1.2, the MRMR system is subjected to the
same limitations.
There are however additional benefits of the
MRMR system over RMR apart from the adjustment
for mining purposes. MRMR uses modified ratings
of RQD and uniaxial compressive strengths to make
rockmasses more sensitive to changes in these pa-
rameters.
2.4 The Laubscher block caving rules
The Laubscher block caving rules are worthy of
credit. To date, they continue to provide guidance for
block cave mine design, safety and productivity.
The Laubscher block caving rules are derived
from MRMR that has its source from RMR. The de-
ficiencies of RMR were provided in Section 2.1.
Thus, the Laubscher block caving rules are based on
weak sedimentary rocks largely made of shale from
shallow depths. Additionally, the rules were devel-
oped in the South African geological environment.
Figure 6 and Figure 7 compare stresses in undercuts
in stress environments where ko is 1/3 and 3 as may
be in S. Africa and Australia or Canada respectively.
While in Figure 6 caving will easily propagate in
poor quality rockmass in Figure 7 conditions do not
favour cave initiation in the same rockmass. Cave
initiation will later likely stall with cave back shape
changes in Figure 6 while in Figure 7 cave growth
may later become rapid after initial preconditioning
to initiate growth.
6
5 σc
σz=3σx
4
3
σ/σz 2 σc
σx H
1 σt B
0
-1
1 2 34 5
B/H
Figure 6. Stresses in undercut where ko=1/3 (Redrawn from
Coates (1981).
It is concluded that while the Laubscher cave de-
sign rules worked well at the time of their develop-
ment when mining was at shallow depths and in
weak rockmasses, these rules have reached their lim-
its as current mining is taken place at depths far
greater than 500 m and in more competent rock-
masses.
6
5 σz=σx/3
4 σc
3 σc
σ/σx 2 σx
σt H
1 B
0
-1
1 2 34 5
B/H
Figure 7. Stresses in undercut where ko=3 (Redrawn from
Coates 1981).
2.5 The geological strength index (GSI)
The Geological Strength Index (GSI) was developed
to replace RMR in the determination of the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion rockmass constants m, s and
a. This followed several years of use and experience
with the RMR in the determination of the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion constants. Hoek (1994) ob-
served that while the use of RMR in determining the
Hoek-Brown failure criterion constants was accepta-
ble for rockmasses with RMR values of more than
about 25 it did not work well for rockmasses with
RMR less than 25. Hence a new rockmass classify-
cation system specifically for the determination of
rockmass properties was required. GSI (Hoek 1994)
was introduced as that rockmass classification sys-
tem.
The GSI was developed following many years of
discussions with engineering geologists leading to
precise wording in each box of the block size col-
umn and to the relative weights assigned to each
combination of structural and surface conditions
(Hoek 1999). GSI is based on an assessment of the
lithology, structure and condition of discontinuity
surfaces in the rockmass and it is estimated from
visual examination of the rockmass exposed in sur-
face excavations. It combines two fundamental pa-
rameters of geological processes that cannot be cap-
tured in any equation, the blockiness of the mass and
the conditions of discontinuities that govern rock-
mass behaviour. Marinos et al (2007) wrote: “….. at-
tempts to quantify the GSI classification to the per-
ception that engineers are happier with numbers are
interesting, they have to be applied with caution in
order not to lose the geologic logic in the system.
Unfortunately, Hoek et al. (2013) wrote “…….
Some uniformity and quantification of the chart (the
GSI chart) is necessary.” The author considers this
reversal of logic after the previous statement as un-
fortunate.
It is also recognized that at depth joints are tight
and jointed rockmasses may behave elastically. GSI,
like RMR does not account for confinement at
depth. Confinement at depth will tend to strengthen
rockmasses. It is therefore concluded that at depth
GSI in its current form will tend to underestimate the
strength of rockmasses.
2.6 The open stope design stability graph
The open stope design chart by Mathews et al.
(1981) is extensively discussed in the literature fol-
lowing its development in 1981. These discussions
focus on the limitations and suggested improvements
to the method in the nearly three decades of its exist-
ence. Major contributions to the method include the
work of Potvin (1988), Nickson (1992), Stewart and
Forsyth (1995), Hadjigeorgiou et al. (1995), Milne et
al (1998), Suorineni (1998, 2010), Clark and Pa-
kalnis (1997) and Trueman and Mawdesley (2003).
Further details of the evolution of the stability graph
can be found in Suorineni (2010).
Admittedly, some criticisms of the open stope
stability graph are due to some users not understand-
ing the assumptions of behind the development of
the method and the foundation databases. Suorineni
(2011) focused on criticisms of the stability graph by
authors who did not understand the assumptions and
the stability graph database. Criticisms that the graph
does not account for tension (Diederichs & Kaiser
1999; Mitri et al. 2010) are good examples.
Mathews et al. (1981) advise that for tension the
stress factor should be set to 1 since for these condi-
tions bridging type failures will not occur and only
gravity driven structural failures are likely for which
the gravity factor C takes over. Thus tensile condi-
tions were not an oversight in the development of
the stability graph.
The stability graph is also misused as pointed out
in Suorineni (2011). The stability graph was devel-
oped for large or wide orebodies. Application of the
method to narrow vein orebodies often shows the
method does not work in these orebodies. The meth-
od is also supposed to be applied to steeply dipping
orebodies in good quality rockmasses and should not
be applied to orebodies in poor quality and or low
dipping orebodies.
The developers of the stability graph stated at the
time that while the factors for calculating the stabil-
ity number N (Equation 3) were sufficient to concep-
tually prove the method more data was needed to
validate their reliability.
 RQD  J r 
N =    ABC (3)
 J n  J a 
The conceptual development of the method used 26
case histories from three mines. Following this de-
velopment Potvin (1988) expanded the database to
175 case histories from 34 mines and calibrated the
stability graph factors A, B and C with a redefinition
of the transition zones. Potvin’s work undoubtedly
enhanced confidence in the method as an open stope
design tool. Consequently, it is expected that in re-
cent applications of the method and databases the
calibrated stability graph factors should be used.
The extended Mathews stability graph method for
open stope design (Mawdesley 2002; Trueman and
Mawdesley 2003) consists of an impressive 483 case
histories. Unfortunately, this database used the orig-
inal uncalibrated stability graph factors. More dis-
turbingly, the database consists of not just data from
open stopes but data from other mining methods as
shown in Figure 8. These observations clearly show
that guidelines for the development and use of em-
pirical methods are urgently needed and hence the
significance of this conference.
 1000 2.8 The hard rock pillar design chart
Stable
Stability Number (N)

The hard rock pillar design chart (Figure 10) was

10 developed by Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) following
Failure-Major Failure
the work Hudyma (1988). Figure 10 is a simple pil-
lar design chart commonly used in hard rock under-
0.1 ground mines around the world.
Cave
0.7

Average Pillar Stress (Ps)/UCS

FS=1
0.001 0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0.5
Hydraulic Radius (m) FS=1.4
0.4
Open stope Cut-and-Fill Longwall
Narrow-vein Sublevel Caving Block Caving 0.3
Figure 8. The Extended Mathews Stability Graph database plot-
0.2
ted by mining method.
0.1

0
2.7 The equivalent linear overbreak slough stability 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
graph Pillar Width to Height Ratio (W/H)

The stability graph is qualitative. All that it tells a Failed Unstable Stable
miner is that a stope of a given size is going to be Figure 10. Hard rock pillar design chart (Lunder and Pakalnis
probably stable, unstable or cave. However, miners 1997).
are interested in how much dilution a certain stope
size is going to produce and the relevant question is The author notes that the curves assigned factors
“will this dilution be acceptable?” Acceptable dilu- of safety of 1 and 1.4 in Figure 10 are simply lines
tion is mining method, mineral and or operation de- separating failed and unstable and unstable and sta-
pendent. ble pillars with no known degree of their conserva-
The Equivalent Linear Overbreak Slough (ELOS) tism. The The two curves in Figure 10 have been
stability graph (Figure 9) (Clark and Pakalnis 1997) misinterpreted by Kaiser et al (2011) and Martin
was developed to answer the key question miners and Maybee (2000) who argue that empirical pillar
keep asking: “Will my selected stope size give me strength equations such as those in Figure 10 tend to
acceptable dilution?” a horizontal asymptote and are wrong. They argue
that pillar strength equations should instead ap-
1000 proach a vertical asymptote after a pillar width to
height ratio of about 2.5. This argument is based on
Modified stability number N'

the results of numerical modelling which show fac-

100
0.5m tors of safety curves approaching a vertical asymp-
1m
2m tote at this pillar width to height ratio. Factors of
10 safety for pillars are different from pillar strength
and the two should not be compared.
Invariably, the arguments that pillars with width
1 to height ratios of about greater than 2.5 are inde-
structible, are based on comparison of the pillar fac-
tor of safety curves with pillar strength curves (ap-
0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 ples and oranges).
Hydraulic radius HR (m) Suorineni (2013) argue that intuitively, pillar
Figure 9. The ELOS stability graph (Lunder and Pakalnis strength, pillar factor of safety and pillar stress
1997). should be related as in Figure 11.

The argument often advanced by the author is that

both the original and ELOS stability graphs are not
orebody size independent. An ELOS of 0.5 m in a 1
m wide orebody gives a dilution of 50% that will not
be acceptable in most mining operations while same
ELOS in a 10 m wide orebody will only result in 5%
dilution! This example demonstrates the need for the
development of a quantitative, dilution-based ore-
body width independent stability graph.

Figure 11. Conceptual relationship between pillar stress, pillar
strength, Factor of safety and pillar width to height ratio.
In Figure 11 pillar stress decreases with increas-
ing pillar width to height ratio and to be constant af-
ter a width to height ratio of about 2 to 2.5 while pil-
lar strength increases to approach a horizontal
asymptote. Based on the trends of the pillar stress
and strength curves the pillar factor of safety should
increase with increasing pillar width to height ratio
to a vertical asymptote at about a pillar width to
height ratio between 2 and 2.5. Ironically, the pillar
strength-width to height ratio curve in Figure 11 is
identical to the Lunder and Pakalnis factor of safety
curves in Figure 10. Hence, the curves labeled factor
of safety curves of 1 and 1.4 are more likely pillar
strength curves than factor of safety curves.
2.9 The Hoek-Brown failure criterion
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion is discussed ex-
tensively in the literature. Hoek and Marinos (2007)
provide a detailed summary of the evolution of the
Hoek-Brown failure criterion. The validity of the cri-
terion has been strongly questioned by Hoek himself
when he stated as follows: “Our approach (refering
to the Hoek-Brown failure criterion) was entirely
empirical and we worked from very limited data of
rather poor quality. Our empirical criterion and our
estimates of the input parameters were offered as a
temporary solution to an urgent problem.” Hoek
(1994). He went further to state: “The fact that the
criterion works, more by good fortune than because
of its inherent scientific merits, is no excuse for the
current lack of effort or even apparent desire to find
a better way.”
The statements by Hoek should dispel any one
from criticizing the Hoek-Brown failure criterion but
rather channel our energies towards finding the “bet-
ter way” referred to by Hoek. Hence, it is not sur-
prising when we produce predictive numerical mod-
elling results such as those shown in Figure 12. In
Figure 12 all the predictions following the assumed
material behaviours would have resulted in the
placement of the support in the wrong areas in the
tunnel and consequently creating fatal conditions for
any workers.
Today, nobody is making an effort to develop a
failure criterion for rocks that is based on fundamen-
tal rock behavior, geology and physics. A successful
and reliable rock failure criterion can only be devel-
oped through genuine multidisciplinary collaborative
research in geoscience and engineering.
Figure 13. Material assumptions and predictions versus reali-
ty/observed performance (Redrawn from Read and Martin
1996).
3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Conclusions
This paper is a reflection on the state-of –the-art on
empirical methods in geomechanics. The state-of-
the-art clearly shows our predecessors were innova-
tive in developing solutions to the questions of their
time and deserve credit for their efforts. These solu-
tions recognized the complexity of the rockmass
when compared to steel, soil or concrete.
There should be the recognition today that the so-
lutions developed by our predecessors at their time
have reached their limits and we and subsequent
generations should face the challenge and develop
solutions to the questions of our time.
Our predecessors were bold to acknowledge the
limitations of their solutions. We have ignored such
honest views and criticized their solutions while of-
fering no alternatives of our own. This is the crux of
the state-of-the-art of empirical methods.
3.2 Recommendations
It is strongly recommended that the use of empirical
methods be guided to ensure proper use and con-
sistency of the databases. It is also recommended
that more effort be spent on the documentation of
field observations instead of spending more time on
computers to produce results that have no relevance
to actual experience and putting people to risks.
Genuine multidisciplinary collaborative research
involving geoscientists, engineers and technology
developers is required to solve the geomechanics
challenges of today.
REFERENCES
Barton, N. & Bienawski, Z.T. 2008. RMR anS Q-setting rec-
ords. Tunnels and Tunnelling International: 26-29.
Barton, N., Lien, R. & Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering classifica-
tion of rock masses for the design of rock support. Rock
Mechanics, 6(4):189–236.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1973. Engineering classification of jointed
rock masses. Trans. S. Afr. Inst. Civ. Engrs., 15: 335–344.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classifications.
New York, Wiley.
Clark, L.M. & Pakalnis, R.C. 1997. An empirical approach for
estimating unplanned dilution from open stope hangingwalls
and footwalls. Proceedings of 99th Annual General Meet-
ing, Vancouver: CIM.
Clark, L.M. & Pakalnis, R.C. An empirical approach for esti-
mating unplanned dilution from open stope hangingwalls
and footwalls. Proceedings of 99th Annual General Meet-
ing, 27th April – 1st May 1997. Vancouver: CIM.
Coates, D.F. 1981. Rock mechanics principles. Ottawa: Mines
Branch Monograph 874, Information Canada.
Diederichs, M.S. & Kaiser, P.K. 1999. Tensile strength and
abutment relaxation as failure control mechanisms in under-
ground excavations. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 36: 69–96.
Franklin, J. A. 1993. Empirical design and rock mass character-
isation. In Hudson J.A. (ed), Comprehensive rock engineer-
ing, 2: 759–806. New York: Pergamon,
Hadjigeorgiou, J., Leclaire,J. & Potvin, Y. 1995. An update of
the stability graph method of open stope design. Proceed-
ings of 97th Annual General Meeting. Halifax: CIM..
Hoek E. 1994. Strength of rock and rock masses. News J ISRM
2(2):4–16.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground excavation in
rock. London, IMM.
Hoek, E. & Marinos, P. 2007. A brief history of the develop-
ment of the Hoek-Brown failure criterion. Soils and Rocks,
2: 2-13.
Hoek, E. 1999. Putting Numbers to Geology – an Engineer’s
Viewpoint. The Second Glossop Lecture, Quarterly Journal
of Engineering Geology, 32(1): 1-19.
Hoek, E., Carranza Torres, C.T. & Corkum, B. Hoek-Brown
failure criterion: 2002 edition. In Proc. of the 5th North
American Rock Mech. Symp. 7-10 July 2002. Toron-
to:NARMS.
Isaacson, W. 2007. Einstein: His life and universe. New York,
Simon and Schuster.
Kaiser, P.K., Kim, B., Bewick, R.P. & Valley, B. (2011). Rock
mass strength at depth and implications for pillar design.
Mining Technology,120(3): 170 – 179.
Laubscher D. H., 2001, Cave Mining – The State of the Art,
Underground Mining Methods. In Hustrulid W.A., Bullock
R.L. (eds), Underground Mining Methods: Engineering
Fundamentals and International Case Studies: 455-464.
Littleton, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Explora-
tion, Inc.
Laubscher, D.H. & Taylor, H.W. The importance of geome-
chanics of jointed rock masses in mining operations. Pro-
ceedings of the Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engi-
neering, 1st – 5th November 1976, Cape Town: SAIMM..
Laubscher, D.H. 1994. Cave mining-the state of the art. Jour-
nal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metal-
lurgy: 279-293.
Løset, F. 1999. Use of the Q-system in weak rock masses. NGI
Report No. 592048-1.
Lunder, J. & Pakalnis, R. 1997. Determining the strength of
hard rock mine pillars. Bull Can Min Metall., 90(1013): 51-
55.
Marinos, P.G., Marinos, V. and Hoek, E. 2007. The geological
strength index (GSI): Characterization tool for assessing
engineering properties for rock masses. In Mark, Pakalnis &
Tuchman (editors), Proceedings International Workshop on
Rock Mass Classification for Underground Mining, Infor-
mation Circular 9498. Pittsburgh: NIOSH.
Martin, C. D. & Maybee, W. G. 2000. The strength of hard-
rock pillars. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 7(8): 1239-1246.
Mathews, K.E., Hoek, E., Wyllie, D.C. & Stewart, S.B.V.
1981. Prediction of stable excavation spans at depths below
1000m in hard rock mines. CANMET Report, DSS Serial
No. OSQ80-00081. 127 pp.
Milne, D., Hadjigeorgiou, J. & Pakalnis, R. 1998. Rock mass
characterization for underground hard rock mines. Tunnel-
ling and Underground Space Technology, 13(4): 393-391.
Milne, D., Pakalnis, R.C. & Felderer, M. 1996. Surface geome-
try assessment for open stope design. Proceedings of North
America Rock Mechanics Symposium, Kingston: CIM
Mitri, H.S., Hughes, R. & Zhang, Y. 2010. New rock stress fac-
tor for the stability graph method. International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences,
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.09.015.
Nickson, S.D. 1992. Cable support guidelines for underground
hard rock mine operations, M.A.Sc. thesis, University of
British Columbia.
Nickson, S.D. 1992. Cable support guidelines for underground
hard rock mine operations. M.Sc. thesis, Vancouver: Univ
British Columbia.
Potvin, Y. 1988. Empirical open stope design in Canada, Ph.D.
thesis, University of British Columbia, 1988.
Read, R.S. & Martin, C.D. 1996. Technical summary of
AECL’s Mine-by Experiment. Phase1 excavation response.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Report, AECL-11311.
Stewart, S.B.V. & Forsyth, W.W. 1995. The Mathews method
for open stope design. CIM Bull. 88: 45–53.
Suorineni, F.T. 2010. The stability graph after three decades in
use – Experiences and the way forward. International Jour-
nal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 24(4): 307-
3392.
Suorineni, F.T. 2011. Factors influencing overbreak in the
Barkers orebody, Kundana Gold mine: narrow vein case
study. Paper by: P.C. Stewart, R. Trueman and I. Brunton,
2011: Mining Technology, vol. 120(2), pp. 80-89. Letter to
the Editor, Transactions, Institution of Mining and Metal-
lurgy (Section A): Mining Technology.
Suorineni, F.T. 2012. A critical review of the stability graph
method for open stope design. MassMin 2012, 10-14 June
2012. Sudbury, CIM.
Suorineni, F.T. 2013a. Geomechanics challenges and its future
direction – Food for thought. Ghana Mining Journal, 14:
14-20.
Suorineni, F.T. 2013b. The Geomechanics Challenges of Con-
temporary Deep Mining: Technology as the Pathway to In-
creased Safety and Productivity. 16th Kenneth Finlay Lec-
ture, 17th October. Sydney: UNSW Australia.
Suorineni, F.T., Kaiser, P.K. & Henning, J.G. 2008. Safe rapid
drifting – Support selection. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology, 23: 682–699.
Trueman, R. & C. Mawdesley, C. 2005. Predicting cave initia-
tion and propagation. CIM Bull. 96: 54–59.
Trueman, R. & Mawdesley, C. 2003. Predicting cave initiation
and propagation. CIM Bull., 96:54–59.

View publication stats