Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rock Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering
journal homepage: www.rockgeotech.org

Full Length Article

Probabilistic estimate of rock mass static and dynamic demands for

underground excavation stabilisation
Ernesto Villaescusa a, *, Alan Thompson b, Christopher Windsor a
a
Western Australia School of Mines, Curtin University, Locked Bag 30, Kalgoorlie, WA 6433, Australia
b
Alan Thompson Geotechnology Pty Ltd., 40B Windich Street, Esperance, WA 6450, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Excavation damage under high in situ stress depends largely upon the potential block size associated
Received 25 July 2018 with any violent ejection. The size and shape of the dynamic instability are largely controlled by the
Received in revised form location, orientation and extent of the pre-existing geological discontinuities. A new methodology is
12 August 2018
presented in which the rock mass demand can be expressed in terms of the mass in tonnes of unstable
Accepted 26 August 2018
Available online 1 December 2018
rock that is ejected per unit area of the excavation surface where failure occurs. A probabilistic approach
has been implemented to estimate the potential rock mass instabilities and their associated static and
dynamic demands. The new methodology considers that the strain energy released by the rock mass
Keywords:
Geological structures
during violent stress-driven failure is largely converted into kinetic energy of ejection for blocks. The
Probabilistic design estimated dynamic demand has been favourably compared with observations of rock mass damage in a
Underground excavations number of underground excavations.
High stresses Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by
Dynamic and static demands Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
Deep mining licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction excavations. In addition, design and implementation of high energy

Development excavations at depths approaching 1000 m have
experienced damage in a large number of tunnels and underground
mines worldwide. The observations indicate that stress-driven vi-
olent failures first occur as shallow strain-bursts occur. However, if
the induced stress is increased, this can be followed by mobilisation
of geological discontinuities, potentially causing larger failures.
Thus, the resulting depths of failure are controlled by the location,
orientation and persistence of the geological structures close to the
excavation surfaces. Experience shows that the failed block shapes
and sizes are almost entirely defined by geological discontinuities
(Fig. 1).
Global instability is a result of the critical ratio of rock mass
strength to induced stress being exceeded. As a consequence,
appropriate excavation strategies need to be implemented (Drover
et al., 2018) and extraction sequences are scheduled to mitigate the
effects of induced stress and rock mass failures near the surface of
dissipation ground support are required to maintain safety and
productivity (Villaescusa et al., 2016).
The design of high energy dissipation reinforcement and sup-
port for rock excavations requires consideration of many interre-
lated issues, including assumptions regarding the rock mass
collapse mechanisms (Windsor, 1999). If the process is simplified
and thought of purely in mechanical terms, then it can be divided
into six basic steps:
(1) Formulation of a rock mass structural model.
(2) Assessment of static and dynamic rock mass demands.
(3) Dimensioning of trial reinforcement and/or support schemes.
(4) Analysis of candidate reinforcement and/or support schemes.
(5) Selection and specification of an appropriate reinforcement
and/or support scheme.
(6) Performance assessment of the selected reinforcement and/
or support scheme.

The design of reinforcement and/or support for a deep excava-

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: e.villaescusa@curtin.edu.au (E. Villaescusa), a.thompson@
curtin.edu.au, alan@atgeotech.cm.au (A. Thompson), c.windsor@curtin.edu.au
(C. Windsor).
Peer review under responsibility of Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chi-
nese Academy of Sciences.
tion in structured rock is particularly difficult due to a number of
problems associated with completing Steps 1 and 2. A new meth-
odology to address these problems is proposed to define the rock
mass assembly and rock mass dynamic demand based on proba-
bilistic block theory (Warburton, 1981; Goodman and Shi, 1985;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.08.009
1674-7755 Ó 2018 Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-
NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
482 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493
Fig. 1. Discontinuities defining the depth of failure and failed block assembly.
Priest, 1985; Windsor, 1997). The computer programme SAFEX
described by Windsor and Thompson (1992), and substantially
developed and refined since that time, is used to calculate the
probabilistic block assembly and to assess the instabilities associ-
ated with excavation surfaces.
2. Rock mass characterisation
A rock mass is a three-dimensional (3D) discontinuous medium
that can be thought of as an assembly of potential blocks which can
be disaggregated by excavation process. The size distribution, shape
and degree of interlock of the blocks are functions of the distribu-
tion and nature of usually at least three main discontinuity sets.
Rock masses are rarely uniform or isotropic; even within the con-
finements of a design area there are likely major geological struc-
tures, significant changes of lithology, and a prevailing anisotropy.
The nature and degree of the anisotropy and the heterogeneity of
the rock mass properties seem to exert considerable influences on
the extent of the resulting failure depth around an excavation.
During the last four decades, a great deal of effort has been
devoted to the characterisation of discontinuity networks and to
modelling them quantitatively (Call et al., 1976; Hudson and Priest,
1979; Villaescusa, 1991; Brzovic, 2010). Systematic collections of
geotechnical information in conjunction with considerations of the
induced stress and other geological factors are essential in
designing deep and stable excavations. The structural data are
initially utilised to understand various structural domains which
can be used to predict the likely failure mechanisms and depths of
failures during excavation.
Some aspects of rock mass structure, strength, stiffness and
stress can be measured by the logging of drill cores, directly by the
structural mapping of exposed faces, or can be deduced from in-
direct measurements made using geophysical techniques. At most
excavation sites, conventional geological mapping is completed for
all horizontally developed excavations, while geotechnical map-
ping is restricted to areas of specific concern where greater char-
acterisation of the rock mass is required. Although the largest
amount of information in terms of volumetric coverage across a
design area is collected from diamond drilling, information about
the persistence of the geological structures with respect to the size
of the design problem cannot be determined. Therefore, geotech-
nical mapping of excavation walls is required to collect information
such as discontinuity orientation, linear frequency (spacing), trace
length, the large-scale planarity and joint roughness characteristics
(Villaescusa, 2014).
The data collected may be divided into two classes (Call et al.,
1976), i.e. major structures and minor geological features. Major
structures, such as faults, dykes, contacts and related features,
usually have sizes of the same order of magnitude as that of the site
to be characterized. Their positions in space, physical properties
and geometrical characteristics are usually established determin-
istically by the geological mapping process. Minor features repre-
sent for practical purposes a very large population in the region of
an excavation. As a result, their geometrical characteristics and
physical properties must be estimated by measurements of a
representative sampled population. Several methods are available
to determine the geological discontinuity set characteristics
including line sampling (Call, 1972; Priest, 1985) and cell sampling
techniques (Mathis, 1988). The recent development of automated
data collection using remote sensing techniques (Buyer and
Schubert, 2017) has the potential to allow the systematic collec-
tion of geological data from unsupported excavation spans prior to
the placement of shotcrete support.
Once a rock mass characterisation programme is implemented
and the geological discontinuity data are collected, a statistical
analysis is required to determine the parameters that define the
rock mass structural model. Fig. 2 shows a data collection structure
based on Call (1972), which is modified by Villaescusa (1991) and
incorporated into the SAFEX program. The data can be sorted into
discontinuity families to determine the joint set orientation sta-
tistics as shown in Figs. 2e4.
The joint spacing and trace length statistics are shown in Figs. 5
and 6, respectively, and examples of their distributional nature are
shown in Fig. 7.
3. Formulation of a rock mass model
The mutual intersection of discontinuities divides a structured
rock mass into partially and fully formed blocks of rock. If an
excavation cuts through this assembly of blocks, new sets of blocks
are formed at the excavation surface. Some of these exposed or
surface blocks will have a shape that will allow them to fall, slide
or rotate into the excavation, when the block driving forces exceed
the block stabilising forces. At great depth, where stress-driven,
violent failures are experienced, failure surfaces are often associ-
ated with the ejection of blocks that are actually statically stable
(Fig. 8).
In order to understand how such a rock mass may best be sta-
bilised, the assembly of blocks must be investigated. The ideal
outcome would be to predict the exact shape, size and spatial po-
sition of each block that could form around the excavation.
Depending on the failure mechanism (static or dynamic), these
block characteristics would then define the geometry to calculate
the rock mass demand and provide the information needed to
select and design trial reinforcement and/or support schemes.
The ability to properly define the block characteristics depends
on the quality and quantity of the rock mass characterisation data
used to describe the rock mass surrounding the proposed excava-
tion. Fig. 9 shows an example of a rock mass structural model which
for each set incorporates the orientation, spacing, trace length and
shear strength parameters (i.e. cohesions and friction angles).
Along with the excavation geometry and orientation, this repre-
sents the basic input for the calculation of rock mass demands, both
static and dynamic.
 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493 483

Fig. 2. SAFEX programme geological discontinuity data collection template.

Fig. 3. Equal angle lower hemisphere showing discontinuity set boundary definition.

4. Probabilistic assessment of rock mass instabilities
The new methodology proposed here is based on tetrahedral
block realisations resulting from using probabilistic analysis
methods. Initially, a series of deterministic calculations are required
to identify the block shapes and the range of sizes for each possible
block shape that might possibly form. The methodology suggested
by Windsor (1999) is implemented. In addition, the term relative
probability will be used e that is, the number of tetrahedra of a
particular size relative to the total number of all tetrahedra that
might form. Relative probability is not a measure of the absolute
probability that a tetrahedron of a particular size will form.
Procedures based on the key block theory have been used for
more than 30 years for the stability assessment of individual blocks
near excavation surfaces (Warburton, 1981; Goodman and Shi,
1985). The most popular assessment procedures are based on the
identification and stability assessment of single blocks with simple
shapes. These methods are often used in design to identify prob-
lematic blocks by assuming that the discontinuities are ubiquitous
and form a block shape at some critical size, bounded by a roof or
wall span in an underground excavation.
The concept of ubiquitous joint sets assumes that combinations
of discontinuities may occur everywhere and anywhere in relation
to each other with an excavation surface. This differs and is an
advantage when compared with previous methods based solely on
deterministic methods (e.g. Tinucci, 1992) because more potential
instabilities are predicted to occur immediately adjacent to exca-
vation surfaces. Windsor (1999) developed and reported the use of
probability distribution functions for orientations and persistence
to form a range of tetrahedral block shapes and sizes. The influence
of different spacings within each set may be accounted for using the
method of Mauldon (1994). This work also incorporated the
484 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493

Fig. 4. Determination of discontinuity sets and their orientation.

Fig. 5. Determination of discontinuity spacing statistics.

Fig. 6. Determination of discontinuity trace length statistics.

important concepts of a number of limiting block sizes defined
previously by Windsor (1996).
In the probabilistic method, the pertinent outcome from the
analyses involving large numbers of simulations is a frequency
distribution of sizes for each tetrahedral block shape formed from
three discontinuities and an excavation face. This assessment re-
quires that the orientation, persistence, shape, spacing and the
strength and deformation characteristics of each discontinuity set
should be simulated in terms of probability distribution functions.
It also requires that the position of each discontinuity relative to the
 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493 485

Fig. 7. Distributional nature of discontinuity spacings and trace lengths.

The outputs from the SAFEX programme may be summarised as

frequency distributions of block sizes for each block shape. The
outputs are scaled identically to facilitate direct comparison and
interpretation. The input requirements for the SAFEX simulation
comprise:

(1) The excavation orientation and dimension.

(2) The rock unit weight distribution and associated statistical
parameters.
(3) The number of discontinuity sets and, for each:
(a) The mean orientation and Fisher’s constant;
(b) The trace length distribution and associated statistical
parameters;
(c) The spacing distribution and associated statistical
parameters;
(d) The joint friction distribution and associated statistical
parameters; and
(e) The joint cohesion distribution and associated statistical
parameters.
Fig. 8. Violent ejection of a block that would be stable under static conditions.

These variables may be simulated using the uniform, expo-

other discontinuities and the excavation surface should be simu- nential, normal and log-normal distributions. A brief summary of
lated. A sufficient number of realisations must be conducted to the procedure is provided as a sequence of 14 steps (modified from
properly account for the possible variations in the discontinuity Windsor, 1999) that are demonstrated with SAFEX output screens
positions and characteristics. created using the data detailed in Section 3:

Fig. 9. Rock mass model formulation prior to rock mass demand calculations.
486 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493

(1) The orientation and geometry of the excavation surface are
defined according to a global coordinate system.
(2) A standard, deterministic block shape analysis is first con-
ducted. This analysis uses the mean discontinuity orienta-
tions to identify the removable blocks (Fig. 10). The relative
instability of the blocks can be assessed by considering a thin
layer of freshly sprayed shotcrete support. The more unstable
blocks (families of blocks 4 and 1, respectively, in order of
importance) are easily determined as shown in Fig. 11.
The following Steps 3 to 14 are conducted for each shape in the
removable block list.
(3) A "possibilistic" block shape analysis is conducted
(Windsor, 1999). This analysis uses the extreme dispersion
boundary of the orientation distribution for each disconti-
nuity set (Fig. 12). The analysis is used to determine the
shape extrema that bound all possible shapes associated
with that block.

Fig. 10. Identification of removable blocks with respect to the roof of an N-S oriented, 5 m wide, excavation.

Fig. 11. Relative block stability using a freshly sprayed, thin shotcrete layer.
 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493 487

(4) A “possibilistic” block size analysis is conducted. This analysis
uses the block shape extrema, the excavation dimensions
and the trace length maxima to determine the extreme di-
mensions of the block. This results in a ‘block existence zone’
defined in the global coordinate system that bounds the
shape and size for each combination of discontinuities
involved in forming a removable block shape. There are two
candidates for the block existence zone, the excavation
limited block and the maximum trace limited block. The
block existence zone is defined by the smaller of the two (or
either if they are identical).
(5) A point of nucleation is placed at random within the ‘block
existence zone’. This represents the intersection of at least
three discontinuities of different orientations and coincides
with the internal apex of a potential block.
(6) A planar discontinuity from each relevant set is generated to
intersect the point of nucleation. The orientation of each
discontinuity is generated according to a given distribution
function for the set. The shape and areal extent of the dis-
continuities are generated to comply with a given mathe-
matical shape (Villaescusa and Brown, 1992) and with a
dimension (e.g. diameter) selected according to a given

Fig. 12. Dispersion of orientation for the three discontinuity families forming unstable block 4.

Fig. 13. Distribution of nucleation points to simulate the centre of the geological discontinuities.
488 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493

distribution function for the persistence associated with each
set. The coordinates of the centre of each discontinuity
relative to the nucleation point are generated, according to a
Poisson process (Fig. 13), at a position within the plane of the
discontinuity and constrained only by the shape and the
areal extent of the discontinuity.
(7) This step uses a number of complex algorithms based on
vectors and vector algebra to identify a fully formed tetra-
hedral block which occurs when all three internal edges
between two faces are predicted to be sufficiently long to
intersect the excavation plane. The apex heights for these
fully formed blocks are shown in Fig. 14.
(8) The static stability of the valid tetrahedral block is assessed
using a static force equilibrium analysis. This analysis is
conducted using the specific shape and dimensional
characteristics of the block together with data, simulated to
obey the distribution functions, associated with the strength
characteristics of the discontinuities. The calculated modes
of failure are shown in Fig. 15, where it can be seen that all
wedge families have large proportions of free falling wedges.
(9) The details describing the shape, dimensional characteristics
and, if applicable, the out-of-balance force, the mode and
mechanism of instability are stored for later analysis.
(10) Relative frequency histograms and cumulative frequency
diagrams are prepared for each characteristic describing the
block (e.g. apex height, face area, volume, and static out-of-
balance force).
(11) Steps 5 to 10 are repeated until a sufficiently large number of
realisations have been analysed. The simulation sequence is
terminated on the basis of ‘smoothness’ and precision in the

Fig. 14. Distribution of apex heights for fully formed blocks.

Fig. 15. Kinematic mode of failure for all the wedge geometries.
 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493 489

resulting relative frequency diagrams. After a certain number
of simulations, these distribution curves become ‘smooth’
and do not change appreciably. A total of 10,000 simulations
were used for this study.
(12) Steps 3 to 11 are repeated for each block shape appearing in
the list of removable blocks.
(13) The relative frequency histograms and the cumulative
frequency curves are corrected for the relative probability
of a nucleation point occurring in the block existence zone.
This correction takes into account the relative probability
of a ‘vector triple’ occurring within the block existence
zone.
(14) The corrected relative frequency histograms and the cumu-
lative frequency diagrams for each of the removable blocks
are redrawn on one diagram together with the total
frequency distributions for the sum of all blocks. These dia-
grams are prepared for each block characteristic (e.g. apex
height, face area, volume, mass and static out-of-balance
force). This facilitates comparisons between the complete
rock mass and individual blocks.
The failure modes for all the blocks are identified earlier in
Fig. 15. Fig. 16 shows the cumulative frequency of apex heights for
all the removable blocks of all four joint sets analysed. The apex
height provides an indication of the reinforcement length required
to stabilise blocks and hence the excavation surface.
Figs. 17e19 show the detailed geometrical results for the most
unstable family (block 4) of blocks identified during the analyses.
Three groups of data may be readily identified for further analysis:
the values at the 90% cumulative frequency, the values

Fig. 16. Probabilistic frequency of apex height for all removable blocks.

Fig. 17. Apex height distribution for all removable blocks e block 4.
490 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493

Fig. 18. Block mass distribution for all removable blocks e block 4.

encompassing most of the data, and the worst-case scenario
(maximum value). Table 1 shows the calculated values for the un-
stable apex heights, failure masses and failure areas for block 4. It
must be noted that the probabilistic analysis is undertaken
assuming a flat surface, which is slightly conservative. Hence, the
value of 90% cumulative frequency has been suggested as an
acceptable value for design.
5. Estimation of rock mass dynamic demand
The energy demand for a dynamic failure is a function of the
values selected for the unstable mass and its velocity of ejection.
The unit of rock mass static demand can be expressed in t/m2,
reflecting the selected maximum mass in tonnes that can be ejected
per block free face area. For the purposes of design, the rock mass
dynamic demand may be quantified in terms of the kinetic energy
of the ejected rock per surface area with unit of kJ/m2. This design
approach, similar to that of Zuo et al. (2005), considers that strain
energy released by the rock mass during violent stress-driven
failure is partially converted into kinetic energy of ejected blocks.
These blocks load the ground support scheme dynamically, causing
a force-displacement response. The mass of unstable rock that is
violently ejected and the initial velocity of its ejection are the
critical input variables in the kinetic energy calculation. The

Fig. 19. Block area distribution for all removable blocks e block 4.
 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493 491

Table 1 stress (between about 2 and 3) and the Young’s modulus in the
Probabilistic determination of block instability. range of 200e500 times the UCS (Deere and Miller, 1966). Further,
Probabilistic Apex height Unstable Unstable Static demand the initial velocity depends on the efficiency of transfer of stored
(m) mass (t) area (m2) (t/m2) strain energy into kinetic energy of the failure volume as indicated
90% 0.7 0.25 0.45 0.5 previously (Zuo et al., 2005). These concepts and assumptions may
Most of the data 1.4 1 1 1 then be used to empirically formulate a relatively simple based
Worst case 2.1 2.8 1.5 2 design chart of rock mass dynamic demand versus UCS for various
mechanisms and depths of failure (Fig. 20).
Kusui (2015) recently demonstrated the dependence of ejection
velocity on intact rock UCS via a series of scaled-down laboratory
unstable mass can be quantified via probabilistic analysis of the tests of circular excavations and a range of rock strength conditions.
local structural geological data as shown in Table 1. For structurally These experiments revealed an approximately linear relationship
controlled mechanisms of rock failure, it is assumed that the un- between UCS and ejection velocity, from which a first-degree
stable mass is controlled by probabilistic tetrahedral wedges able to polynomial trend line equation was derived. Considering this
be formed by the prevailing structural conditions as predicted us- relationship, plotting of the kinetic energy equation solutions for a
ing the methodology described previously. range of rock types and instability scenarios yields the chart as
The initial velocity of rock ejection may be estimated most shown in Fig. 20. As an example, this figure shows the estimated
conveniently from the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of the kinetic energy demand that would be imposed on a ground support
excavation host rock. Theoretically, it is shown that the initial ve- scheme by the range of unstable conditions as shown in Table 1. The
locity of ejection is independent of scale and depends only on the calculations are for a rock mass having a UCS of 150e200 MPa,
failure stress, the rock Young’s modulus and the rock density. The stabilised with a reinforcement pattern design of 1 m  1 m
UCS has been shown by many authors to be greater than the failure (length  width). The analysis shows that the 90% probability

Fig. 20. Range of energy demand on ground support for stress-driven failures in hard rock.

Fig. 21. Range of energy demands from actual underground observations.

492 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493

Fig. 22. Equal angle lower hemisphere poles of seismically active structures.

predicts a dynamic demand of 10e16 kJ/m2. The dynamic demand The range of predicted rock mass dynamic demand has been
for a value exceeding most of the data ranges from 24 kJ/m2 to compared with back-analysed results of actual violent failures
34 kJ/m2. The worst-case scenario, although highly unlikely, pre- occurring for the same geotechnical environment and range of
dicts a dynamic demand in the range of 46e68 kJ/m2. An example material strengths (Fig. 21). The actually observed values compare
of extreme demand has been documented by Drover and well with the predictions.
Villaescusa (2015). Fig. 22 shows a stereographic projection calculated using the
nodal information from moment tensor solutions from monitored
seismicity collected within the rock mass characterisation area. The
data have been sorted using the same joint set boundaries estab-
Table 2 lished for the geological discontinuity data as shown in Fig. 3. The
Comparison of mapped versus mobilised geological discontinuities. average orientation data shown in Table 2 suggest that the induced
Joint set Geotechnical mapping ( ) Inferred from seismicity ( )
stress is mobilising the existing geological discontinuities. This is in
agreement with observations of violent rock mass failure, where
1 21/151 39/138
the unstable blocks are almost entirely defined by geological dis-
2 78/240 73/239
3 46/005 63/019 continuities (Fig. 23).
4 89/132 69/145

6. Conclusions

Back analyses of actual failures in underground mining indicate

Fig. 23. Observations of violent rock mass failure where the failed block shape is
largely controlled by geological discontinuities.
that, when the depths of failures are large (i.e. exceeding 1e2 km),
these usually involve the mobilisation of geological structures. The
observed damage frequently consists of shear failures along
structures, resulting in sudden and violent ejections of large blocks
which are almost entirely defined by geological discontinuities. The
analysis from the seismic data shows that the induced stress begins
to mobilise the geological discontinuities prior to the violent
failures.
The energy demands from dynamic failures are controlled by
the rock masses that are predicted to become unstable and the
velocities of their ejection. For the purposes of design, the demand
may be quantified in terms of the kinetic energy of the ejected rock.
This design approach considers that strain energy released by the
rock mass during violent stress-driven failures is partially con-
verted into the kinetic energy of ejected blocks. The failure geom-
etries and related masses of instability can be quantified via
probabilistic analysis of the local structural data, assuming that the
discontinuities largely control the depths of failures. The probabi-
listic outputs from the SAFEX programme have been compared
 E. Villaescusa et al. / Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2019) 481e493
favourably with observations of rock mass failure from under-
ground tunnels in hard rock.
Conflicts of interest
The authors wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of
interest associated with this publication and there has been no
significant financial support for this work that could have influ-
enced its outcome.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the financial assistance and support
provided over many years by various organisations including
CODELCO Chile, CRC Mining, Mining3, MMG, DSI and Geobrugg.
They also wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance and sup-
port of their Graduate Students at the WA School of Mines.
References
Brzovic A. Characterisation of primary copper ore for caving at the El Teniente Mine,
Chile. PhD Thesis. Kalgoorlie, Australia: Curtin University of Technology; 2010.
Buyer A, Schubert W. Calculating the spacing of discontinuities from 3D point
clouds. Procedia Engineering 2017;191:270e8.
Call RD. Analysis of geologic structure for open pit slope design. PhD Thesis. Tucson,
USA: University of Arizona; 1972.
Call RD, Savely JP, Nicholas DE. Estimation of joint set characteristics from surface
mapping data. In: Hustrulid WA, editor. Monograph on rock mechanics, ap-
plications in mining. New York: AIME; 1976. p. 65e73.
Deere DU, Miller RP. Engineering classification and index properties of rock. Tech-
nical Report No. AFNL-TR-65-116. Albuquerque, NM, USA: Air Force Weapons
Laboratory; 1966.
Drover C, Villaescusa E. Estimation of dynamic load demand on a ground support
scheme due to a large structurally controlled violent failure e a case study.
Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section A Mining
Technology 2015;125(4):1e14.
Drover C, Villaescusa E, Onederra I. Face destressing blast design for hard rock
tunnelling at great depth. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
2018;80:257e68.
Goodman RE, Shi GH. Block theory and its application to rock engineering. London:
Prentice-Hall; 1985.
Hudson JA, Priest SD. Discontinuities and rock mass geometry. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts
1979;16(6):339e62.
Kusui A. Scaled down tunnel testing for comparison of surface support perfor-
mance. PhD Thesis. Kalgoorlie, Australia: Curtin University of Technology; 2015.
Mathis JL. Development and verification of a three dimensional rock joint model.
PhD Thesis. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology; 1988.
Mauldon M. Intersection probabilities of impersistent joints. International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts
1994;31(2):107e15.
Priest SD. Hemispherical projection methods in rock mechanics. London: Allen &
Unwin; 1985.
Tinucci JP. A ground control computer program for support analysis of three-
dimensional critical rock blocks. In: Kaiser PK, McCreath D, editors. Rock sup-
port in mining and underground construction. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on rock support. Sudbury, Canada. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1992.
p. 49e56.
Villaescusa E. A three-dimensional model of rock jointing. PhD Thesis. Brisbane,
Australia: University of Queensland; 1991.
Villaescusa E, Brown ET. Maximum likelihood estimation of joint size from trace
length measurements. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 1992;25(2):67e
87.
Villaescusa E. Geotechnical design for sublevel open stoping. Boca Raton, Florida:
CRC Press; 2014.
Villaescusa E, Kusui A, Drover C. Ground support design for sudden and violent
failures in hard rock tunnels. Keynote Lecture. In: The 9th Asian rock mechanics
Symposium. Bali, Indonesia: ARMS; 2016.
493
Warburton PM. Vector stability analysis of an arbitrary polyhedral rock block with
any number of free faces. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts 1981;18(5):415e27.
Windsor CR, Thompson AG. SAFEX e a design and analysis package for rock rein-
forcement. In: Kaiser PK, McCreath D, editors. Rock support in mining and
underground construction. Proceedings of the International Symposium on
rock support. Sudbury, Canada. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema; 1992. p. 17e23.
Windsor CR. Block stability in jointed rock masses. In: Cook NGW, Goodman RE,
Myer LR, Tsang CF, editors. Fractured and jointed rock masses. Proceedings of
the conference on jointed and fractured rock masses. Lake Tahoe, USA. Rot-
terdam: A.A. Balkema; 1996. p. 59e66.
Windsor CR. Rock reinforcement systems. International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences 1997;34(6):919e51.
Windsor CR. Systematic design of reinforcement and support systems for excava-
tions in jointed rock. In: Villaescusa E, Windsor CR, Thompson AG, editors. Rock
support and reinforcement practice in mining. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on ground support. Kalgoorlie, Australia. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema;
1999. p. 35e58.
Zuo YJ, Li XB, Zhou ZL. Determination of ejection velocity of rock fragments during
rock burst in consideration of damage. Journal of Central South University of
Technology 2005;12(5):218e22.
Professor Ernesto Villaescusa has over 30 years of un-
derground mining and applied research experiences
involving a large number of mining houses to develop
guidelines for effective underground mining that has
resulted in safe and economical extraction of ore. He has
undertaken detailed geological, mining and geotechnical
applied research in all aspects of mining methods for a
wide range of rock mass and geotechnical conditions,
ranging from shallow cut-and-fill and room and pillar
mines to large and deep sublevel stoping, sublevel cave
and block caves mines. Over the last 21 years, he has
worked at the Western Australian School of Mines
(WASM), as a Research Professor of Mining Geomechanics
where he has secured over 30 million dollars of industry-
funded mining research projects. He has supervised over 50 Masters and 12 PhD the-
ses. In 2004, he was appointed to an industry sponsored Chair in Mining Rock Me-
chanics sponsored by GoldFields, Newcrest Barrick, Barminco and Curtin University.
Dr. Alan Thompson is the principal of Alan Thompson
Geotechnology Pty Ltd. based in Esperance, WA. He is also
an Associate of the Western Australian School of Mines
(WASM), Curtin University in Kalgoorlie. Alan has 40 years
of applied research at CSIRO Geomechanics and WASM
complemented with consulting experience for civil and
mining projects. The research and consulting work has
included design and implementation of ground support,
testing of reinforcement, mesh and shotcrete and associ-
ated computer simulations for both static and dynamic
loadings. He also has extensive computer programming
experience associated with simulation and stability
assessment of jointed rock masses.
Christopher Windsor is a Rock Mechanics Engineer who
has held the position of Associate Professor at Curtin
University, Principal Research Fellow with the Cooperative
Research Centre for Mining (funded by Australian Gov-
ernment and the major multinational miners). His main
area of practice is to provide rock mechanics, reinforce-
ment and support technology research for consultants,
mining companies, product developers, civil utilities and
government infrastructure agencies. He has been a Project
Leader or Principal Investigator of back-to-back AMIRA/
CRC Research projects for more than 25 years. He has
completed research, technical reviews, development pro-
jects and training for numerous national and international
companies.