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

net/publication/269875211

An approach to hard rock pillar design at the McArthur River Mine

Conference Paper · April 1998

CITATIONS READS

4 1,139

2 authors, including:

Ernesto Villaescusa
WA School of Mines - Curtin University Australia
183 PUBLICATIONS 1,647 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Mining at Great Depth View project

Ground Support Technology View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ernesto Villaescusa on 27 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An Approach to Hard Rock Pillar Design
at the McArthur River Mine

C. J. Schubert
Rock Mechanics Engineer, McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd.

E. Villaescusa
Professor of Mining Geomechanics, Western Australian School of Mines.

ABSTRACT

This paper describes a methodology for the design of mine pillars at the McArthur
River Mine. The pillar strength is calculated using a method that accounts for
confinement, pillar geometry and intact rock properties. The average pillar stress was
calculated using in-situ measurements of vertical stresses at shallow depth and the
tributary area method in conjunction with numerical modelling. Observations of pillar
behaviour indicate that an existing Pillar Stability Graph may be slightly conservative
and further adjustments to the local rockmass conditions are needed. The results to
date indicate that all mine pillars are stable for a range of mining geometries at
McArthur River.

INTRODUCTION

The McArthur River Mine site is located approximately 720 kilometres south-east of
Darwin and 100 kilometres inland from the Gulf of Carpentaria (Logan et al, 1993).
Mineralisation within the mine area extends approximately 1.5 kilometres north-
south and 1.0 kilometre east-west. The central area, targeted for selective mining dips
between 15 and 20 degrees towards the east at a depth of 100 to 350 metres. The
average thickness of the currently mined 2 Orebody is 3.1 m. The immediate
hangingwall to the room and pillar mine openings consists of a 1.6 m thick bed of
unmineralised siltstone overlayed by a minimal strength, 5 mm thick, clay tuff band.
This clay band is effectively the first continuous parallel discontinuity to the
hangingwall of the mining void.
The mine commenced production in March 1995. Over the last year or so, a rock
mechanics program has been developed and implemented in order to improve safety
and the economical extraction of the shallow dipping orebodies at McArthur River
(Schubert et al, 1997). Current total ore reserves for the 2, 3/4 and 4 orebodies is 27.0
million tonnes @ 13.9% Zn, 6.2% Pb and 63 g/t Ag.

GEOTECHNICAL SETTING

The mineralisation comprises eight stratiform orebodies, stacked one on top of the
other, each separated by dolomitic siltstone and sedimentary breccias. The 55 m thick
sedimentary sequence which hosts the orebodies is divided up into a series of
mechanically continuous layers of rock separated by thin clay filled tuff bands. These
0.5 to 1.6 m thick beds have a frequency of bedding plane breaks ranging from 3 to 10
breaks/ m. Underground exposures show that bedding plane breaks extend up to 3 m
in length.
The orebody sequence is irregularly offset by four major vertical fault sets. Local
vertical displacements on faults range from zero to fifteen metres. There is generally no
alteration or disruption (drag folds etc.) of the rock conditions adjacent to the vertical
faults. The faults are usually tightly healed and infill is commonly either dolomite or
chlorite. Three prominent joint set orientations have been identified at McArthur River
which are all steeply dipping. The joints are frequently short and often terminate against
clay tuff bands. Joint spacings are generally large (>2 m ) and the majority of joint
surfaces are unaltered. Intact rock strength values of approximately 157 MPa (average)
have been tested.
The maximum principal stress (σ1 is oriented sub-horizontally NNE-SSW, along the
strike of bedding and normal to major NW-SE cross cutting faults. The measured
vertical stress (σz = 6.9 MPa) is almost twice that expected from the weight of
overburden (3.6 MPa).

MINING METHOD

Room and pillar mining is the primary extraction technique at the McArthur River
Mine. Three closely spaced tabular orebodies have been targeted for extraction over
the life of the mine and due to economics the lowermost number 2 orebody is being
mined first. Five metre wide pilot drives are driven on an apparent dip to access ore
blocks. The roof of these drives are positioned on the hangingwall of the 2 orebody.
The pilot drives are stripped to eight or nine metres wide leaving rib pillars between
stripped rooms. The rib pillars are split to form a series of shorter island pillars (See
Figure 1).

2
1
3
2
Tuff bands sequence Extraction sequence
1
1. driving
2. stripping
2 orebody dilution 3. Pillar splitting

Figure 1. Schematic cross section of room and pillar mining sequences at McArthur
River Mine.

ROCK REINFORCEMENT

The immediate hangingwall to 2 orebody at McArthur River consists of a 1.4 to 1.6

m thick bed of intact siltstone. This bed is bound on its hangingwall by a laterally
continuous clay filled, weakened tuff band. It is critical to the stability of the roof
that the integrity of the exposed hangingwall is maintained. Systematic rock bolting
increases the tensile and shear strength of the bedding planes within this beam to
maintain a strengthened roof for the pilot drive and expanded room geometry.
 Rock reinforcement at the McArthur River Mine consists of the mechanised
support of each development cut by Secoma Pluton 30 Rockbolters installing friction
coupled bolts in conjunction with weld mesh. The minimum height of development
drive headings at McArthur River Mine is limited by the bolter boom length. The
need to reduce footwall dilution demanded a reduction in the excavation height
(Figure 1). A shortening of bolt length from 2.1 m to 1.8 m allowed a reduction in
bolter boom length and hence achieved a lower mining profile. A series of in-situ
pull tests were conducted to determine the holding capacity of the 1.8 m long bolts
and it was found that cement grouted friction coupled bolts were likely to provide
up to three times the strength of ungrouted bolts (Villaescusa and Wright, 1997).The
revised ground support design consists of five 1.8 m long, 47 mm diameter friction
coupled bolts (inserted into 44 mm holes) installed across the five metre wide drive on
1.2 m ring spacings (Figure 2). If the hangingwall bed is overbroken or undercut then
the bolts are cement grouted in an attempt to limit the delamination of the unconfined
bedding planes.
Initially, in an attempt to pre-support the stripping cut, 6 m long single strand
bulbed cable bolts were installed as shown in Figure 2. A monitored field trial of the
revised support design was conducted at McArthur River Mine to validate the roof
span design principles and support system performance. The field trials suggested that
a voussoir beam was formed within the hangingwall arresting any vertical
movement of the roof. The weight of the rock beam is transferred to the pillars via
the arching process and there is no need for deep anchored support (Schubert et al,
1997).

Figure 2. Current reinforcement design at the McArthur River Mine.

PILLAR STRENGTH ESTIMATION

Underground pillar design at McArthur River Mine is based on a relationship that
links pillar strength to pillar load. Pillar strength is estimated using the ‘Confinement
Formula’ (Lunder, 1994). The ‘Confinement Formula’ (Equation 1) grades the strength of
the final mine pillar as a function of the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the
intact rock pillar material (50 mm sample) and the average pillar confinement.

Ps = (K.UCS).(C1+(C2.k)) (1)

where:
Ps = Pillar strength (MPa)
K = Pillar strength size factor = 0.44
UCS = Unconfined Compressive Strength of pillar material
C1, C2 = Empirical rock mass constants (0.68, 0.52 respectively)
k = kappa, mine pillar friction term (See Equation 2)

The pillar strength in Equation 1 is driven by the mine pillar friction term, “kappa”
as defined in Equation 2. “kappa” is a function of the applied and confining stresses on
the pillar (Lunder, 1994).

k= tan[cos-1((1-Cpav)/(1+Cpav)] (2)

where:
k = kappa, mine pillar friction term
Cpav = Average pillar confinement

This modified strength formula (Equation 1) resembles the Mohr-Coulomb strength

criteria in the way it assesses the strength of the rock mass as a function of the applied
and confining stresses. Two-dimensional elastic boundary element modelling
performed by Lunder (1994) suggested that a relation exists between the pillar
width/height ratio and a term called the ‘average pillar confinement’. The average
pillar confinement is defined as the ratio of the average minor pillar stress (σ3 and the
average major pillar stress σ1). These values are measured at the mid - height of the
modelled pillar. Equation 3 relates the pillar width/ height ratio to the average pillar
confinement. The value of coeff is a function of the extraction ratio in the vicinity of the
pillar. For typical extraction ratios of 70 - 90%, a value of 0.46 was recommended for
coeff (Lunder, 1994)

Cpav = coeff x [log(w/h+0.75)](1.4/(w/h))

(3)

where:
Cpav = Average pillar confinement
coeff = Coefficient of pillar confinement ( = 0.46)
w = Pillar width (m)
h = Pillar height (m)

The above relationship assumes an average rock mass strength for a pillar and does
not consider major structural features such as bedding parallel clay filled tuff bands.
Experience has shown that the confining stress transmitted through the pillar axis
maintains a high degree of cohesion on these planes. No shear failure has been
observed on these bedding parallel bands. The rock mass strength of the pillar
foundations (roof and floor) is similar to the pillar material therefore foundation
failure is not a problem at McArthur River Mine.

The tributary area method

Average pillar loads can be estimated in several different ways, including the
tributary area theory and numerical modelling methods. The theory of the tributary
area method assumes the vertical load originally carried by a certain area of rock (the
tributary area multiplied by the vertical field stress σz= 6.9 MPa) is transferred to the pillar
when the adjacent rock is removed. The pillar load is assumed to be evenly
distributed across the pillar. A limitation to this technique is the inability to account
for complicated pillar layouts and obliquely oriented stress paths generated through
the pillars. Stress path orientations and concentrations may also be influenced by the
direction of the principal stress axes and interactions with the removal of overlying
orebodies.
Further work at McArthur River needs to include detailed analysis of mining
geometries using numerical modelling techniques to determine detailed stress
distributions through mine pillars. Table 1 compares the pillar strength as defined by
the ‘Confinement Formula’ to the pillar load determined using the tributary area
method for a series of 2 orebody pillars at McArthur River Mine.

The Pillar Stability Graph

Equations 1 to 3 were programmed on an EXCEL spreadsheet. The input parameters

included pillar width, pillar height and UCS of the intact material. The empirical rock
mass constants (C1, C2) will be fine-tuned as more data on pillar performance is
collected and the technique is further calibrated to the local rock mass conditions at
McArthur River. By comparing the input variables (pillar width/pillar height and
UCS) with the average pillar stress (determined by the tributary area method) an
estimate of pillar strength and pillar stability can be made.
The pillars listed in Table 1 were plotted on a Pillar Stability Graph (Figure 3). The
McArthur River Mine pillars were compared to a large database (178 case histories) of
hard rock mine pillar performances compiled by Lunder (1994). Each of the case
histories presented on the stability graph were grouped by a pillar stability classification.
Figure 4 shows the schematic illustration of the Lunder (1994) pillar stability
classification also used to classify the McArthur River Mine pillars. Class 1 represents a
stable pillar in which no sign of stress related fracturing is observed. Classes 2 to 4
represent unstable pillars. Class 2 pillars show signs of corners breaking up, while class
3 pillars have fractures running across ½ of the pillar height (fracture aperture <5mm).
Class 4 pillars have fractures greater than ½ the pillar height (fracture aperture ranges
from 5-10mm). Finally, Class 5 represents failed pillars in which disintegration is
experienced. Fractures run through the pillar core (fracture aperture >10mm), and
blocks fall out from the pillar. Up to date, the majority of the McArthur River Mine
pillars fall within class 1 (stable pillars).
Lunder (1984) compared the pillars to empirically determine two factor of safety
divisions on the pillar stability graph (Figure 3). These divisions are based on the
assumption the line dividing unstable and failed pillars has a factor of safety of 1.0.
Using this as a baseline, it was determined the transition from stable to unstable pillar
conditions would have a calculated factor of safety of 1.4. Therefore, the McArthur
River Mine pillars have been designed to have a Factor of Safety greater than 1.4.
However, over excavation from development or stripping operations sometimes
results in the final pillars having a reduced factor of safety (see Table 1).
Table 1. Calculated pillar loads and strengths at McArthur River Mine (all the listed
pillars are currently stable).
Pillar Pillar Pillar W:H Pillar Average Pillar Safety Factor Pillar
No. width height ratio Strength(MPa) stress (MPa) (Ps/Pillar stress Classification

2A4/31 4 3.5 1.1 72 58 1.2 stable

2A3/41 4 3.5 1.1 72 25 2.9 stable
2A3/42 7 3.6 1.9 95 19 5.0 stable
2A3/43 4 4 1.0 66 30 2.2 stable
2A3/44 4 3.5 1.1 72 45 1.6 stable
2A3/45 5.5 3.2 1.7 89 36 2.5 stable
2A3/46 4 3.5 1.1 72 29 2.5 stable
2A3/47 5.5 3.9 1.4 80 28 2.9 stable
2A3/48 4 3.8 1.1 68 23 3.0 stable
2A3/49 5.5 4.2 1.3 77 26 3.0 stable
2A3/410 3.5 3 1.2 72 36 2.0 stable
2A3/411 4 3.7 1.1 69 35 2.0 stable
2A3/412 4 3.1 1.3 77 35 2.2 stable
2A2/71 3 3.7 0.8 59 86 0.7 stable
2A2/72 5 4.1 1.2 74 24 3.0 stable
2A2/73 4 3.6 1.1 70 37 1.9 stable
2A2/74 5 3.8 1.3 77 26 3.0 stable
2A2/75 3 4.5 0.7 54 56 1.0 stable
2A2/76 3 4 0.8 57 55 1.0 stable
2A2/77 5 3.6 1.4 80 29 2.7 stable
2A2/78 4 3.7 1.1 69 34 2.0 stable
2A2/79 5 3.5 1.4 81 25 3.2 stable
2A2/710 7.5 4.5 1.7 88 22 4.0 stable
2E1/13 7 3.2 2.2 100 52 1.9 stable
2B3/2a 4.5 3.16 1.4 81 34 2.4 stable
2B3/2b 4 3.85 1.0 68 38 1.8 stable
2B3/3a 4 3.79 1.1 68 33 2.1 stable
2B3/3b 4 3.76 1.1 69 32 2.2 stable
2B3/3c 4 3.27 1.2 74 36 2.1 stable
2B3/3d 6 3.5 1.7 89 27 3.2 stable
2B3/3e 4 3.6 1.1 70 27 2.6 stable
2B3HH1 3 4.16 0.7 56 24 2.4 stable
2B3HH2 4 4.16 1.0 65 32 2.0 stable
2B3HH3 3.5 4.42 0.8 58 22 2.6 stable
2B3HH4 3 4.35 0.7 55 23 2.3 stable
2B3HH5 3 3.51 0.9 61 25 2.4 stable
2H93HH1 2.5 3.5 0.7 55 93 0.6 unstable
2H93HH2 3 3.7 0.8 59 23 2.6 stable
2H93HH3 2.8 3.6 0.8 58 25 2.3 stable
2H93HH4 3 3.6 0.8 60 57 1.0 stable
2H93HH5 2.8 4 0.7 55 25 2.2 stable
2H93HH6 3 4.5 0.7 54 26 2.0 stable
2H93HH7 2.3 4.3 0.5 50 49 1.0 stable
2H93HH8 3.1 4 0.8 58 26 2.2 stable
2I2/4e 6 3.5 1.7 89 33 2.7 stable
2E1/4a 3.1 3.4 0.9 63 48 1.3 stable
2E1/4b 3.2 3.6 0.9 62 32 2.0 stable
2E1/4c 5.3 3.7 1.4 81 32 2.6 stable
2E3/13b 5.3 3.7 1.4 81 31 2.6 stable
 10.00

9.00

8.00
UCS / Average Pillar Stress

7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Pillar w idth / Height ratio

Lunder D'base (stable) Lunder D'base (Unstable)

Lunder D'base (Failed) MRM Stable
MRM Unstable MRM Failed
FS 1 FS1.4

Figure 3. The pillar stability graph.

Figure 4. Schematic illustration of the pillar stability classification method (from

Lunder, 1994)
Stability monitoring of an isolated pillar

In an attempt to test the accuracy of the assumptions and predictions made by Equation
1 and the Pillar Stability Graph (Figure 3) a pillar loading experiment was conducted at
the McArthur River Mine. The test was performed in the 2A4/3 mining block (Figure 5).
The pillar was painted white to help highlight any rockmass damage (spalling) that may
have occurred due to the increased load carried by the pillar as the spans around the
pillar were increased (Schubert, et al 1997). The pillar was photographed at regular
intervals to help compare changes in pillar damage over time.
The aim of the trial was to see if the pillar showed signs of deterioration as the
average pillar stress was increased towards an empirical factor of safety of 1 (based on
the Pillar Stability Graph, Figure 3). The pillar, with final dimensions of 3.5 m high by 4
m thick by 7 m long showed no signs of stress related spalling (Figure 5). This field trial
indicates Equation 1 and the ‘Pillar Stability Graph’ may be slightly conservative in their
predictions of pillar performance. Further recording of pillar performance is required at
McArthur River to calibrate the rock mass constants (C1 and C2) used in Equation 1 and
the Factor of Safety divisions in Figure 3.

Figure 5. Stable pillar in the 2A4/3 trial mining area. Final dimensions of 3.5 m high, 4
m thick and 7 m long.

Recommended pillar design

The recommended minimum width: height ratios for square and rib pillars (where
length: width >4) at McArthur River Mine are set to 1:1 and 0.8:1 respectively. Figure 6
shows a current mine design with an array of an echelon 15 m (minimum) long by 3
m wide rib pillars supporting a series of 21m long by 15m wide rooms. The access
drive in Figure 6 is protected from the room and pillar panels by a series of 10m long
by 7m wide barrier pillars. As there is no immediate plan to tight fill 2 orebody, all
pillars are designed to remain stable for the life of the project.
One obvious limit to this empirical pillar design is it does not make explicit
allowances for blast damage suffered by the ore that makes up the pillars. Although
current mine pillars show little evidence of significant blast damage, further work is
required to understand the effects of current and future blasting practices on mine
pillars.

Figure 6. Current working mine design at McArthur River Mining.

Numerical analysis of regional stress distribution

Numerical modelling has been carried out with the intention of analysing the
predicted stress conditions around the current and proposed room and pillar mining
panels. The modelling has been done using the program NFOLD, a displacement
discontinuity program developed by Golder Associates (Bywater et al, 1983). The
studies were designed primarily to determine the stress transmitted by pillars from
the hangingwall to footwall for the different pillar layouts.
The model geometry included a continuous 10m wide pillar maintained either side
of the main access decline. This decline pillar creates a regional barrier pillar through
the centre of the mine and helps protect the decline access from stress related damage.
The predicted stress conditions for the No. 2 orebody with 72% extraction show that
only few pillars are predicted to experience stress levels greater than 50 MPa. Only in
the deepest section of the mine the predicted stress levels approached 60 MPa. The
maximum predicted stress within the decline barrier pillar ranged from 30 to 40 MPa.
The data presented in Figure 3 shows McArthur River Mine pillars (UCS = 157 MPa)
with predicted average pillar stresses of 50 MPa (UCS / Average Pillar Stress = 3.1)
and a minimum w:h ratios of 1:1 will have factors of safety of approximately 1.4. The
results for the numerical analysis indicate the majority of the pillars with a 1:1 w:h
ratio will not become highly stressed.
 CONCLUSIONS

An empirical pillar design methodology is being calibrated at McArthur River.

Observations of pillar behaviour indicate that the existing Pillar Stability Graph may
be slightly conservative and further adjustments to the local rockmass conditions are
needed. To date, all pillar geometries at McArthur River appear to be stable. Overall
(mine-wide) stable conditions for a range of pillar design layouts have been predicted
by numerical modelling. Future rock mechanics work at McArthur River will include
additional stress measurements at increased depth, investigations into blast damage of
mine pillars, numerical modelling of the interaction between 2 and the overlying 4
orebody extraction and an analysis of the dynamic loading of 2 orebody spans due to
blasting in overlying orebodies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to thank the management of McArthur River Mining Limited for the
permission to publish this paper.

REFERENCES

Bywater, S, Cowling, R and Black, B, 1983. Stress measurement and analysis for mine
planning. Proceedings Fifth ISRM Congress, Melbourne Australia. D29-D37.
Logan, R G, Leung, K, and Karelse, G J, 1993. The McArthur River Project Proceedings.
Int. Symposium - World Zinc, Hobart.
Lunder, J P, 1994. Hard rock pillar strength estimation - An applied empirical
approach. Masters Thesis, The University of British Colombia.
Schubert, C J, Villaescusa, E and Stewart, C M, 1997. Ground support design and
monitoring at the McArthur River Mine Australia. Proceedings Int. Symposium
on Rock Support. Lillehammer, Norway. 329-339.
Villaescusa, E and Wright, J, 1997. Permanent excavation support using cement
grouted split set bolts. Proceedings Int. Symposium on Rock Support.
Lillehammer, Norway. 660-670.

View publication stats