ARMA 13-689

Developments in Empirical Approaches to

Mining in Frozen Rock Mass
Ballantyne, S.1, Roworth, M.2, Pakalnis, R.1, Caceres, C.3, and Mawson, S.4
1. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
2. Golder Associates, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
3. Independent consultant, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
4. Cameco Corporation, Cigar Lake Mine

Copyright 2013 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 47 US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, 23-26
June 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 200 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Artificial ground freezing continues to prove as an effective approach to successful underground excavations in
weak rock mass conditions. Numerous mining and civil projects use artificial freezing worldwide; however uncertainties remain
with respect to understanding and predicting behavior of frozen rock mass.
It is well established that frozen rock has increased strengths relative to unfrozen states. Empirical data from recent case studies
also shows that rock mass ratings of weak rock are increased by up to 38%. This paper discusses ongoing frozen rock testing at the
University of British Columbia and development of empirical approaches to ground control in frozen ground. Emphasis is on
observed increases in rock mass ratings. Challenges in representative numerical models are discussed, including heterogeneous
material properties, distinct deformation rates, and varying temperature effects.

2. ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION

1. INTRODUCTION
The two most common rock mass classifications in
Frozen rock mass can occur naturally in cold-weather
North America are the Rock Tunneling Quality Index
regions, or is achieved artificially through refrigeration.
(Q) and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) systems [4, 5, 6].
The behavior of frozen soil is well documented with
Each of these classifications consist of geotechnical
extensive research in the mechanical and creep
parameters that, when combined, yield a number to
relationships with varying grain sizes, moisture, and
describe the rock mass quality. Each system is briefly
temperature. Limited information exists on the behavior
reviewed in the following sections, and a discussion of
and failure mechanisms of frozen rock, however,
how ground freezing affects its individual parameters is
especially weak rock at great depth. Most frozen ground
provided.
research to date is based on permafrost regions in
surficial soil [1]. Improvements in rock mass quality
through water reduction and increases in rock strength 2.1. Rock Mass Rating
through freezing are relatively well understood. Recent The Rock Mass Rating (RMR) classification system was
work by M. Roworth [2] significantly added to the first developed in 1973 to characterize rock mass and to
understanding of the increase in intact rock strength of provide design guidelines in tunneling [5]. Although
weak rock due to freezing. RMR has undergone several modifications, most
Canadian mines use the 1976 version [3]. The use of
different RMR versions can lead to confusion and error
Rock mass classifications are used to estimate rock mass and great care must be taken to use the same systems
behavior, excavation stability, and provide ground when compiling RMR data comparing results from
support guidelines by characterizing rocks [3]. various operations. All RMR values presented herein are
Establishing unfrozen and frozen rock mass rating in the 1976 system.
values for various material types can be used to
understand the influence of freezing on empirical data of
rock mass rating values versus opening span for
underground cavities.
The RMR system consists of five parameters: 3. INTACT ROCK STRENGTH
1. Intact Rock Strength Intact rock strength is the first parameter in the RMR
2. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) system; it is not considered directly in the Q system. It is
based on the ultimate compressive strength (UCS) of the
3. Spacing of Joints intact rock, which is defined as the load per unit area at
4. Condition of Joints which a sample will fail in uniaxial compression. Table
1 presents the 1976 Rock Mass Rating Classification
5. Water intact rock strength parameter ratings for the six UCS
Each parameter is assessed and assigned a number. ranges.
These numbers are summed, resulting in a rating from
eight (8) to one hundred (100).
Table 1: RMR classification for intact rock strength [3]
Parameter Range of Values
2.2. Q system Strength of
The Rock Tunneling Quality Index (Q) system was intact rock 100- 50- 25- 10- 3-
developed by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute [6] > 200 1-3
material 200 100 50 25 10
to assist in empirical design and provide tunnel UCS (MPa)
reinforcement guidelines. It is estimated based on six (6)
parameters through the following relation: Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0

RQD Jr Jw
Q   (1)
Jn Ja SRF The UCS of a rock is divided into six strength
where RQD is the cumulative length of sound pieces of categories, and can be estimated through standard field
core over 10 cm in a core run divided by the entire identification and laboratory testing methods, as shown
length of the core run, Jn is the rating for the number of in Table 2 [7]. The UCS can also be estimated through
joint sets in a domain, Jr is the roughness for the least the use of point load testing.
favorable joint set(s), Ja is the degree of alteration or
filling of the least favorable discontinuity(s), Jw is the
rating for water inflow, and SRF is the stress reduction Table 2: Descriptions of rock strength
factor [6]. It is common to assume RQD/Jn reflects the and approximate UCS [2]
typical block size Jr/Ja represents the friction angle, and Approximate
Jw/SRF stress conditions [7]. Range
of Uniaxial
Grade Description
Compressive
Strength
Many operations assess only factors dependent on rock
(MPa)
mass, ignoring water and stress conditions (Jw and SRF)
at the core logging and mapping stages. The result is R0 Extremely weak rock 0.25 - 1.0
useful in operations where the rock mass properties are R1 Very weak rock 1.0 - 5.0
constant, but external factors such as loading may R2 Weak rock 5.0 - 25
change. This is a common case in underground mines R3 Medium strong rock 25 - 50
where stresses increase as mining progresses. Stresses R4 Strong rock 50 - 100
can be assessed through modeling. The water rating is R5 Very strong rock 100 - 250
generally dry, but can also be assessed in later mining
Extremely strong
stages as needed. Thus, Q is often simplified to Q-prime R6 >250
rock
(Q’):
RQD Jr
Q'   (2) The strength of intact rock is defined through the above
Jn Ja ratings. It has been observed that freezing increases the
These four values (RQD, Jn, Jr, and Ja) in Q’ are strength of intact rock, and therefore the RMR,
focused on in this paper as most of the examples and particularly in extremely weak to weak rock.
available data are from operations that collect only Q’.
3.1. Literature Review of Frozen Intact Rock
The gain in strength due to freezing is a function of
temperature, with higher strengths achieved under
decreasing temperatures. Initial work by Mellor [9, 10]
measured the uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths
of water saturated and air dry granite, limestone, and
sandstone from temperatures of 25oC to -195oC. Mellor
observed that compressive strengths increase with
decreasing temperature where freezing can increase rock
strength by a factor of 4 in porous rock and by a factor
of 1.8 in crystalline rock [9, 10]. Further research by
Kumar [11], and Yamabe and Neaupane [12] indicate a
significant strength increase in several rock types with
decreasing temperature. Inada and Kinoshita [13] and
Inada et. al. [14] completed Brazilian tensile, uniaxial
tension, and uniaxial compression tests of tuff, granite,
andesite, and sandstone at temperatures ranging from
20oC to -160oC. The tuff having a higher porosity than
granite saw a larger strength increase with lower
temperatures.
3.2. Recent Laboratory Testing
The influence of freezing on the strength of a weak rock
mass was explored in the research by UBC graduate
students at the Cigar Lake uranium mine, in northern
Saskatchewan, Canada. The objective of this research is
to determine how freezing affects weak rock mass
behavior with direct application to the Cigar Lake
mining method, jet boring. The uranium deposits in the
Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan are typically
located at the unconformity between the basement rock
and an overlying porous sandstone layer. Above and
below the unconformity, the rock mass shows variations
in porosity and permeability due to intense fracturing
and alteration. Geotechnical challenges during mining
the Cigar Lake ore body include control of groundwater
and support of weak ground. To mitigate the potential
for groundwater inflow, Cigar Lake project plans to
implement artificial ground freezing along with the non-
entry mining method of jet boring.
Frozen laboratory testing was conducted on the weak
rock above and below the Cigar Lake ore body to
provide a better understanding of weak rock behavior at
low temperatures such as the influence of frozen joints
in a weak rock mass, and the strength gain from
unfrozen to frozen state. The following discusses the
frozen unconfined compressive strength testing
completed on material from the Cigar Lake mine.
3.2.1 Frozen UCS Testing Results
Frozen Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) tests
were completed to determine the influence of freezing
on the short term strength of the Cigar Lake weak rock
mass. Frozen weak rocks are stronger than unfrozen
ground due to the bonding effect of ice; however, the
gain in strength is a function of the temperature,
moisture content, material composition, and applied
strain rate. As with unfrozen soil, the strength of frozen
rock depends on inter-particle friction, particle
interlocking and cohesion. The frozen strength varies
with many factors and those controlled during UCS
testing were temperature, applied loading rate, and
application of freezing.
UCS tests were undertaken at the University of Alberta
cold room in 2009. Samples were trimmed to measure
approximately 75 mm in diameter by 150 mm in length
to maintain a length to diameter ratio of 2:1 and placed
inside a rubber membrane inside the triaxial cell. The
triaxial cell was filled with mineral oil around the
sample. The temperature of the mineral oil was
controlled with glycol circulating in copper rings.
Outside the triaxial cell are rings of copper with glycol
circulating at half a degree lower than ambient
temperature. Samples were frozen for a minimum of 24
hours inside the triaxial cell of the cold room, simulating
an all-around freezing as is expected to occur at the
Cigar Lake mine. As the samples are high moisture
content, freezing from all around was considered to be a
potential problem as cracks could develop in the center
of the sample due to the volume expansion during
freezing; however, frozen sample cross-sections were
examined and noted to be uniform.
Two sets of UCS testing at -10oC and -20oC were
completed at three strain rates (varying from 0.01%/min
to 0.1%/min) on the main geotechnical zones; altered
sandstone over the ore body (hematized and bleached
sandstone) and altered basement below the ore body.
Samples were loaded to failure or approximately 10%
axial strain if the load remained constant during testing.
Samples were tested at strain rates varying from
0.01%/min to 0.1%/min as strain rates above 1%/min
will induce brittle failure resulting in higher strength
data than to be expected in the field. Strain rates below
0.01%/minute can possibly exhibit creep behavior due to
the long loading time on the sample (several days).
From the samples tested, the frozen friction angle does
not appear to be affected by temperature or applied strain
rate. Very weak rock samples (unfrozen strength less
than 2 MPa) typically failed on obvious shear plans,
such as bedding or pre-existing joints. Samples tested
with unfrozen moisture contents greater than 30% did
not fail on pre-existing shear planes but rather on the
friction plane.
Figure 1 plots the UCS value for all samples at the range
of temperatures tested. Samples frozen to T = -10oC
failed at an average UCS of 2 MPa and total strain of 2-
3%. Samples tested at T = -10oC typically exhibit strain-
softening behavior compared to those frozen at T = -
20oC where they exhibit elastic/plastic behavior.
Samples frozen to T=-20oC failed at an average UCS of
5 MPa and a total strain of 4-6%. Note, samples at T = -
2oC and T = -5oC are from historical testing at the Cigar
Lake mine [15, 16].
Rock types tested included altered sandstone (dense clay
to weak sandstone) and fractured sandstone both
overlying the ore body and altered graphitic metapelite
basement. The samples plotted in Figure 1 can be
described as,
 Altered Metapelite Basement: Graphitic
metapelite, green, extremely weak to very weak,
clay and pebble (gritty) mixture, moderately
weathered.
 Bleached Sandstone: White, hydrothermal
bleaching, massive clay to mixed sandstone and
clay, extremely weak to locally moderate weak;
locally moderately to highly weathered.
 Hematized Sandstone/Clay: Red to greyish red,
close proximity to ore, dense clay to weak rock,
structural fabric and jointing still present.
Figure 1: Frozen Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS)
Test Results vs. Temperature for All Material
As shown in Figure 1, an average gain in strength of
approximately 1 MPa is achieved from reducing
temperatures from -5 oC to -10 oC, almost 2 MPa from -
10oC to -20oC in each rock types. The lines shown were
determined by visual inspection.
An interesting correlation appears when the rocks are
grouped based on their initial, unfrozen strengths. The
extremely weak to very weak (R0 to R1) rocks are
expected to have the largest strength gain with freezing
due to the higher moisture content in very weak rock
samples. Medium strong rocks (R3, 50 MPa) and greater
are not expected to show significant gain in strength
with freezing due to the reduced moisture content and
lack of available pore water to convert to ice. The
strength of ice, though a function of strain rate and
temperature, is typically on the order of 20 to 35 MPa
[1]. Very weak rocks, with compressive strengths of 1 to
5 MPa, will almost double their strength due to the
conversion of water to ice. Beyond unfrozen rock
strengths of approximately 40 MPa, the upper bound
strength of ice, little to no strength gain is expected with
freezing.
Figure 2 shows the relationship between unfrozen rock
strength (shown from R0 to R4) and ISRM UCS rock
strength upper and lower bounds [7], and the UCS
gained for the corresponding unfrozen rock strength
when frozen (red line). All tests were completed at -
10oC. No samples greater than 25 MPa were tested in the
2009 laboratory testing program.
Unconfined Compressive Strength Test
50
Average Frozen Strength for T=-10oC
Based on 2009 Testing
40
Axial Stress (MPa)
30
Average UCS of ICE
20
10
ISRM Lower Bound
Unfrozen Strength
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Rock Strength (R)
Figure 2: Influence of Freezing and Strength Gain for Weak
Cigar Lake Rock (Axial Stress vs Rock Strength Rating, R)
The increase gained in RMR values is thus highly
dependent on the strength of the unfrozen rock. In R0 to
R2 unfrozen rock, RMR rock strength ratings may be
increased by as much as seven (7) when frozen. For
example, an unfrozen rock with an R0 would have an
RMR rating of zero (0); if this same rock is R4 when
frozen the RMR rating would become seven (7). In
unfrozen rock strengths higher than 50 MPa, the RMR
will be increased by other parameters and likely not in
the intact rock strength index.
 Table 3: RMR classification for RQD [2]
As discussed in section eight, future laboratory testing is Parameter Range of Values
planned to test at various temperatures, including above Drill core
zero temperatures, to ensure the above findings are 90- 75- 50- 25- <25
quality
100% 90% 75% 50% %
statistically significant. (RQD)

Rating 20 17 13 8 3
4. RQD, SPACING, AND JOINT NUMBER
When a rock mass undergoes freezing, geologically
speaking, the discontinuities healed with ice in a frozen In the Q system, RQD is the first index, entered as
rock mass still exist. However, geotechnically speaking number from zero (0) (worst) to one hundred (100)
these healed discontinuities are no longer considered in (best).
the design and are not counted in the rock mass
classification. If the ice-healed discontinuities are strong
enough to withstand gentle twisting by the hand, they 4.2. Joint spacing
should no longer be considered a discontinuity in the Joint spacing is the third input parameter in the RMR
design. system. It is the average spacing between discontinuities
either in a core run or, in face mapping, the average
block size. Table 4 shows the ranges and ratings for
This section discusses the effect of freezing on RQD, spacing of joints.
joint spacing, and joint sets input parameters to both the
RMR and Q rock mass classification system.
Table 4: RMR classification for joint spacing [2]
Parameter Range of Values
4.1. Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
Rock quality designation (RQD) is a qualitative index Spacing of 1- 0.3- 50- <50m
based on core recovery [17]. The index is used in both >3m
Joints 3m 1m 300mm m
the RMR and the Q rock mass classification systemsIt is
generally calculated for each core run and is expressed
as a percentage. Rating 30 25 20 10 5

RQD was developed for geotechnically quantifying drill
core soundness; however, it can be visually estimated in
mapping excavation faces by relating it to the number of
joints in a cubic meter [18].
RQD  115  3.3 * Jv (3)
where Jv is the number of joints in one cubic meter.
4.3. Joint Number
Joint number (Jn) is the fourth input parameter in the Q-
system. It is rated based on the number of joint sets in a
geotechnical group of rock ranging from point five (0.5)
(best) to 20 (worst). Table 5 shows how various joint set
descriptions relate to the Jn number.

Table 5: Jn number for the Q rock mass classification

Rocks that are not strong enough to withstand gentle Number of Joint sets Jn rating
hand pressure are not considered intact rock. For Intact rock (no joints) 0.5
example, a very weak rock that may appear to have no 1 set 1
discontinuities will have an RQD of zero (0) if the all of 1 set + random 2
rock breaks into pieces smaller than 10cm. 2 set 3
2 set + random 4
3 set 6
RQD is the second parameter in the RMR classification 3 set + random 9
system. The ranges and ratings used in the RMR 1976 4 set 21
4 set + random 15
system is shown in the following table.
Earthlike, crushed rock 20
4.4. Effect of freezing on RQD, Joint Spacing, and Table 6: RMR classification for joint condition [3]
Joint number Condition of Joints Rating
Freezing can have a significant impact on increasing
frozen RMR and Q vales by simply reducing the number
Very rough surfaces
of discontinuities through healing with ice. There is 25
Not continuous
more of an impact on weak and/or highly fractured rock, No separation
as these units are more heavily jointed and thus there is Hard joint wall rock
more opportunity for healing of joints through freezing.
Slightly rough surfaces
Separation < 1mm 20
A rock with an RQD of zero (0) could improve up to one
Hard joint wall rock
hundred (100) through freezing, by making very weak
rock sound and intact by healing all the joints. In the
RMR system this would result in an increase from as Slightly rough surfaces
low as three (3) to as high as twenty (20). Similarly, a Separation > 1mm 12
rock with joint spacing less than fifty millimeters Soft joint wall rock
(<50mm) could have a spacing of >3m once frozen,
resulting in an increase in RMR from five (5) to thirty Slickensided surfaces
(30). The Jn in the Q system could be improved from or gouge < 5mm thick
twenty (20) to point five (0.5), assuming the entire rock or joints open 1-5mm 6
mass remains in frozen conditions. Continuous joints

Soft gouge >5mm thick

It is clear that significant gains in rock mass quality can
be made in the reduction of open joints through freezing.
As discussed in section 8, the future work should focus
on this aspect, investigating the controlling factors on
the healing of joints, including condition of joints, as
discussed in the following section.
5. JOINT CONDITION
Discontinuities are commonly described by their
roughness, planarity, aperture, and infill material. Each
of these parameters controls the friction angle and
cohesion of a discontinuity. In the rock mass
characterization of a core run or face the critical
discontinuity or discontinuity set (i.e. with lowest
friction and cohesion) is described, for a geotechnical
zone. Both the RMR and Q system incorporate joint
condition parameters.
or joints open > 5mm 0
Continuous joints
Roughness can be estimated using the joint roughness
coefficient (JRC) chart [5]. Determining separation of
joints in drill core can prove to be difficult and requires
experienced judgment by the logger. Similarly, it must
be considered that infill on joints may be washed away
through the drilling process.
5.2. Joint Roughness (Jr)
In the Q system, joint condition is divided into joint
roughness (Jr) and join alteration (Ja). Joint roughness in
the Q system is based on JRC, infill, and planarity, as
shown in table 7.

This section discusses the effect of freezing on joint

condition input parameters to both the RMR and Q rock
mass classification system.

5.1. Joint Condition

The fourth input parameter of the RMR system is joint
condition. It is a qualitative description of the
discontinuities that relates to known frictional and
cohesive strengths of joints. Table 6 describes the
category and corresponding RMR rating for joint
condition.
 Table 7: Q system classification for joint roughness (Jr) [19]
Infill & JRC Planarity
Slickensided Planar
Slickensided Undulating
Slickensided Discontinuous
No infill, smooth (JRC <10) Planar
No infill, smooth (JRC <10) Undulating
No infill, smooth(JRC <10) Discontinuous
No infill, rough (JRC >10) Planar
No infill, rough (JRC >10) Undulating
No infill, rough(JRC >10) Discontinuous
Gouge-filled Planar
Gouge-filled Undulating
Gouge-filled Discontinuous
5.3. Joint Alteration (Ja)
The second part of joint condition description in the Q
system is joint alteration (Ja). It is often split into two
groups: filled and unfilled.
Table 8: Q system classification for join alteration (Ja) [18]
Alteration Ja
Unfilled, staining only
Unfilled, slightly altered joint walls
Minor silt or sand coatings
Minor clay coatings
Sand or crushed rock filled
Stiff clay filling less than 5mm thick
Soft clay filling less than 5mm thick
Swelling clay filling less than 5mm thick
Stiff clay filling more than 5mm thick
Soft clay filling more than 5mm thick
Swelling clay filling more than 5mm thick
The dilatant or contractile coefficient of friction for
joints can be estimated through JR/JA [6]. This
relationship will be useful in assessing results of future
direct shear testing, as discussed in section eight.
5.4. Effect of freezing on Joint Condition
Freezing improves the discontinuity considerations of
rock mass characterization primarily by healing them, as
discussed in the previous section. Healed joints should
not be considered in design if the ice can withstand
Jr gentle hand pressure and the frozen state is expected to
0.5 be constant.
1.5
2.0 Open joints, however, may be worse in frozen state than
unfrozen. Ice should reduce the cohesion and friction of
1.0 original material. The quantification of this ice effect on
2.0 joints through testing is discussed in section eight (8).
3.0
1.5 6. WATER
3.0 The influence of temperature on strength, discussed in
4.0 Section 3, is a function of the unfrozen water content,
where at temperatures just below freezing there is water
1.0 that has not converted to ice in the pores therefore the
1.0 strength is lower than at colder temperatures. The
conversion of water to ice is a function of material type,
1.5
porosity, salinity and confining pressures. When a rock
mass undergoes freezing, the degree of unfrozen water
decreases as water in the pores converts to ice, creating a
barrier to flowing water.
Table 9 describes the categories and rating for water in
the 1976 RMR system. Water ratings in the Q system
(Jw) are not considered in this paper.
1 Table 9: RMR classification for water [2]
2 Water Rating
3
Completely dry 10
4
4
Moist only (interstitial water) 7
6
8 Water under moderate pressure 4
12
Severe water problems 0
10
15
20 For the purpose of assessing the geomechanical
characteristics of a rock mass in the absence of external
factors, the groundwater rating for both RMR and Q
calculations is typically assumed to be dry. In open,
unfrozen excavations, mine workings are generally
pumped to keep slopes and drifts dry. For certain design
applications, it may be necessary to adjust the rock mass
quality to account for the expected water conditions,
however under artificial ground freezing applications, all
water is assumed to be converted to ice.
7. CASE STUDY
Increase in the RMR1976 from an unfrozen to frozen state
was recently assessed by Pakalnis and Mawson at
Cameco’s McArthur River Mine [20]. Four unfrozen
core logs were studied and compared to frozen face
mapping of two drifts in the same area. More than one
hundred (100) observations were made on these drifts.
Pakalnis and Mawson showed that the RMR was
increased by an average of 38. Table 10 summarizes the
average increase for each of the five parameters in the
RMR system.
Table 10: Average increase between frozen face mapping and
unfrozen core logging [19]
Parameter Average increase
(frozen – unfrozen)
Strength 8
RQD 7 fashion to frozen soil where the strength depends on
Joint spacing 11
Joint condition 11
Water 0 from plastic to brittle. In the weak Cigar Lake frozen
TOTAL average 38
RMR increase
The sample size is relatively small (four drill holes, two
drifts with more than one hundred observations);
however this study is an excellent base for future studies.
Similar results of observed increase in RMR through
freezing have been observed in naturally frozen mines.
Data from such mines was not yet available at time of
writing. Similar future studies should use data from both
drill core and excavated faces and the results separated
to deal with any potential bias between the two
approaches.
8. FUTURE TESTING
Frozen and unfrozen samples of varying strength,
mineralogy, and moisture content from the Cigar Lake
Mine is proposed for triaxial testing at the University of
British Columbia Department of Engineering.
A series of direct shear tests are also proposed for
testing. Unfrozen, open and frozen, and healed with ice
will be tested. Varying roughness and infill under the
three conditions will also be tested.
The intention of this testing, proposed by the first author,
is to build on past work on the subject to improve
understanding in how freezing increases rock mass
quality with various properties. The findings of these
tests will be used in conjunction with data of existing
stable and unstable excavations in artificially and
naturally frozen ground. The results may lead to design
guidelines for mining in frozen ground based on
unfrozen rock properties and excavation spans.
9. NUMERICAL MODELLING OF FROZEN
GROUND
Typical numerical models of frozen rock mass behavior
only increase the rock strength properties from the
unfrozen state. As shown in this paper, there are several
other factors (infilling, aperture, and degree of breakage)
affecting the quality of the rock mass when frozen.
The strength of a frozen rock behaves in a similar
inter-particle friction, particle interlocking and cohesion.
When a weak rock undergoes freezing and water is
converted to ice, the failure mode behavior transitions
rock mass, cohesion values were observed to increase
and friction decrease as the rock mass undergoes
freezing, though this is based on a limited data set.
10. CONCLUSIONS
Freezing rock mass has an effect of increasing rock
quality through gains in strength, reductions in joint
spacing (healing of joints), increases of joint quality
condition, and removal of water. This translates into and
overall RMR (and Q) increase where in some
documented cases would be up to 40 points in the RMR
rating for weak porous moist rocks.
Improvements in rock mass quality through water
reduction and increases in rock strength through freezing
are relatively well understood. Future studies are
proposed herein by S. Ballantyne to improve
understanding of how freezing effects discontinuity
quality, primarily through the use of direct shear testing.
The results of testing may be used to develop numerical
modeling approaches, with specific focus on
understanding the stress-strain behavior of frozen rock
masses. It would be particularly beneficial to determine
which constitutive model best represents the stress-strain
behavior of frozen rock masses. It is important to find
whether the behavior is strain softening, creep, or fully
coupled thermal-fluid models. These models will be
calibrated through observations of existing excavations
in frozen rock mass. The ultimate goal in this work is to
develop and improve design parameters for mining in
frozen weak rock mass.
11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are in appreciation of support through the
Cameco Corporation, in particular the technical staff of
Cigar Lake Mine, the National Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Norman
B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering at the
University of British Columbia.
12. REFERENCES
1. Andersland, O.B. and B. Ladanyi. 2004. Frozen
Ground Engineering. 2nd Ed. Hoboken, N.J.:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2. Roworth, M. In Progress. Understanding the
Effect of Freezing on Rock Mass Behaviour as
Applied to the Cigar Lake Mining Method.
MASc Thesis. Vancouver, British Columbia:
University of British Columbia.
3. Milne, Hadjigeorgiou, Pakalnis, 1998. Rock
mass characterization for underground hard rock
mines. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology. 13:4, 383-391.
4. Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Rock mass
classifications in rock engineering. In Proc. 4th
Int. Cong. Rock Mech. ISRM, Montreux, Vol. 2,
41-48.
5. Bieniawksi, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass
Classifications: A Complete Manual for
Engineers and Geologists in Mining, Civil, and
Petroleum Engineering. John Wiley and Sons.
6. Barton, N., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. 1974.
Engineering classification of jointed rock masses
for the design of tunnel support. Rock
Mechanics 6, 189-236.
7. Barton, N. 2002. Some new Q-value correlations
to assist in site characterisation and tunnel
design. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.. 39, 185-
215.
8. ISRM (1981). Rock Characterization Testing
and Monitoring - ISRM Suggested Methods,
Pergamon Press, London, England, p. 32, ed.
Brown, E.T.
9. Mellor, M. 1971. Strength and deformability of
rocks at low temperatures. USA Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Research Report 294.
10. Mellor, M. 1973. Mechanical properties of rocks
at low temperatures. In Permafrost: The North
American Contribution to the 2nd International
Conference on Permafrost, Yakutsk, 13-28 July,
Washington D.C.: Natural Academy of
Sciences.
11. Kumar, A. 1968. The effect of stress rate and
temperature on the strength of basalt and granite.
Geophysics, 33: 501-510.
12. Yamabe, T. and K.M. Neaupane. 2001.
Determination of some thermo-mechanical
properties of Sirahama sandstone under subzero
temperature condition. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min.
Sci. 31: 1029-1034.
13. Inada, Y. and N. Kinoshita. 2003. “A few
remarks on storage of low temperature materials
in rock caverns.” ISRM 2003 – Technology
roadmap for rock mechanics, South African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
14. Inada, Y., N. Kinoshita, A. Ebisawa, S. Gomi.
1997. Strength and deformation characteristics
of rocks after undergoing thermal hysteresis of
high and low temperatures. Int. J. Rock Mech.
Min. Sci. 34:3-4.
15. EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.. 1990. 'Stress
Analysis Ground Freezing Design - Cross-Cut
Drift - 420 M Level.' Report EB-90-01.
16. Golder Associates. 1986. Additional Laboratory
Testing of Clay-Ore Zone Samples. Report to
Cameco Corporation.
17. Deere, D.U., & Deere, D.W. 1988. The Rock
Quality Index in Practice. Rock Classification
Systems for Engineering Purposes. L. Kirkaldie,
ed. ASTM STP 984,91-101.
18. Palmstrom, A. 1982. The Volumetric Joint
Count – A Useful and Simple Measure of the
Degree of Rock Jointing. Proc. 41st Int.
Congress Int. Ass. Engng. Geol. Delphi. 5: 221-
228.
19. Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground
Excavations in Rock. London: Institution of
Mining and Metallurgy.
20. Mawson, S. 2012. Interoffice Memo:
Comparison of RMR parameter ratings for
frozen and unfrozen ground. Saskatoon: Cameco
Corporation.