Mining Science and Technology, 9 (1989) 23-37

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

23

Geotechnical assessment deficiencies in underground mining

T. SZWEDZICKI
Institute of Mining Research, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP. 167, Mount Pleasant, Harare (Zimbabwe)
(Received October 28, 1988; revised and accepted January 9, 1989)

Abstract
Szwedzicki, T., 1989. Geotechnical assessment deficiences in underground mining. Min. Sci. Technol., 9: 23-37. Assessment deficiencies in rock mechanics can be made during site characterization, during planning and design, and during support work or blasting. Damage to underground structures results from over- or underestimating the rock-mass properties or mining-induced stress. The analysis of damage reports is a valuable source for future planning and design. Assessment deficiencies caused by insufficient site characterization are described. Examples are given of assessing the value of mechanical parameters, the instability of a ramp caused by lack of identification of a shear zone, and changes of the properties of the rock due to water flow. Assessment deficiencies in planning and design are also discussed, with examples of the effects of undermining on the stability of the overlying seams, and the deterioration of ground conditions with the stand-up time of the excavations. Typical deficiencies made during installation of rockbolts, steel arches, timber packs, shotcrete and concrete walls are discussed.

Introduction

Geotechnical prediction in underground mining is attracting more attention because mineral extraction is progressing deeper and larger excavations are required for modern equipment. The difference between prediction and the actual underground structure performance can be called a geotechnical assessment deficiency. Unfortunately, there are many geotechnical problems which await further investigation. Despite progress in rock mechanics, accidents and disasters still happen, caused by our limited knowledge of the phenomena taking

place in the rock mass. The difficulties in mathematical description of the phenomena taking place in in_homogeneous, jointed rock force us to apply simplified calculations. These calculations are based on general descriptions and on obviously limited previous experience. Bieniawski [1] gives typical costs of design investigations for a geotechnical project in the USA. The total design cost amounts to only 1.05% of the total project cost but data analysis and design amount to only 11% of this design cost, 0.11% of the total project cost. It is surprisingly small, considering that this small fraction of a percent determines the productivity and safety of the project. Cutting

24 costs on rock mechanics investigations and analysis may lead to geotechnical failure or damage. The review of reasons and examples given shows that failures and their consequences result from deficiency in human activity. Although in this paper the term "geotechnical assessment deficiency" is used, the damage or financial losses caused by mining in the majority of cases are caused by lack of rock mechanics input. This paper summarizes reasons for and gives some typical examples of rock mechanics deficiencies. ence are easily forgotten. Thus, this type of deficiency is occasionally repeated. Some large mines have introduced damage reports which are used for internal purposes such as advising geotechnical personnel on changes in stability of excavations, or seismic activity. Such reports result only in remedial support work and are very seldom analyzed to provide long-term guidelines. Rock mechanics deficiencies which are reported, usually to mine inspectors, include occurrences which cause severe disruption of production (e.g., rockbursts, rockfalls, and collapses), or result in accidents which affect personnel or expensive equipment. Unfortunately, in these reports, damage originating from rock mechanics factors are frequently obscured by a lack of detailed information. Such reports are often confidential and may not be available to researchers for analysis. For the above-mentioned reasons, therefore, rock mechanics analysis of geotechnical damage and failures tends to be limited. The situation is aggravated by the lack of relevant literature. N u m e r o u s rock m e c h a n i c s handbooks place emphasis on correct data collection, design and planning and instrumentation, but do not necessarily demonstrate how best to avoid the pitfalls in rock mechanics itself.

Reporting and analysis of underground damage

The reasons for shortcomings in rock mechanics practice follow mainly from underor overestimating the properties of the rock mass or mining-induced stress. Underestimating the properties or overestimating stress results in a conservative approach with the applied safety factor being generally too high, and it results in financial losses due to oversupporting, leaving larger pillars than necessary or developing excessive excavations. This type of deficiency does not generally result in hazard, and the resulting performance of the underground structure is considered satisfactory. These errors are not identified and therefore they are not analyzed. Overestimating the properties or underestimating mining-induced stress inevitably results in deterioration of ground conditions and in extreme cases in safety hazards. This type of deficiency may result in damage varying from minor deterioration to catastrophic failures. Minor deterioration often leads to expensive repair work or rehabilitation of excavations or whole mining areas, or it may result in considerable loss of ore due to inaccessibility. In general such minor deteriorations are not reported and lessons from such experi-

Assessing deficiences resulting from geotechnical site characterization

Geotechnical site characterization is important from the planning and design viewpoint, but such investigations are made only for large geotechnical projects. For small or medium-size projects, as well as for expanding existing mines, often very little geotechnical input is made. The application of geotechnical design in mining has not progressed at the same rate as has other engineering branches, and many project engineers de-

25 mand insufficient geotechnical data. Even if they are in possession of such data, they may assume that later protective work (support work or water sealing) will solve rock mechanics problems. The situation is further aggravated by a lack of specific criteria on the application of results from geotechnical investigations and results from, when employed, the more sophisticated instrumentation. Rock-mass classification schemes have been introduced relatively recently and have found their place in geotechnical engineering, providing guidelines for a number of mining projects. These schemes assign numerical values to those properties or features of the rock mass considered likely to influence its behaviour. The parameters are divided into ranges of values and assigning the values is, to a certain extent, arbitrary. Because of the nature of the rock mass, the parameters often vary from place to place, even in closely adjacent sections. Further, some parameters are difficult to describe in limited underground spaces, e.g., maximum joint spacing. An experiment was undertaken and a rock mass was classified using the modified Bieniawski Geotechnical Classification [2]. The area was classified by a geotechnical engineer, a mining engineer and a geologist. Different ranges of values were assigned to the examined parameters by the different investigators resulting in considerably different overall classification ratings. The obtained values were from 40 (poor-fair rock) to 65 (good rock) and resulted in substantially different support recommendations. The rock-mass behaviour may certainly be predicted using rock-mass classification, but it should always be related to previous experience of mining in the investigated area. Site evaluation problems are described using three examples: assessing the value of mechanical parameters, instability of a ramp caused by lack of identification of a shear zone and changes in the properties of the rock due to water flow. Geotechnical assessment deficiencies result not only from incorrect but also from insufficient site characterization.

Assessment of the mechanical parameters of the rock

Assessment deficiencies which lead to later failure often originate from taking inappropriate values of the strength of the rock based on the limited population of samples. Detailed procedures for performing laboratory tests are available [3], but the results of even the most carefully tested samples do not usually represent the actual rock-mass properties. For example, uniaxial compressive strength is estimated from an average of several tests. By the nature of sampling, only the strongest specimens are collected, and during the preparation the weaker specimens are discarded owing to breakage. The value of the strength parameters measured in-situ is discussed using an example of results obtained with a hard-rock penetrometer. Penetrometer testing in boreholes gives high-precision measurements of the strength parameters, as well as the location of fractures. The penetrometer consists of a probe and indenter. In essence, the test involves the measurement of the critical stress while breaking the wall of the borehole under the pressure of the indenter [4]. On two strength profiles (Fig. 1), the uniaxial compressive strength of the shale is in the range 35-60 MPa and the strength of fine sandstone is from 40 to 80 MPa. (The readings were taken approximately every 10 cm.) Because the range of the results obtained varies considerably, it is debatable which value of the uniaxial compressive strength should be t a k e n - - t h e maximum, the average or the minimum. The answer is" not simple. For example, in the calculation of pillar sizes it is reasonable to take the lowest value, whilst for drilling prediction purposes the average should be taken, and in determining blasting parame-

26

8,0

ii!!!iiiii{

iii~ ' 7,0

i!!~.i?? s,o
iii':i

-.~- 3.0
{.-2,0

-.-IZ 7~1,0

to the ramp. The position of the ramp in relation to the stope is illustrated in Fig. 3. The footwall side of the zone was competent, and the hangingwall was blocky with distinctive joints and open cracks. The relative movement across the zone was monitored occasionally (Fig. 4). The observation marks showed that during the last 8 years the movement on one of the levels reached 18-25 cm. Factors which affected the stability of the ramp while stoping were (1) the vicinity of the designed stope ( < 4 m), (2) the existence of the shear zone which intersects the ramp and the expected slip along the shear plane, (3) undercutting the ramp by the footwall drive situated about 2.5 m below the ramp,
0 80

:::5-1 20 30 /,,0 50 Re [MPa] 60

Fig. 1. Two penetrometer profiles of the strength of rock tested in a borehole.

ters, the highest value should be adopted. Thus, accepting the value of strength obtained in the laboratory from only a few samples m a y result in significant assessment deficiency. Effect of a fault on the stability of an excavation We assume a design stage at which a fault with an associated shear zone was not identified and where the access haulage was designed relatively close to the orebody. The rock mechanics problem to be considered was the effect of stoping on the stability of a ramp. The problem was compounded by the existence of the shear zone which intersected the ramp (Fig. 2). The ramp situated in the footwall formation was an important access to the lower levels and its maintenance was of prime importance. It was expected that when stoping the orebody, the ground conditions would deteriorate and that a slip along the shear zone m a y have resulted in severe damage

Fig. 2. G r o u n d deterioration due to movement across a shear zone.

27 H a d the fault and shear zone been m a p p e d on the upper levels, the ramp would have been situated further in the footwall.

orebody

Failure due to changes in geotechnical conditions

In the design stage, the long-term behaviour of the rock mass should be predicted and relevant tests conducted. A n example is the collapse of a shaft headgear due to changes in geotechnical conditions. A shaft of 8 m in diameter was sunk for a deep underground coal mine from the surface through 5 m of soils and into alternating sandstone and mudstone sequences inclined at about 10 (Fig. 5). The u p p e r m o s t sandstone stratum was 18 m thick, was characterized b y low strength and was waterbearing. Water drained through this sandstone and through cracks and washouts in the concrete lining to the shaft. The amount of water seepage was considered negligible and was not controlled and no water testing for chemical content was carried out. After 25 years of such conditions the headgear collapsed. This was a fairly gradual process: The time duration from the first m o m e n t the movement was noticed until the time of collapse was 30 minutes. Subsequent investigation revealed that the water which drained into the shaft was slightly acidic and dissolved the sandstone bonding and washed out the fine sand, creating a large cavern. This cavern was located beneath the soil d o w n to about 20 m below the surface. The headgear subsequently became unstable and collapse occurred. This serious failure could have been avoided if the water had been chemically tested to enable the correct lining protection and other measures to be designed.

~"'~

Ramp

Areaof expected groundmovemen!

Uq

Fig. 3. Shear zone intersecting a ramp in the vicinity of the orebody.

and (4) poor ground conditions on the hangingwall side of the zone. The effect of all these factors was expected to culminate in the m o v e m e n t of the hangingwall side of the shear zone into the stope, and in the deterioration of the stability of the ramp. In such complicated geotechnical conditions, the development of a new access ramp was recommended so that the area of the expected ground movement could be isolated.

Assessment deficiences in planning and design

The analysis of geotechnical failures shows that deficient predictions, based on not taking

28

Fig: 4. Measuringplates installed across the shear zone.

account of all the factors, may result in serious disasters. Mining history has clearly demonstrated disasters involving water or tailings inrush into mines as a result of the incorrect siting of surface water reservoirs and tailing dumps. Additionally, shafts have been abandoned because of damage to linings as a result of deformation caused by the unsatisfactory design of the shaft pillars. A variety of deficiencies may arise during the planning and design stage and the most common are caused by incorrect siting of the development and by designing excavations of inappropriate size and shape. Two examples are discussed here: the effect of undermining on the stability of the over-lying seam, and the deterioration of ground conditions with stand-up time (the length of time that an excavation remains open).

Effect of undermining on coal seam stability

Special geotechnical consideration is required when planning the extraction of one

seam which lies beneath another. Such situations may occur when a group of coal seams is mined by longwall methods (Fig. 6). The caving of the roof of the lower seam influences the continuity of the overlying rock, and may result in the deterioration of ground conditions so that it may become necessary to abandon the upper seam [5]. The degree of damage to the structure Of the undermined seam mainly depends on the value of the coefficient of undermining, i.e., the ratio of the thickness of the waste rock separating these seams to the height of the undermined longwall. In general, the rock mechanics analysis shows that the upper seam is in a caving zone and would be totally destroyed if the coefficient of undermining is less than 3. If this value is between 5 and 7, the upper seam can be taken in certain conditions. When the separating distance is greater than 7, the negative effect of undermining is negligible and does not influence overall stability [6]. Despite these guidelines, a geotechnical analysis will be required if coal seams are to be undermined. Thus, geological factors may re-

29

I I

........ :::::::::i::::_.:,/
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

i}ii?ii

:1 /

iiiiiiiii!!::::l/ /
/ l
h, / /

I
" : " washout cavern. . . . . . .

...............................

/
n .............................. s/n

/
/

t
/:!

/iiiiii2;2::iiii2iii:2112ii:il
.:...~,

/'
/,~

i ............................... ................................ ...........................

,2:;:2:22222:221J222:2:222:22:~/n

lii?!i?iiii!!~
~ ~

/ / / / / / / /

/
Water bearing sandstone Impermeable mudstone

EXPLANATION

Soil

Concrete Lining

Fig. 5. Simplified cross section through a failure area in the substratum beneath the headgear. sult in considerable problems and m a y lead to substantial losses of coal reserves. Also, in the design stage the effect of undermining on the stability of the roof of the undermined seam should be assessed and a suitable support system selected.

Stand-up time of excavations

M a n y geotechnical problems result from deterioration in ground conditions caused by the length of time the excavation remains open (stand-up time).

30

;~

""

]l

I
Fig. 6. Undermining of a coal seam. On occasions, several years may elapse before certain developed areas are blasted or, in the case of stopes, before production ceases. In areas of weak ground conditions, beneath unblasted remnants or in closure positions, the excessive delay can cause severe stability problems. Studies [7] have indicated that excavations under stress deteriorate exponentially, i.e., deterioration begins slowly, but then accelerates towards eventual failure. To assess the effect of stress and time, a classification of excavation failure for drives and crosscuts was prepared. The damage was classified into six groups: 1 - - n o effect of stress on stability. 2--insignificant ravelling and slabbing; spalling does not exceed 0.5 m. 3 - - f u r t h e r development of ravelling and slabbing; spalling does not exceed 1.0 m. 4 - - s e v e r e spalling up to 1.5 m (Fig. 7). 5--extensive spalling over 1.5 m (Fig. 8). 6 - - t o t a l collapse. Two charts were developed based on underground observations--for very strong rock (uniaxial compressive strength > 200 MPa) and for m e d i u m strength rock (uniaxial compressive strength - 100 MPa) (Fig. 9). F r o m these charts it is evident that in a very hard competent rock there are no major stability problems unless a drive is under stress for longer than a year. In areas of m e d i u m strength rock, the stability is dependent on the distance of the excavation from the stope face line. Where this distance is less than 30 m, stability problems can occur in less than 6 months. Severe failure or even collapse can be expected within 18 months. Development areas which are unfavourably situated and will not come into production in the specified period of time are likely to suffer from mining-induced stress and will thus require heavy support (and probably re-support), depending on the length of time the excavation is scheduled to remain open. The following example illustrates the effect of a long stand-up time and the shape of the stope on ore dilution. In a hard rock mine, the dilution in an orebody deteriorated to

31

stope stand-up time and the stope dimensions. However, it could be expected that the dilution would rise exponentially with the increase in these parameters. The stope dimensions and the stand-up time are interrelated and can be set in the planning stage. For stopes on the next level, it was recommended that the large stopes with stand-up times of a few years should be avoided and a stand-up time of 6-9 months was tested. A rib pillar would protect the hangingwall and footwall from sloughing and caving and the pillar could be subsequently blasted (Fig. 11).

Effect of substandard support work

The principal objective of underground support is to assist the rock mass in supporting itself. Incorrect design, delayed installation or substandard work by contractors may result in instability. Support work not complying with accepted standards, however, can be a waste of money at best and a disaster at worst. A vast amount of support is installed in places which may not require it. When the rock mass is of inherently good quality and when sufficient care is taken to minimize damage to excavation walls, by careful blasting, there should be no need for a support system. As a result of inadequate supervision, poor access and poor visibility, however, scaling may be incomplete and small blocks may be detached due to rock mass deformation and weathering across the joint planes, etc. Such scaling may be taken as evidence of instability and may lead to unnecessary support. In horizontally laminated strata, the installation of bolts in the roof will ensure full stability. Based on previous experience obtained in different geotechnical conditions, and using approved universal bolting patterns, excavations are bolted in the roof and

Fig. 7. Severe spalling of the sidewall of a drive.

55% compared to the planned dilution (due to irregularity of the orebody) of 22-25%. The applied stoping method was sub-level open stoping. The height of the stope was 60 m with the width dependent on the orebody thickness. The length of the stope was determined by the strike length of the ore. At given pulling requirements, the real stand-up time of the stope was about 2-3 yrs, with a horizontal open span of more than 100 m. Due to stress changes around the stope, and loss of the integrity of the country rock with time, the rock mass around this huge void deteriorated and sloughed into the open stope (Fig. 10). No investigations were carried out to correlate the percentage dilution with the

32

Fig. 8. Extensive deterioration of a drive situated beneath a pillar.

also in the walls. Correct rock mechanics analysis prior to the recommendation of the support and proper supervision of support work should permit a substantial reduction in the number of installed rockbolts and will considerably increase the stability of underground excavations. Design principles are well established and only some examples of incorrect installation are discussed below.

(a)
36

-30 ~ 24 ~ le ~ lz ~:
6

Tofa[ :o[!apse

/
10

Extensive / / .... / upeVteor ~,~pm~:~irnags/ //ISpaltingmetre less/than /

/
Noeffect of stress
i
60 70

Rockbolts
Rockbolts are used extensively to control adverse ground conditions caused by both stress and unfavourable geological structures. This type of support has proved to be very successful and will remain the principal support technique. In many underground excavations, a percentage of the bolts which should

0 0
(b) 42

20 30 40 50 Distance to the stope face fine(m)

,,t.,,,v.
36

/
%" ' /

:Ima:l~ge Ve/SeSeve spaliing / r!

~ 3o

/
/
/ / t No,.e~, o, st....

,~ 24

Fig. 9. Stability prediction charts showing the relationship between damage to drives for different exposure times and the distance to the stope face line [7]. a. Drives sited in medium hard rock. b. Drives sited in very hard rock.

/=

6
10 20 30 40 50 Distance to thestope face line(m) 60

70

33

( - ~ ....

-,

~..-f/7///Y

~ / ~ .

\
\ ..~

ti/I
..I

11

i/

,"

--

Besioned stope Caved in rock

Fig. 10. An example of a stope with high ore dilution.

have been installed is missing (mostly because of undrilled, d o s e d or short holes), and some bolts are not correctly installed. The incorrect installation of grouted bolts can be the result of insufficient filling of holes or poor quality grout. In the case of mechanically anchored bolts, incorrect installation may result from inadequate tightening of an expanding shell. In poor quality rock, very high bolt tensions, approaching the yield strength of the bolt, can cause local crushing of the rock at the anchor points and lead to anchor slip. Also,
f~

at a higher load, the uncertainty in the relationship between the torque applied to the nut, and the tension induced in the bolt, can give rise to very large variations in bolt tension. Apart from possible inaccuracies in the torque measurement, the tension in the bolt is influenced by such factors as the rusting of the bolt threads [8]. Split sets are incorrectly installed when they are pushed into holes larger than 38 m m in diameter where they do not develop sufficient friction to transmit tension. The resin cartridge system gives a full-ten-

,I

11

~i

I ~

Rib pillar Caved in Pock

Fig. 11. Proposed solution to reduce dilution from the stope.

34 sion, high-capacity bolt in one simple and rapid operation. The disadvantage of this system occurs when rotating the bolt to mix the resin and catalyst. If the rotation time exceeds the setting period of the resin, it will result in destroying the structure of the already hardening bond. In the case of missing bolts, or where bolts are not fulfilling their function, the required cohesion in the rock mass will not be developed and a volume of the rock will loosen, the reinforcement becoming inadequate. The self-supporting arch will not be created as designed, and the structure will not be stable (Fig. 12). In the case of a large open span excavation, omitting a few bolts can have a detrimental effect, especially when supporting a potentially unstable roof in laminated rocks. The designed beam will not be fully developed and would be liable to fail. Late installation is another factor influencing poor performance of rockbolt systems. Such a manner of installation allows excessive deformation to occur before the bolt reaction is fully mobilized. Untensioned anchored and grouted steel dowels can only accept a load as they are strained by deformation in the surrounding rock, and if they are installed too far behind the advancing face, most of the rock deformation will have taken place and the dowels will not be as effective. The hazard resulting from substandard work is greatly increased when dowels are placed with relatively large spacing, or where they are installed in holes drilled in the wrong direction.
Steel arches Shotcrete

Fig. 12. Effect of a missingbolt on the establishment of a self-supporting arch (modifiedafter Hoek and Brown [81).

rock results in eccentric loading and distortion of the arches (Fig. 13). The arches also readily deform under sidewall pressure. Deformation of steel arches may result from poor packing, from not bracing them in a vertical position, and from reduced friction on clamp joints. Steel arches are widely used to support roadways in coal mines where they are often required to sustain quite large deformations, but from the author's experience they have limited application in very hard rock mining. It has been reported that they have been rejected in some South African mines [2].

Steel arches are used where high load-carrying capacity is required to support roadways. Their efficiency depends on the quality of blocking provided to transmit the loads from the rock mass to the steel sets. When arches are installed in strongly deforming areas, poor blocking and protuberance of the

The properties of shotcrete depend on such factors as the quality of the cement, aggregate gradation, type of accelerators, mix proportion, etc. All these parameters can easily be controlled and good supervision generally ensures high-quality work. From the perfor-

35

Fig. 13. Distortion and damage to steel arches under eccentric loading.

mance viewpoint, the only factor which is not usually adequately controlled is the thickness of the sprayed layer. The thickness of the layer is generally estimated from the volume of the material placed with some allowance for losses due to rebound. When spraying very irregular surfaces it is almost impossible to achieve a uniform thickness. Especially in

parts of the excavation where access is difficult the thickness is usually less than was designed. In such places, because of problems with spraying and consequently problems with control of the thickness of the created layer, if the shotcrete covers the surface of the rock or installed wire mesh or weld mesh this is considered satisfactory. In the case of a thin

Fig. 14. Failure of concrete walls under high stress.

36 shotcrete lining, abrupt changes in tunnel profile can cause high stress concentration, causing cracking and serious reduction in the load-bearing capacity of the lining. widely recognized. Hoek [9] assessed that blast damage could easily extend several metres into the rock which had been poorly blasted, resulting in serious instability problems in the rock surrounding the opening. Conventional burn cut perimeter blasting often results in excessive overbreaking and shattering of the rock mass. Geotechnical surveys, carried out by the author in a hard rock mine, have shown that overbreaking can be as high as 25% of the cross-sectional area. Sidewalls and roofs of new developments are very often heavily fractured and damaged. Many rockfalls and occurrences of ground damage are attributed to gravity and are structurally controlled, but some of them would not occur if the developments were smoothly blasted. The high drilling and blasting costs may be offset by a lower support cost. Some developments suffer unpredicted mining-induced stress resulting from incomplete blasting in chain or crown pillars. It is often assumed that after blasting all the rock material is broken. Developments which are situated beneath such incompletely blasted remnants suffer from transferred stress and are often prone to rock failure. In such cases, if additional blasting is not feasible, support recommendations for the affected excavations should be issued. This in turn will reduce the damage and ensure safety. Blast holes which penetrate stope walls, due to inaccuracy in drilling or poor prospecting, result in breakage of country rock which causes instability and ultimately ore dilution. Intense local fracturing and disruption of the integrity of the interlocked, jointed rock can be produced by poor blasting design. More excessive adverse effects can be induced by the transmission of energy by explosive action. In high-stress environments, such as those which occur at depth, disturbances associated with blasting may trigger extensive instability in the mine structure.

Concrete walls
Concrete walls can be used to control spalling but contrary to popular belief they rarely prevent deformation. Because of the brittle behaviour of concrete, such walls have proved to be relatively ineffective in high-stress areas where they fracture easily and are usually displaced (Fig. 14). The uniaxial compressive strength of concrete, in practice, is no more then 20 MPa, i.e., much less than the uniaxial compressive strength of the average underground rock which the concrete replaces.

Timber packs
In areas of high closure or under dynamic loading conditions, timber packs have found wide application. Over the years a great number of different pack designs have been tried with various degrees of success. In the majority of cases, packs are installed correctly, i.e., timber slabs are placed precisely over one another, are constructed in a vertical plane and are wedged against the roof. On occasions, especially when the roof surface is irregular, timber slabs are laid to fit cavities, which under mining-induced stress results in the breaking of the timber which causes uncontrolled roof lowering. Timber packs may become ineffective when their height is greater than 2-2.5 times their width. In practice, many timber packs do not show any sign of stress. This implies that the safety factor was too high at the support recommendation stage.

Effects of substandard blasting practice

The effect of blasting damage on the stability of underground mining structures is not

37

Conclusions
Despite the very rapid progress in theoretical rock mechanics, geotechnical damage, accidents and disasters still occur. They are caused by limited knowledge of the phenomena taking place in the rock mass under mining-induced stress and by insufficient rock mechanics analysis. Geotechnical assessment deficiencies--the difference between prediction and the actual performance of the rock m a s s - - c a n occur during site characterization, design and planning, and may be related to substandard support work and substandard blasting practice. To ensure that satisfactory geotechnical performance of underground structures is achieved in the long term, the following measures should be taken: (1) Site characterization should be carefully planned, with the understanding of how all parameters control the behaviour of the rock mass. (2) Geotechnical analysis is essential before any mining activity. The analysis should be based on geotechnical site evaluation, testing of properties, etc., and also reports of the types of geotechnical damage experienced in similar conditions. The change in mining-induced stress and the change of rock-mass properties over time should be considered and proper precautions taken. (3) To achieve a good standard of support work geotechnical supervision of installations is required to ensure that support complies with accepted standards. (4) Geotechnical input in blasting practice may result in improvements in the stability of excavations and in the reduction of the required support. A considerable amount of damage to underground excavations could be avoided if correct geomechanical analysis is carried out.

It is to be stressed that in the majority of cases of the failure of rock mechanics negative effects result from a few superimposed geotechnical factors.

Acknowledgements
This paper was compiled whilst at the Institute of Mining Research, University of Zimbabwe, and the generous contribution of the institute's time is greatly acknowledged. The author is grateful to Professor K.A. Viewing, the Chairman of the Institute, for his comments and suggestions.

References
1 Bieniawski, Z.T., Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunnelling. Balkema, Rotterdam (1984). 2 Laubscher, D.H., Design aspects and effectiveness of support systems in different mining conditions. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall., (1986) AT0-A81. 3 Brown, E.T. (Editor), International Society for Rock Mechanics. Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring. ISRM Suggested Methods. Pergamon, Oxford (1981). 4 Kidybinski, A., Principles of Mining Geomechanics. Slask, Katowice (1982) (in Polish). 5 Szwedzicld, T. and Lojas, J., Penetrometer measurements of the effect of undermining on the overlying roadways. In: Proc. Int. Syrup. Field Measurements in Geomechanics (Zurich, Switzerland, 1983). Balkema, Rotterdam (1984), pp. 1229-1236. 6 Lojas, J. and Konopko, W., Criteria for nondestructive undermining of coal seams. Min. Rev., 7-8 (1981) 409-414 (in Polish). 7 Szwedzicki, T. and Kurzeja, A., Planning of new development work. (1986) (Unpubl.). 8 Hock, E. and Brown, E.T., Underground Excavations in Rock. Inst. Min. Metall., London (1980). 9 Hock, E., Impact of blasting damage on the stability of rock structures. In: Proc. Workshop Mine Systems Design and Ground Control, 2nd (Reno, Nevada, 1984).