Professional Documents
Culture Documents
07 - Golder Associates
07 - Golder Associates
07 - Golder Associates
ABSTRACT
Indonesian coal mines are at a critical stage of development. There are
large commercial and political pressures to extend existing mines to greater
depths than originally planned, so as to extend their life because of the difficulty
of starting up new operations. Deepening of mines, particularly those mines
with steeply dipping seams presents significant geotechnical and
hydrogeological challenges. Already there have been low wall failures, which
have had a serious impact on production in a number of mines in Kalimantan.
This paper addresses the issues which can lead to low wall failure by first
setting out relevant investigation methods to identify the failure triggers.
Alternative design methods to accommodate the potential failure mechanisms
are considered, and practical ways of implementing the design requirements
are then discussed. Groundwater pressures and both intact rock and rock
interface strength are key elements in low wall stability. Methods of quantifying
and monitoring these parameters are covered.
1.
INTRODUCTION
This paper discusses the potential reasons for coal mine low wall
instability and outlines how the probability of instability can be reduced, which
may allow established coal mines to be developed to greater depths.
Due to the difficulty of starting up new operations, many coal mines in
Indonesia are required to extend their existing mines deeper than originally
planned in order to achieve coal production targets. With greater depths,
geotechnical properties resisting instability tend to remain unchanged, while
properties driving instability only increase. By measuring the increase and
knowing the factors resisting instability, strategies for balancing the resulting
forces can be developed and transformed into practical ways of keeping the low
way stable.
Low wall failure represents a critical hazard that mines often overlook.
As many as 4 mines in Kalimantan have experienced significant low wall
problems since 2002.
This paper discusses both the geotechnical and hydrogeological
conditions that can combine to create the hazard of low wall failure.
The paper then looks at methods of evaluating the ground conditions and
emphasises the critical step that is often missed in mine geotechnics;
1
Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003
Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003
and then shear failure of the remaining mudstone layer due to removal of toe
support (Figure 2).
The resistance to lift off offered by the mudstone layer would be
dependent on the thickness and density of the mudstone layer and the tensile
strength between the mudstone and the underlying sandstones. Once lift off
had occurred, the entire length of the mudstone layer would develop stresses
parallel to the inclination of the layer as self load would only be supported along
the inclined layer and into the pit floor.
Mudstone Layer
Figure 1
Failure Sequence Possibility 1
1. Hydraulic lift off (dotted arrows)
2. Layer parallel stresses increase in
the mudstone (dashed arrow)
3. Stresses cause shear failure at the
most highly stressed zone the toe
breakout (solid arrow)
Mudstone Layer
Figure 2
Failure Sequence Possibility 2
1. Hydraulic pressure (dotted arrows)
2. Buckling failure of the mudstone layer
(line showing exaggerated
deformation profile).
3. Shear failure of the mudstone due to
removal of toe support (solid arrow).
Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003
Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003
3.1. Coordination
If the groundwater pressure, overburden pressure, layer interface
strength and rock strength are all easy to measure, and most coal mines do
some form of geotechnical investigation, then why do low wall failures occur?
Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003
The answer is probably due to the way in which the existing investigation
data is analysed and used to come up with recommendations that can be
incorporated practically into mine design and operation.
Often, a mines idea of geotechnical investigation is to drill a couple of
holes and take some samples to send to a lab. Basing a mine design on this
information is risky business either the mine will be developed conservatively,
or it will fall down and there is only a fine line in between.
In many cases, mine design is then left to the contractor, who will
develop a feel for the ground and optimise the stripping ratio based on that feel.
This approach is better than taking 2 samples for UCS tests.
The best approach may be to combine a real investigation and analyses
program with practical feedback from the contractor during mining. Truly a mind
boggling scenario in Indonesia or any country.
3.2. Ground Investigation
The ground investigation should be staged to remain cost sensitive to the
early (no capital) stage of development. Logging of existing core to get a feel
for rock mass and material strengths may be a good start. Some preliminary
analyses based on the existing geological model is also a fast and low cost
(high return) task that should be carried out at the Pre-Feasibility Stage. As a
result of these analyses it is critical to define potential mechanisms of failure.
These are easy to define and will probably involve almost every one in the
book. At least they are being addressed and start to reduce the list of
surprises at late stages of development.
At the Feasibility stage, specific geotechnical drilling should be carried
out. No matter how costly, the investigation team should push for full coring
the only substitute to this is perhaps a fully exposed highwall although even
then the low wall materials cant be seen. Against a groundswell of opposition,
the coring should continue below the coal and well into the footwall. A good
guide is to extend the hole to half the proposed depth of the pit below the
footwall (this is roughly a critical depth at which groundwater pressures may
overcome overburden pressures).
The objective of the coring is to characterise the various layers (and
variation in layers) in terms of geotechnical properties. Weak layers or
interfaces need to be identified, structure needs to be identified and mapped
out. Permeability of the rock mass in all directions is critical. For this reason
the development of a 3D model within the footwall can often be worthwhile.
The objective of the drilling is not to make a hole it is so that the core
can be characterised and documented in a language that can be interpreted by
the engineer. Only then can the information gained from the drilling be used to
help keep the mine from falling in. The word drilling should really be replaced
by the word logging when used in relation to geotechnical investigations.
Samples should also be taken from diamond core for later laboratory
testing. these samples should be representative of layers that can be mapped
out in section (and along the pit) and more than one per unit should be taken.
Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003
the samples must be removed from the splits immediately and protected to
maintain original conditions.
Laboratory testing should comprise determination of bulk density,
unconfined compressive strength and perhaps some direct shear testing along
existing discontinuities within the core.
Real analyses can begin at this stage. Use of anisotropic modeling,
Hoek-Brown rock strength parameters and piezometric heads in specific layers
can avoid over-conservative results. Pit design parameters should be provided
as relationships between probability of failure and slope angle / height.
Enough drilling should have been carried out by the Bankable feasibility
stage to provide a high level of confidence to be developed in the modeling.
Analyses should be evolved to a stage to a high level of confidence in design.
During production, inpit mapping should be maintained by experienced
geotechnical personnel. Monitoring for cracking must be carried out. Good
coordination should exist between the mining contractor, the geotechnical
personnel and the pit designer.
If failures occur, then these should be used to calibrate existing models
and should provide a basis for possible pit design revision or mine sequencing
revision.
A design for ground investigation and coordination is provided in the
attached table.
3.3. Practical Solutions for Low Wall Problems
Knowing the factors that cause low wall failures is not enough to stop
them. In order to reduce the risk of low wall problems, we need to find practical
ways of increasing resisting forces and decreasing driving forces. If the opposite
happens, then stability is reduced.
Almost invariably the low wall will be developed parallel with the bedding.
If the bedding is undercut, then layer parallel stresses are relieved and shear
resistances along the layer interface are tested against the downslope weight of
the block. In Kalimantan (as in any place), undercutting of layers in the low wall
does happen. If this cut is not taken back up to the crest, then the layer will
often slide.
Perhaps the simplest and most cost effective method of decreasing
factors that cause sliding is to provide drainage to the low wall. Drilling into the
wall is becoming more popular in Kalimantan and high groundwater pressures
are nearly always found in the floor. Depressurisation can offer a much reduced
cost option to unloading options however, how many and how deep? These
questions can be predicted from first principals during feasibility level work, but
really need to be reassessed based on the results of measurements made
during mining.
Piezometers need to be installed behind the footwall and far enough
back from the crest of the footwall to demonstrate that water pressures behind
the base of the low wall are less than available overburden pressures left in the
low wall (much, much less).
Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003
CONCLUSION
Both geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions behind the low wall are
the key elements in low wall stability. Low wall stability is primarily due to
elevated groundwater pressures overcoming the combination of overburden
pressure, adhesion between rock layers and a break out resistance at the toe of
the low wall. These elements are in a balance that swings towards failure as
the depth of the pit increases. The elements are simple to quantify through a
process of experienced-based visual inspection, field investigations and
laboratory testing programs.
Geotechnical analyses can model the stability balance with depth and
factors can be changed in an effort to swing the balance away from instability.
The results of the geotechnical analyses must be turned into practical
recommendations that the designer can apply and the contractor can carry out
before low wall stability can be increased.
7.
REFERENCES