19

3 Literature Review Empirical Underground Support Design

Requirements for greater mining efficiency and higher safety standards have made more reliable

and effective support practices necessary (Lang, 1994). A comprehensive review of the history of

empirical support design is beyond the scope of the dissertation; however, a brief discussion of

early and currently used empirical design methods can provide insight into which factors are

important to support design and empirical methodology development.

According to Mark (2015), the first empirical design method that incorporates case history with

rock mechanics principals appears to be Bunting (1911). Bunting addressed pillar sizing in coal

mines of Pennsylvania because many pillars had failed causing roof cave and floor heave. Many

empirical support design methods were subsequently developed for a variety of conditions and

applications. Most of the commonly used support design tools have their roots in empirical data

and are discussed subsequently. “Successful empirical methods are readily accepted because they

are simple, transparent, practical, and firmly tethered to reality” Mark (2015). Major

developments and methods relevant to underground support design are presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 Historical and Recent Empirical Support Design Methods

Name of Author Country of Description and Comment
Support Design and First Origin Application
Method First Version
Developed
Rock Load Terzhagi USA Prediction of rock
Theory (1946)* loads carried by steel
sets based on
descriptive rock
classification, depth
and dimensions
Stand-up Time Lauffer Austria Stand-up time for Roots of NATM
(1958)* unsupported span
 20

New Austrian Rabcewicz Austria More of a tunnel Relies heavily on

Tunneling (1964) design philosophy understanding of
Method than an empirical stand-up time and
(NATM) or design method. ground reaction to
Sequential Attempts to mobilize excavation and
Excavation the self-supporting support. Continuous
Method (SEM) capability of the worldwide use
ground to achieve cost
efficient support
Rock Quality Peck et al., USA Basic support tunnel Based in Deere et al.,
Designation (1969)** recommendations for (1967) RQD.
(RQD) support and Cecil 24 ft wide tunnel Limited
design (1970)** based on RQD Applicability: Not
sensitive to joint
friction angle or
intact rock strength
Rock Quality Merritt USA Basic support tunnel Based in Deere et al.,
Designation (1972) recommendations (1967) RQD.
(RQD) support based on RQD and Limited
design graph tunnel width Applicability: Not
sensitive to joint
friction angle or
intact rock strength
Rock Structure Wickham et USA Shotcrete, rock bolt Multi-parameter
Rating (RSR) al. (1972)* and steel rib spacing classification- not
for tunnels based on widely used but laid
semi-quantitative rock groundwork for Q
mass classification and RMR
Tunnel Quality Barton et Norway/ Detailed support Based predominantly
Index (Q) al. (1974) Norwegian design based on on tunneling case
Geotechnical quantitative ground histories. Can be
Institute classification, applied to mining.
excavation use, and Continuous world-
dimensions wide use
Rock Mass Bieniawski South Africa Originally detailed Numerous empirical
Rating (RMR) / (1973) support support
Geomechanics recommendations for recommendations
Classification 30ft wide tunnel developed since
1974. Worldwide
use
Mine Rock Mass Laubscher, South Africa RMR modified for Predominantly from
Rating (MRMR) (1976) mines block cave mines in
South Africa
MBR Kendorsiki USA RMR modified for Predominantly from
et al. (1983) mines block cave mines in
the western US
Critical Span Lang Canada Support of entry type Canada and US
Curve (1994) excavations mines
 21

Coal Mine Roof Molinda USA Support design for Specific to coal
Rating and Mark stratified coal roofs
(1994)
* As described in Hoek et at., (1995) ** As described in Deere and Deere (1988)

Of the empirical support design and classifications systems described in Table 3-1, design

guidelines based on the RMR system (or some variation) and to some extent the tunnel quality

index (Q) has gained the most acceptance in Nevada.

3.1 Rules of Thumb

Rules of thumb are the most basic of design tools and are applied to this day. Rule of thumb

support engineering is based on experience and provides a useful check on support designs from

more complex methods discussed subsequently.

The minimum bolt length from Lang (1961) as cited in Hoek and Brown (1980) and US Army

Corps of Engineers (1980) should be:

• Spans less than 20 ft, bolt length = ½ the span

• Spans 60-100 ft, bolt length = ¼ the span

• Height >60 ft, sidewall bolts 1/5 the height

• Twice the bolt spacing

• Three times the width of critical and potentially unstable rock blocks defined by the

average joint spacing of the rock mass

Maximum bolt spacing from Lang (1961) as cited in Hoek and Brown (1980) should be:

• Half of the bolt length

• one and a half times the width of critical and potentially unstable rock blocks defined by

the average joint spacing of the rock mass