2015 - Report - Grosvenor Mine Shafts 7 8 10 and 11 Review of Rock Strength

17 December, 2015
GROSVENOR SHAFTS 7, 8, 10 & 11
Review of Rock Strength, In

Situ Stress and Shaft Stability
Submitted to:
Anglo American Metallurgical Coal
Projects and Engineering
201 Charlotte Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000
REPORT
Report Number. 1533246-017-Rev0

Distribution:
Malcolm Smyth (Technical Services
Superintendent, Grosvenor)
GROSVENOR SHAFTS, REVIEW OF STRESS, STRENGTH AND
SHAFT STABILITY
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 1
3.1 Geotechnical Investigations .......................................................................................................................... 1
3.2 Proposed New Shafts ................................................................................................................................... 2
4.0 EXISTING GROSVENOR SHAFTS AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA .......................................................................... 2
5.0 IN SITU STRESS ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
5.1 Estimation of Sigmav (Vertical Stress) .......................................................................................................... 3
6.0 INDUCED HOOP ELASTIC STRESS AROUND SHAFT PERIMETER .................................................................... 4
7.0 ROCK STRENGTH .................................................................................................................................................... 5
7.1 UCS and Correlation with Point Load Index ................................................................................................. 5
7.2 Point Load Index ........................................................................................................................................... 8
7.3 Comments on the Influence of the Intermediate Principal Stress on Compressive Strength of Intact
Rock ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
7.4 Risk of Stress-Induced Spalling .................................................................................................................. 10
8.0 QR EMPIRICAL STABILITY ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................ 10
8.1 Shaft stand-up conditions ........................................................................................................................... 12
8.1.1 Soil and Extremely Weathered Rock .................................................................................................... 12
8.1.2 Permian Coal Measures........................................................................................................................ 12
8.1.3 Kinematic Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 13
9.0 MORANBAH NORTH RAISE BORING EXPERIENCE ........................................................................................... 13
10.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
11.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 14
TABLES
Table 1: Mid-Panel Shafts Factual Geotechnical Investigation Reports .............................................................................. 1
Table 2: Details of Proposed New Ventilation Shafts .......................................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Weighted average Unit Weight Based on DDG213 Stratigraphy and Laboratory Testing ..................................... 3
Table 4: Sigmav ................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Table 5a: Sigra (2000) Overcoring Stress Measurements and Derivatives ......................................................................... 4
Table 5b: SCT (2015) Overcoring Stress Measurements and Derivatives .......................................................................... 4
Table 6: Maximum and Minimum Compressive Hoop Stresses for a Range of k Values .................................................... 5
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 i
SHAFT STABILITY
Table 7: Valid Sandstone UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50) .......................................................................................... 6
Table 8: Valid Siltstone UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50) ............................................................................................. 7
Table 9: Valid Tuff UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50) ..................................................................................................... 7
FIGURES
Figure 1: Summary of rock strength data and inferred average UCS and maximum hoop elastic stress in shaft
walls. .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2: Qr vs. raise bore diameter and stability (after McCracken and Stacey, 1989) ................................................... 12
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Rock Strength vs Depth Charts
APPENDIX B
Results of Revised Qr Rock Mass Classification Assessment (after McCracken & Stacey, 1989)
APPENDIX C
Important Information
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 ii
SHAFT STABILITY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
As part of the geotechnical assessment and design of four mid-panel shafts for the Grosvenor Mine (Shafts
7, 8, 10 and 11), Anglo American Metallurgical Coal (AAMC) requested Golder Associates Pty Ltd (Golder)
to undertake an assessment of potential stress-related instability in the shaft walls, based on a review of
available information on rock strength and in situ stress conditions expected in the shafts. This report
presents the results of the review.
Comments on potential shaft stability issues caused by structural geological features in the rock (i.e.
kinematic assessment) and near-surface soil and weathered rock zones are also provided.
AAMC have advised that the expected operational lifespan of the proposed shafts ranges from 14 to 28.5
months. These are therefore considered to be temporary shafts and this has been taken into account by our
assessment.
2.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW

The scope of the review included the following:
 A critical review of the combined strength testing database from present and relevant previous
geotechnical investigations at Grosvenor. The aim was to refine our existing estimates of the rock
strength (UCS) ranges for different lithologies. This included an assessment of UCS/Is(50) ratios for
the dominant lithologies (sandstone and siltstone) encountered in the boreholes.
 Available information on in situ stress measurements at Grosvenor was reviewed and the results
incorporated into an assessment of the expected elastic hoop stresses expected to be experienced in
the shaft walls.
 The results of the review of strength and stress have been used as part of a revision of our previous
empirical stability assessment of the conditions in the four shafts using the McCracken and Stacey
(1989) approach.
3.0 PROPOSED SHAFT DEVELOPMENTS

Details of the four shafts and the associated geotechnical site investigation works are summarised in Tables
1 and 2 below.
3.1 Geotechnical Investigations

As part of the Mid-Panel Shaft works, geotechnical investigations have been undertaken and a factual report
has been compiled for each location. These reports are listed in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Mid-Panel Shafts Factual Geotechnical Investigation Reports
Shaft Underground
Golder Report Number and Title
Name Location
7 MG102-30c/t 1533246-012-R-Rev1, Factual Geotechnical Report, Grosvenor Ventilation Shaft 7 at

MG102-30c/t, Geotechnical Investigation (Borehole DDG213).
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 1
SHAFT STABILITY
A workshop for undertaking a Technical Analysis of shaft construction was held in October 2015 based on
the information gained during the 2015 Shaft Investigation program. The workshop identified that the
preferred solution based on the ground conditions and the needs of AAMC was blind boring under mud from
surface to seam. However, we understand that this has since been reviewed and raise boring is now
AAMC’s preferred methodology due partly to scheduling constraints.
3.2 Proposed New Shafts

Table 2 summarises key details of the proposed new shafts.
Table 2: Details of Proposed New Ventilation Shafts
Purpose and Surface Shaft
Shaft U/G Easting Northing Diameter
Borehole Estimated RL Depth
No. Location (m) (m) (m)
Lifespan (m AHD) (m)
Mid-panel shaft
7 MG102-30c/t DDG213 downcast. 606,356 7,573,562 232 2.0 376
28.5 months
Mid-panel shaft
22.5 months
Mid-panel shaft
19.5 months
Mid-panel shaft
14 months
4.0 EXISTING GROSVENOR SHAFTS AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA

Currently, there are six (6) at Grosvenor. Two of these shafts (No. 1 and 2) were abandoned, partly due
to construction difficulties, and the other shafts (3, 4, 5, and 6) were all completed successfully.
Geotechnical investigations undertaken for the existing shafts typically comprised a single fully cored
borehole drilled at each shaft location, with associated downhole geophysical logging and laboratory
testing. The investigations for Shafts 2, 5 and 6 were undertaken by Golder and the results of these
investigations have been taken into account in the current review.
Previous geotechnical investigations were also undertaken by Golder for the Grosvenor access drifts.
The results of rock strength testing (UCS and point load index) were revisited as part of the current
review, but were ultimately excluded due to the limited number of relevant valid UCS tests completed.
5.0 IN SITU STRESS

The following reports on in situ stress measurement studies at Grosvenor have been reviewed and the
results considered in our assessment:
 “Report on Stress Measurement, Grosvenor – DDG077 & DDG084”, report by Sigra Pty Ltd (Sigra),
dated Oct-2000.
 “In Situ Stress Measurements at Longwall 102, Grosvenor Mine”, report by SCT Operations Pty Ltd
(SCT), dated 4-Nov-2015.
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 2
SHAFT STABILITY
5.1 Estimation of Sigmav (Vertical Stress)

Sigmav has been estimated based on the weighted average of the unit weights and relative proportions of
the different lithologies encountered in borehole DDG213. The unit weight adopted for each lithology is
based on available laboratory testing data (i.e. the measured bulk density of rock core samples). Table 3
shows how the adopted weighted unit weight was derived.
Table 3: Weighted average Unit Weight Based on DDG213 Stratigraphy and Laboratory Testing
Stratigraphy % Unit Weight Proportional Unit Weight
Lithology 3
(based on DDG213) (kg/m ) (kg/m3)
Soil 6 2200 132
Sandstone 38 2412 917
Siltstone 39 2442 952
Tuff 2 2514 50
Coal 15 1487 223
100% Weighted Ave. 2274
Based on Table 3, the vertical stress due to overburden weight has been taken to be 0.023 MPa / m depth.
Table 4 presents the estimated Sigmav at a range of depth increments.
Table 4: Sigmav
Depth = Z Sigmav = Z * 0.023

(m) (MPa)
100 2.3
200 4.6
300 6.9
400 9.2
The assessed principal stress magnitudes presented in the Sigra and SCT reports are summarised in
Tables 5a and 5b respectively. It is noted that these two reports differ from each other in terms of the
terminology used for the principal stresses. The Sigra report refers to the two principal horizontal stresses as
the ‘major’ and ‘minor’ principal effective stresses, and to the third (vertical) principal stress as ‘Sigmav’. The
SCT report on the other hand uses the more usual terms of Sigma1, Sigma2 and Sigma3 for the major,
intermediate and minor principal stresses, and provides a dip and bearing for each.
For the purpose of the current assessment, the principal field stresses are assumed to be vertical and
horizontal and are defined as:
 Sigmav = Vertical stress
 SigmaH = The major principal horizontal stress
 Sigmah = The minor principal horizontal stress
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 3
SHAFT STABILITY
Also listed in Tables 5a and 5b are the ratios of SigmaH/Depth, Sigmah/SigmaH, and SigmaH/Sigmav
corresponding to each stress measurement.
Table 5a: Sigra (2000) Overcoring Stress Measurements and Derivatives

Sigra (2000) Results Derivatives
K Sigmav Ratio
Above Ratio
Overcore Depth SigmaH Sigmah Ratio SigmaH
BH / Below SigmaH/ (z * 0.023)
No. (m) (MPa) (MPa) Sigmah/ /
Seam Depth (MPa)
SigmaH Sigmav
0074 174.39 Below 4.5 2.7 0.026 0.60 4.0 1.1

DDG077
0075 177.40 Below 5.4 2.7 0.030 0.50 4.1 1.3
0078 343.40 Above 23.9 10.2 0.070 0.43 7.9 3.0
0079 345.37 Above 3.5 2.6 0.010 0.74 7.9 0.4
DDG084
0080 360.00 Below 7.4 5.5 0.021 0.74 8.3 0.9
0081 360.91 Below 17.6 12.8 0.049 0.73 8.3 2.1
Average: 0.034 0.623 NA 1.5
Average Excl. Overcore 0078: 0.027 0.663 NA 1.2
Table 5b: SCT (2015) Overcoring Stress Measurements and Derivatives

SCT (2015) Results Derivatives
k
Above Ratio Ratio
Overcore Depth Sigma1 Sigma2 Sigma3 Ratio
BH / Below Sigma1/De Sigma1/
No. (m) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Sigma2/
Seam pth Sigma3
Sigma1
GR01 342.80 above 19 12 6.2 0.055 0.63 3.1

DDG218
GR02 354.46 above 7.7 6.4 4.0 0.021 0.83 1.92
Of the two SCT results, we consider GR01 to be the more representative of the far-field stresses because
the orientations of the principal stresses indicated by this test are closer to vertical and horizontal than those
indicated by GR02.
6.0 INDUCED HOOP ELASTIC STRESS AROUND SHAFT PERIMETER

The hoop elastic stresses acting around the shaft perimeter in the horizontal plane are estimated from the
Kirsch equations (Brady & Brown 2004). If Sigmah = k * SigmaH, then the maximum hoop compressive
stress on the shaft perimeter is:
 SigmaAA = SigmaH(3-k)
Similarly, the minimum horizontal compressive hoop stress is given by:
 SigmaBB = SigmaH(3k-1)
Where k ≤ 1 is the ratio of Sigmah/SigmaH.

Table 6 presents the calculated maximum and minimum compressive hoop stresses for three different k
values, including k = 1, k = 0.63 (based on SCT overcore GR01) and k = 0.5.
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 4
SHAFT STABILITY
Based on our review of the stress measurement reports, we have adopted k = 0.63 as the basis of our
assessment. The results for k = 1 and k = 0.5 are provided for comparison only.
Table 6: Maximum and Minimum Compressive Hoop Stresses for a Range of k Values
Mean SigmaAA SigmaBB

Depth (MPa) (MPa)
Sigma1/ Sigma1
(m)
Depth
K=1 K = 0.63* K = 0.5 K=1 K = 0.63* K = 0.5

100 0.034 3.4 6.8 8.1 8.5 6.8 3.0 1.7
200 0.034 6.8 13.6 16.1 17.0 13.6 6.1 3.4
300 0.034 10.2 20.4 24.2 25.5 20.4 9.1 5.1
400 0.034 13.6 27.2 32.2 34.0 27.2 12.1 6.8
* k = 0.63 from SCT overcore GR01
7.0 ROCK STRENGTH

7.1 UCS and Correlation with Point Load Index
UCS test results from boreholes SHAFT2, DDG184, DDG188, DDG213, DDG214, DDG217 and DDG220
(Shafts 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 10 and 8) have been critically reviewed to identify valid and invalid tests. The valid
UCS test results have been compared to the results of point load index (Is(50)) tests in the immediate vicinity
of the respective UCS samples. The ratio of UCS/ Is(50) has been assessed on this basis.
The results of the review of the UCS data on sandstone, siltstone and tuff are summarised in Tables 7 to 9
below.
In determining the average values for the UCS/PLI ratio, some outliers (highlighted in red text in the tables)
which, in our opinion, lie outside the realistic limits of the UCS/ Is(50) correlation factor, have been excluded.
The reason for the anomalous values is most likely to be that the corresponding Is(50) tests have
underestimated the rock strength due to the influence of pre-existing planes of weakness (e.g. bedding
planes) in the samples tested.
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 5
SHAFT STABILITY
Table 7: Valid Sandstone UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50)

From To Field UCS/Is(50)
Is(50) UCS Failure
Shaft Borehole Depth Depth Lithology Strength for Valid
(MPa) (MPa) Mode*
(m) (m) Estimate UCS Test
2 SHAFT2 131.68 132.00 Sandstone M-H 0.5 47.9 DS 96

2 SHAFT2 155.68 156.00 Sandstone M-H 0.9 12.6 AS 14
6 DDG184 62.80 63.00 Sandstone M 0.98 8.5 DS 9
6 DDG184 184.51 184.73 Sandstone H-VH 2.03 28.1 AS 14
5 DDG188 162.65 163.02 Sandstone H-VH - 29.2 AS
7 DDG213 155.45 155.74 Sandstone H 3.9 48.0 DS 12
11 DDG214 61.28 61.56 Sandstone VH 5.23 35.8 AS 7
10 DDG217 96.00 96.35 Sandstone H 0.9 10.4 AS 12
10 DDG217 337.48 338.24 Sandstone H 1.11 39.1 CP 35
8 DDG220 27.84 28.12 Sandstone M-H 1.4 19.0 DS 14
8 DDG220 263.93 264.31 Sandstone H-VH 1.9 32.1 DS 17
Average Excluding Outliers: 34 14
* Failure modes: DS = diagonal shear, AS = axial splitting
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 6
SHAFT STABILITY
Table 8: Valid Siltstone UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50)

Field UCS/Is(50)
Is(50) UCS Failure
Shaft Borehole From To Lithology Strength for Valid
(MPa) (MPa) Mode*
Estimate UCS Test
6 DDG184 70.97 71.13 Siltstone M 0.4 8.9 AS 22

6 DDG184 119.00 119.24 Siltstone H 1.23 15.1 AS 12
5 DDG188 148.15 148.45 Siltstone H-VH - 73.9 DS -
7 DDG213 75.21 75.46 Siltstone M-H 1 20.7 AS 21
7 DDG213 230.75 231.02 Siltstone M-H 1.9 22.7 AS 12
7 DDG213 245.00 245.34 Siltstone M-H 0.9 19.4 AS 22
11 DDG214 315.38 315.68 Siltstone M-H 2 47.1 DS 24
Siltstone/
11 DDG214 369.19 369.55 M-H 1.2 35.7 CP 30
sandstone
11 DDG214 400.13 400.45 Siltstone M-H 1 36.7 DS 37
Siltstone /
10 DDG217 376.02 376.37 H-VH 2.55 38.9 AS 15
sandstone
Average Excluding Outliers: 33 18
Table 9: Valid Tuff UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50)

Field UCS/Is(50)
Is(50) UCS Failure
Shaft Borehole From To Lithology Strength for Valid
(MPa) (MPa) Mode*
Estimate UCS Test
Tuffaceous
10 DDG217 178.92 179.28 H 1.87 28.4 DS 15
Breccia
8 DDG220 114.27 114.63 Tuff M-H 1.2 14.3 AS 12
Average: 21 14
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 7
SHAFT STABILITY
7.2 Point Load Index

A review of the combined point load index data and valid UCS test results from boreholes DDG213,
DDG214, DDG217 and DDG220 has been undertaken.
The point data were subdivided by lithology and Inferred Strength (i.e. field estimated strength) logged at the
corresponding location, and then plotted on scatter plots of Is(50) vs depth to assess any overall trends in
strength variation based on Is(50). The point load data were then converted to the equivalent UCS strength by
multiplying the Is(50) the corresponding correlation factors presented in the tables above and then plotted on
UCS vs depth charts together with the results of the valid UCS tests. The charts of Is(50) vs depth and UCS
vs depth are presented in Appendix A and discussed below.
Figure 1 presents the UCS vs depth charts for sandstone and siltstone of all strength classes, and shows our
interpretation of the average UCS and calculated maximum hoop stress expected to be developed in the
shaft walls. The following observations are made based on the charts presented in Appendix A and
Figure 1:
 There is a large degree of scatter in the point load results for all lithologies.
 The results of diametral point load tests are often noticeably lower than the corresponding axial tests.
This is likely to be related to the presence of sub-horizontal bedding plane throughout the Permian coal
measures, creating pre-existing planes of weakness and strength anisotropy in the rock.
 The results of the valid UCS tests are generally at the upper end of (or higher than) the typical range of
UCS inferred from Is(50). A few of the UCS test results are well above the range.
 Maximum compressive hoop stress ranges from approximately 30% to 85% of the inferred average
UCS at the corresponding depth, with this proportion increasing with depth. The separation between
maximum hoop stress and average UCS is smaller for siltstone than for sandstone for a given depth.
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 8
SHAFT STABILITY
Figure 1: Summary of rock strength data and inferred average UCS and maximum hoop elastic stress in shaft walls.
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 9
SHAFT STABILITY
7.3 Comments on the Influence of the Intermediate Principal Stress

on Compressive Strength of Intact Rock
When there is no applied internal pressure on the wall of the shaft (such as in an unsupported raise bored
shaft), and for cases in which the ratio of the maximum and minimum in situ horizontal stresses is less than
three (i.e. SigmaH < 3), the rock around the periphery of the shaft is in a state of biaxial compression. The
principal compressive stresses in the shaft wall are the vertical stress and the tangential or hoop stress
(which of these is the major and the intermediate induced principal stress will depend on their relative
magnitudes), with the minor principal stress being zero normal to the wall of the shaft.
If, on the other hand, there is an internal pressure applied by drilling mud or by installed support (e.g.,
shotcrete), then the rock on the periphery of the shaft will be in a state of true triaxial compression with an
attendant increase in compressive strength.
In engineering rock mechanics, it is generally assumed that the influence of the intermediate principal stress,
σ2, may be ignored when assessing the compressive strengths of rocks and rock masses (e.g., Brady &
Brown 2004). In this case, the compressive strength is assessed assuming that σ2 is equal to the minor
principal stress, σ3, as in the standard triaxial test. However, there is a growing body of evidence and
argument to suggest that this approach is conservative and under-estimates the compressive strength of the
rock or rock mass when the results of true triaxial tests in which σ2 > σ3 are taken into account (e.g.,
Colmenares & Zoback 2002, Haimson & Rudnicki 2010, Mogi 2007). Brady & Brown (2004) have argued
that the results obtained using some of the so-called true triaxial test methods should be regarded with some
scepticism because of the influence of end effects and the non-uniform stress distributions induced in the
test samples.
Of the many attempts to investigate the influence of the intermediate principal stress on intact rock strength,
the tests carried out by Brown (1974) using “brush platens” to avoid the usual end effects, gave the least
increase in compressive strength of 15-20% with σ1 ≥ σ2 > σ3 = 0. It would seem reasonable, therefore, to
assume such an increase when estimating the strength of rock under biaxial compression as on the internal
wall of a vertical shaft.
7.4 Risk of Stress-Induced Spalling

In the sections of the proposed shafts where the ratio of maximum compressive hoop stress to UCS (i.e.
SigmaAA/UCS) is greatest (particularly in the deeper sections of the shafts), there is a risk that stress-induced
spalling could occur in the shaft walls. However due to the effects of triaxial confinement increasing with
distance away from the shaft walls, any spalling that occurs is expected to be limited to close to the
periphery of the shaft (i.e. deep seated spalling is not expected to occur).
8.0 QR EMPIRICAL STABILITY ASSESSMENTS

The performance of raise-bored shafts in mines can be assessed based on an empirical stability approach
using a modified version of the Q system for rock mass classification, Qr, after McCracken and Stacey
(1989).
Qr = x Wall Adjustment Factor x Orientation Adjustment Factor x Weathering Adjustment Factor
The original Q system was developed by Barton et. al. (1974). Grimstad and Barton (1993) presented
updates to the Stress Reduction Factor (SRF) term of the Q system, wherein the maximum SRF value was
increased from 20 to 400 for extreme cases of high stress in hard massive rock.
Peck (2000) proposed an alternative system for calculation of SRF in highly stressed Australian competent
rock masses, using the following exponential equation:
1)
SRF = 34(SigmaC / Sigma1)-1.2
For strongly anisotropic virgin stress fields, Peck (2000) proposed the following equation:
2)
SRF = 31(Sigma1 / Sigma3)0.3 (SigmaC / Sigma1)-1.2
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 10
SHAFT STABILITY
where:
 Sigma1 and Sigma3 are the major and minor principal stresses respectively; and
 SigmaC is the Unconfined Compressive Strength of the rock.

The rock mass conditions encountered in borehole DDG213, DDG214 and DDG217 have previously been
assessed by Golder by calculating Qr values, using the method proposed by McCracken and Stacey
(1989). The previous assessments were based on the Barton (1974) system for determining Q values. For
DDG217, a separate assessment was also undertaken using the Peck (2000) approach to determine SRF.
However it was identified at that time that a more thorough understanding of the key input parameters, UCS
and in situ stress, was required, which led to the current review.
Based on the results of our review of rock strength and in situ stress, we have re-assessed the Qr values for
the four shaft investigation boreholes (DDG213, 214, 217 and 220). The result are presented in Appendix B
and discussed below.
The assessed Qr values tabulated in Appendix B have been colour coded according to the following legend:
0.0001 to 1 RED
1 – 10 ORANGE
10 – 100 YELLOW
100 – 1000 BLUE
Where the application of the Qr calculation method is not considered to be applicable, a notation NA (Not
Applicable) is inserted for the respective sections. Since theses ‘NA’ zones always correspond to less
favourable ground conditions including soil or extremely weathered rock (or in one case, extensive core
loss), the red colour coding has been assigned to these zones. The Qr calculation was not undertaken for
materials with soil like properties.
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 11
SHAFT STABILITY
8.1 Shaft stand-up conditions

McCracken and Stacey used the concept of Excavation Support Ratio (ESR) to develop a relationship
between raise bore Rock Quality Qr and the maximum stable raise bore diameter (see Figure 2 below).
Figure 2: Qr vs. raise bore diameter and stability (after McCracken and Stacey, 1989)
8.1.1 Soil and Extremely Weathered Rock

The near-surface soil and extremely weathered rock encountered in the boreholes are not expected to
reliably stand unsupported, even temporarily, over spans of more than a few metres. For this reason, raise
boring of this section of the shaft is not recommended.
It is expected that this section of the shaft will need to be excavated using a top-down approach, with support
being provided either by drilling mud in the case of blind boring, lift-by-lift shotcrete in the case of open hole
bucket drilling, or some combination of the two.
8.1.2 Permian Coal Measures

According to Figure 2, the proposed shaft diameter of 2 m requires a minimum Qr value of 0.5 in order for
unsupported shaft walls to remain stable. The Qr assessments for the four boreholes indicate that the
majority of the shaft will be excavated in material with Qr greater than 0.5, with the red zones being restricted
predominantly to coal seams and coal-rich overburden / interburden strata.
If raise boring is adopted for excavation of the shaft, the stability of red zones and NA zones may be of
concern in the longer term (i.e. during operation of the shafts) and will therefore need to be supported by a
shotcrete lining or other type of structural lining.
If blind boring under mud is adopted and provided the mud properties are maintained in accordance with the
recommended design (under the full mud head pressure the shaft walls in the red zones may be able to be
adequately supported by the mud.
Long-term exposure of some of the Permian strata, particularly the clay-rich rock types, could lead to slaking
and degradation of the shaft walls. This could potentially lead to unacceptable levels of instability of some
sections of the shaft walls. The results of slake durability index (SDI) testing undertaken as part of the shaft
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 12
SHAFT STABILITY
borehole investigations (presented in the factual reports) will need to be considered in assessing
requirements for lining of areas of high slaking potential.
8.1.3 Kinematic Assessment

The defect orientation data obtained from the acoustic televiewer logging (as presented in the factual
reports) indicates that sub-horizontal bedding partings and sub-vertical joints are the dominant defect types.
However, there is also a smaller number of inclined defects with intermediate dips and a wide range of dip
directions.
The presence of inclined defects in the rock mass creates a potential for the formation of planar and wedge
failures in the shaft walls.
For planar failure of the shaft walls to occur there would need to be at least two intersecting joints providing
lateral release and at least one more joint or bedding partings above the block to provide top release. This
scenario is considered unlikely in such a small diameter shaft. Formation of wedge failures by the
intersection of three or more inclined defects is a more realistic scenario.
There is also a potential for block toppling failure to occur in the shaft walls, controlled by two or more sub-
vertical joint sets in combination with shallow dipping bedding.
Any kinematic block failures (i.e. planar, wedge and toppling) are expected to be small in volume and
frequency in most sections of the shaft, due to the generally wide spacing of defects, combined with the
small diameter of the shaft (i.e. 2 m). For the same reasons, substantial ravelling of such failure areas is not
expected to occur in the vast majority of cases.
The highest risk areas for significant kinematic failures and ravelling to occur are expected to be around coal
seams and in highly fractured and weathered zones (e.g. the red zones).
If the shaft is constructed by raise boring, any kinematically free blocks will be unsupported immediately from
the time they are exposed by the raise bore. There is therefore a risk that block failures could occur during
shaft construction by this method, before there is an opportunity to install any type of support (such as
shotcrete or a steel liner for example).
With the blind boring methodology on the other hand, the support pressure provided by the head of mud
would be expected to greatly reduce the incidence of block failures.
If blind boring is adopted, it would be prudent to provide particular vigilance during monitoring of mud
properties while boring through the red zones and coal seam zones.
9.0 MORANBAH NORTH RAISE BORING EXPERIENCE

We understand that AAMC have previously successfully completed a number of deep (300 m to 350 m)
1.8 m diameter raise bored shafts at the nearby Moranbah North mine. As part of the current review, we
have recommended to review the available data from the investigation, design and construction of those
shafts in order to ‘calibrate’ our assessment against the previous practical experience. However AAMC have
advised that that information is not available due to reasons of confidentiality.
We consider that the Moranbah North experience is of particular relevance and importance to the design and
construction of the proposed new Grosvenor shafts and recommend that it should be reviewed and
compared to the current assessment. This is of particular importance if raise boring is adopted for the mid
panel shafts, as all recent experience at Grosvenor has been with blind boring.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the above, we consider that:
 The experience and knowledge gained from the construction of deep raise bored shafts at the nearby
Moranbah North mine should be utilised to the maximum extent possible. The available data from the
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 13
SHAFT STABILITY
investigation, design and construction of those shafts should be thoroughly reviewed and compared to
the proposed Grosvenor shafts to ‘calibrate’ the current assessment against the previous experience.
 Construction of the shafts through the near-surface soil and weathered rock zones should adopt a top-
down methodology which provides progressive (e.g. lift-by-lift shotcrete) or continuous (e.g. blind boring
under mud) support of the shaft walls. Further assessment and analyses are required to assess which
approach should be adopted.
 Individual assessments of each shaft will need to be undertaken as part of the design process to
determine the requirements for lining or support of the shaft walls.
 Long term exposure of some of the Permian strata, particularly the tuffaceous and clay-rich rock types
and coal seam zones, could lead to slaking and degradation of the shaft walls, which could in turn lead
to unacceptable levels of localised instability.
 In most sections of the shaft within the fresh Permian coal measures, any kinematic block failures (i.e.
planar, wedge and toppling) are expected to be small in volume and frequency. The highest risk areas
for significant kinematic failures and ravelling to occur are expected to be around coal seams and in
highly fractured and weathered zones.
 Our assessment and recommendations are based on the advised estimated lifespans for the shafts
(ranging from 14 to 28.5 months).
11.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION

Your attention is drawn to the document - Important Information Relating to This Report (LEG 04 RL2) which
is included in Appendix C of this report. The statements presented in this document are intended to advise
you of what your realistic expectations of this report should be, and to present you with recommendations on
how to minimise the risks associated with the ground works for this project. The document is not intended to
reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Golder Associates, but rather to ensure that all parties who
may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in so doing.
We would be pleased to answer any questions about this report.
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0 14
SHAFT STABILITY
Report Signature Page
GOLDER ASSOCIATES PTY LTD
Peter Booth David Starr

Senior Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer
PWB/DCS/pwb
A.B.N. 64 006 107 857
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation.
\\golder.gds\gap\brisbane\jobs\geo\2015\1533246-aamc-geotech investigation-grosvenor\correspondence out\1533246-017-rev0-review_of_rock_strength_and_in_situ_stress.docx
17 December, 2015
Report No. 1533246-017-Rev0
SHAFT STABILITY
References
Barton, N, Lein, R & Lunde, J, 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for design of tunnel support.
Rock Mechanics, 6(4): 189-236.
Brady, B H G & Brown, E T, 2004. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, 3rd edition, 628 p. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
Brown, E T, 1974. Fracture of rock under uniform biaxial compression. Advances in Rock Mechanics,
Proceedings, 3rd Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics, Denver, 1-7 September, 2A:
111-117. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Colmenares, L B & Zoback, M D, 2002. A statistical evaluation of intact rock failure criteria constrained by
polyaxial test data for five different rocks. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining
Sciences, 39(6): 695-729.
Grimstad, E & Barton, N, 1993. Updating the Q-System for NMT. In R Kompen, O A Opsahl & K R Berg
(eds), Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sprayed Concrete – Modern Use of Wet Mix
Sprayed Concrete for Underground Support, Fagernes, 17-21 October, 46-66. Oslo: Norwegian
Concrete Association.
Haimson, B C & Rudnicki, J W, 2010. The effect of the intermediate principal stress on fault creation and
angle in siltstone. Journal of Structural Geology, 32(11): 1701-1711.
McCracken, A & Stacey, T R, 1989. Geotechnical risk assessment for large-diameter raise-bored shafts.
Proc Conf on Shaft Engineering, Harrogate, 5-7 June, 309-316. London: IMM. Also in Transactions,
Institution of Mining & Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Industry, 98(Sept-Oct): A145-150.
Mogi, K, 2007. Experimental Rock Mechanics, 361 p. London: Taylor & Francis.
Peck, W, 2000. Determining the Stress Reduction Factor in highly stressed jointed rock. Australian
Geomechanics, 35(2): 57-60.
17 December, 2015
SHAFT STABILITY
APPENDIX A
Rock Strength vs Depth Charts
17 December, 2015
Sandstone Point Load Index
Point Load Tests on Sandstone - All Tests Point Load Tests on Sandstone Point Load Tests on Sandstone Point Load Tests on Sandstone
(Boreholes DDG213, 214, 217 & 220) Field Estimated M Strength Field Estimate H Strength Field Estimate VH Strength
(Boreholes DDG213, 214, 217 & 220) (Boreholes DDG213, 214, 217 & 220) (Boreholes DDG213, 214, 217 & 220)
IS(50) IS(50) IS(50) IS(50)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00

Axial Test Axial Test Axial Test Axial Test
Diametrical Diametrical Diametrical Diametrical
50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00
150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00
175.00 175.00 175.00 175.00
200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00
250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00
275.00 275.00 275.00 275.00
300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00
325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00
350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00
375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00
400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00
425.00 425.00 425.00 425.00

Sandstone Inferred UCS from Point Load
Inferred UCS, Sandstone - All Tests Inferred UCS, Sandstone (M) Inferred UCS, Sandstone (H) Inferred UCS, Sandstone (VH)
Assumed UCS / PLI = 14 Assumed UCS / PLI = 14 Assumed UCS / PLI = 14 Assumed UCS / PLI = 14
(Boreholes DDG213, 214, 217 & 220) (Boreholes DDG213, 214, 217 & 220) (Boreholes DDG213, 214, 217 & 220) (Boreholes DDG213, 214, 217 & 220)
UCS (MPa) IS(50) IS(50) IS(50)
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00

Axial Test Axial Test Axial Test Axial Test
Diametrical Diametrical
Diametrical Diametrical
50.00 UCS Test Results (Valid Tests) 50.00 50.00 50.00
75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
125.00 125.00 125.00 125.00
150.00 150.00 150.00 150.00
175.00 175.00 175.00 175.00
Inferred Average
200.00
200.00 UCS for 200.00 200.00
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Sandstone
225.00 225.00 225.00 225.00
250.00 250.00 250.00 250.00
275.00 275.00 275.00 275.00
300.00 300.00 300.00 300.00
325.00 325.00 325.00 325.00
350.00 350.00 350.00 350.00
375.00 375.00 375.00 375.00
400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00
425.00 425.00 425.00 425.00

Siltstone Point Load Index
Point Load Tests For Siltsone Point Load Tests For Siltsone
Point Load Tests For Siltsone - All Tests Field Estimate M Strength Field Estimate H Strength
IS(50) IS(50) IS(50)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
0.00 0.00 0.00
Axial
25.00 25.00 25.00
Diametrical Axial
Axial Diametrical
50.00 Diametrical 50.00 50.00
75.00 75.00 75.00
100.00 100.00 100.00
125.00 125.00 125.00
150.00 150.00 150.00
175.00 175.00 175.00
200.00 200.00 200.00

Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
225.00 225.00 225.00
250.00 250.00
250.00
275.00 275.00
275.00
300.00 300.00
300.00
325.00 325.00
325.00
350.00 350.00
350.00
375.00 375.00
375.00
400.00 400.00
400.00
425.00 425.00
425.00
Siltstone Inferred UCS from Point Load
Inferred UCS, Siltsone, All Tests Inferred UCS, Siltsone (M) Inferred UCS, Siltsone (H)
Assumed UCS / PLI = 18 Assumed UCS / PLI = 18 Assumed UCS / PLI = 18
UCS (MPa) IS(50) IS(50)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.00 0.00 0.00
Axial
25.00 25.00 25.00
Diametrical Axial
Axial
Diametrical
50.00 Diametrical 50.00 50.00
75.00 75.00 75.00
100.00 100.00 100.00
125.00 125.00 125.00
150.00 150.00 150.00
175.00 175.00 175.00
Suggested design UCS

200.00 200.00 200.00
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
225.00 225.00 225.00
250.00 250.00 250.00
275.00 275.00 275.00
300.00 300.00 300.00
325.00 325.00 325.00
350.00 350.00 350.00
375.00 375.00 375.00
400.00 400.00 400.00
425.00 425.00 425.00

SHAFT STABILITY
APPENDIX B
Results of Revised Qr Rock Mass Classification Assessment
(after McCracken & Stacey, 1989)
17 December, 2015
DDG213
Q and Qr Interpretation, 15-Dec-2015 (with SRF calculated according to Peck 2000* and based on Stress-Strength review) Shaft Walls
Depth (m) Length Q Rating Parameters Q
Field Estimated
Material Estimated Assessed Sigma 1 SRF (Peck Wall Orientation Weathering Qr
Strength Sigma C (+Depth * Sigma C / 2004 Adjustment Adjustment Adjustment
From To (m) RQD Jn Jr Ja Jw (UCS) 0.034) Sigma1) formular) Factor Factor Factor
0.00 22.66 22.66 Topsoil, Sandy Clay, Clayey Sand na NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
22.66 24.25 1.59 EW - HW Siltstone & Sandstone EL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
24.25 27.80 3.55 HW Sandstone VL - L 100 9 1.2 2 0.66 2.0 0.88 2.26 12.78 0.34 2.50 0.85 0.75 0.55
27.80 28.81 1.01 HW Siltstone L 100 9 1.2 2 0.66 5.0 0.96 5.20 4.71 0.93 2.5 0.85 0.75 1.49
28.81 33.12 4.31 HW - MW Sandstone VL 95 6 1.5 2 0.66 2.0 1.05 1.90 15.74 0.50 2.50 0.85 0.75 0.79
33.12 34.55 1.43 MW Siltstone VL 80 6 1 6 0.5 2.0 1.15 1.74 17.51 0.06 2.50 0.85 0.75 0.10
34.55 36.23 1.68 MW Sandstone VL 100 6 1.2 2 0.66 2.0 1.20 1.66 18.48 0.36 2.5 0.85 0.75 0.57
36.23 37.17 0.94 HW Claystone & Siltstone VL 10 9 1 3 0.66 2.0 1.25 1.60 19.30 0.01 2.50 0.85 0.75 0.02
37.17 41.17 4.00 MW Coal & Tuff EL - VL 30 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
41.17 53.65 12.48 SW - FR Sandstone & Siltstone interbedsL - M 90 4 1.8 1 0.66 10.0 1.61 6.20 3.80 7.03 2.50 0.85 0.90 13.44
53.65 58.11 4.46 FR Siltstone M 100 4 2.5 1 0.66 20.0 1.90 10.53 2.02 20.45 2.50 1.00 0.90 46.01
58.11 60.80 2.69 FR Carbonaceous and Tuffaceous Siltstone M 90 4 1 2 0.66 20.0 2.02 9.89 2.17 3.42 2.50 1.00 0.90 7.69
60.80 63.03 2.23 FR Coal, Tuff & Siltstone L-M 90 6 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 2.11 2.38 12.04 1.23 2.50 0.75 0.90 2.08
63.03 63.47 0.44 FR Tuffaceous Clay EL - VL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
63.47 65.53 2.06 FR Siltstone M 90 6 1.5 3 0.66 20.0 2.19 9.12 2.40 2.07 2.50 0.85 0.90 3.95
65.53 70.60 5.07 FR Sandstone H 95 4 1.5 1 0.66 25.0 2.31 10.80 1.96 12.02 2.50 0.85 0.90 23.00
70.60 77.59 6.99 FR Siltstone, minor coal & sandstone M - H 90 9 1 2 0.66 20.0 2.52 7.94 2.83 1.17 2.50 0.75 0.90 1.97
77.59 93.30 15.71 FR Sandstone H 100 3 2 1 0.66 25.0 2.91 8.61 2.57 17.13 2.50 0.85 0.90 32.76
93.30 98.87 5.57 FR Carbonaceous Siltstone, Sandstone & M Coal
-H 95 3 2 1 0.66 20.0 3.27 6.12 3.87 10.81 2.50 0.85 0.90 20.68
98.87 102.28 3.41 FR Tuffaceous Siltstone , minor sandstoneH 100 3 3 1 0.66 25.0 3.42 7.31 3.12 21.13 2.50 0.85 0.90 40.40
102.28 117.81 15.53 FR Coal & Tuffaceous Siltstone M-H 95 4 2.5 1 0.66 8.0 3.74 2.14 13.66 2.87 2.50 0.85 0.90 5.49
117.81 125.18 7.37 FR Silty Sandstone M 100 6 3 1 0.66 24.0 4.13 5.81 4.12 8.02 2.50 0.85 0.90 15.33
125.18 146.71 21.53 FR Siltstone M 100 6 2.5 1 0.66 24.0 4.62 5.19 4.71 5.84 2.50 0.85 0.90 11.17
146.71 158.63 11.92 FR Sandstone H 100 3 1.5 1 0.66 45.0 5.19 8.67 2.55 12.96 2.50 0.85 0.90 24.79
158.63 170.05 11.42 FR Siltstone & Sandstone H 100 4 1 1 0.66 27.0 5.59 4.83 5.13 3.21 2.50 0.75 0.90 5.42
170.05 226.67 56.62 FR Coal & Tuff L-H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 6.74 0.74 48.69 0.32 2.50 0.75 0.90 0.54
226.67 246.84 20.17 Fr Siltstone M-H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 25.0 8.05 3.11 8.73 1.80 2.50 0.75 0.90 3.03
246.84 248.20 1.36 FR Coal L 95 6 1 1 0.66 5.0 8.42 0.59 63.51 0.16 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.31
248.20 263.95 15.75 FR Siltstone & Sandstone M - H 95 6 2 1 0.66 30.0 8.71 3.45 7.70 2.71 2.5 0.75 0.90 4.58
263.95 265.50 1.55 FR Coal L 50 9 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 9.00 0.56 68.84 0.08 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.15
265.50 267.81 2.31 FR Siltstone M-H 100 4 1.5 1 0.66 30.0 9.07 3.31 8.09 3.06 2.5 0.85 0.90 5.85
267.81 317.07 49.26 FR Sandstone H - VH 100 9 2 1 0.66 35.0 9.94 3.52 7.51 1.95 2.5 0.85 0.90 3.74
317.07 321.53 4.46 FR Coal VL - L 60 9 1 1 0.66 5.0 10.86 0.46 86.20 0.05 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.10
321.53 326.74 5.21 FR Siltstone & Sandstone M-H 85 4 1.5 1 0.66 30.0 11.02 2.72 10.22 2.06 2.5 0.85 0.90 3.94
326.74 336.04 9.30 FR Sandstone H 100 3 1.5 1 0.66 38.0 11.27 3.37 7.91 4.17 2.5 0.85 0.90 7.98
336.04 346.35 10.31 FR Siltstone & Mudstone M-H 90 9 1 1 0.66 30.0 11.60 2.59 10.87 0.61 2.5 0.85 0.90 1.16
357.08 371.54 14.46 FR Siltstone H - VH 100 4 0.8 1 0.66 40.0 12.39 3.23 8.33 1.58 2.5 0.85 0.90 3.03
371.54 378.41 6.87 FR Coal VL - M 60 9 0.5 1 0.66 5.0 12.75 0.39 104.54 0.02 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.04
378.41 383.90 5.49 FR Siltstone M-H 95 4 0.5 1 0.66 35.0 12.96 2.70 10.32 0.76 2.5 0.85 0.90 1.45
383.90 389.96 6.06 FR Siltstone & Sandstone H - VH 100 4 0.5 1 0.66 45.0 13.16 3.42 7.77 1.06 2.5 0.75 0.90 1.79
* Peck W A [2000]. Determining the stress reduction factor in highly stressed jointed rock. Austalian Geomechanics 35(2)
J:\Geo\2015\1533246-AAMC-Geotech Investigation-Grosvenor\Technical Doc\Analysis\2015-12-02_Stress_&_strength_review\RMC_re-assessment\Rock_Mass_Classification_-_DDG213_(Peck_2000_SRF_+_stress-strength_review).xlsx

DDG214
Field Estimated
0.00 11.10 11.10 Soil - Sandy Clay, Clayey Sand NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
11.10 14.80 3.70 Residual Soil / EW Sandstone, clayeyEL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
14.80 18.20 3.40 EW Sandstone, clayey EL - VL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
18.20 20.60 2.40 HW Sandstone VL - L 90 6 1.5 3 0.66 5.0 0.66 7.58 2.99 1.65 2.5 0.85 0.75 2.64
20.60 23.90 3.30 HW - MW Sandstone with siltstone clasts
L 95 6 2 3 0.66 7.0 0.76 9.25 2.35 2.96 2.5 0.85 0.75 4.72
23.90 32.88 8.98 MW - SW Sandstone M 95 9 1.2 1 0.66 18.0 0.97 18.65 1.02 8.23 2.5 0.85 0.75 13.12
32.88 41.12 8.24 FR Siltstone M 100 6 1.2 1 0.66 20.0 1.26 15.90 1.23 10.73 2.5 0.85 0.90 20.53
41.12 42.53 1.41 FR Coal & Tuff M 100 4 1.5 1 0.66 8.0 1.42 5.63 4.28 5.79 2.5 0.85 0.90 11.06
42.53 44.49 1.96 FR Coal & Tuff VL 65 9 1 1 0.66 3.0 1.48 2.03 14.56 0.33 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.22
44.49 46.49 2.00 FR Carbonaceous Siltstone M 60 4 1 1 0.66 18.0 1.55 11.64 1.79 5.54 2.5 0.75 0.90 9.34
46.49 47.41 0.92 FR Coal & Tuff M 50 3 1 1 0.66 8.0 1.60 5.01 4.91 2.24 2.5 0.85 0.90 4.28
47.41 48.63 1.22 FR Claystone & Silty Sandstone M 90 3 1.5 1 0.66 18.0 1.63 11.02 1.91 15.56 2.5 0.85 0.90 29.77
48.63 52.66 4.03 FR Siltstone M-H 95 4 1 1 0.66 20.0 1.72 11.61 1.79 8.74 2.5 0.75 0.90 14.76
52.66 76.89 24.23 FR Sandstone with siltstone clasts M - H 100 4 1.5 1 0.66 23.0 2.20 10.44 2.04 12.15 2.5 0.75 0.90 20.51
76.89 85.05 8.16 FR Siltstone M-H 95 4 1 1 0.66 23.0 2.75 8.35 2.66 5.89 2.5 0.75 0.90 9.94
85.05 98.59 13.54 FR Sandstone with siltstone bands H 100 4 2 1 0.66 25.0 3.12 8.01 2.80 11.78 2.5 0.85 0.90 22.54
98.59 104.40 5.81 FR Siltstone & sandstone H 90 9 2 1 0.66 25.0 3.45 7.24 3.16 4.18 2.5 0.85 0.90 7.99
104.40 113.03 8.63 FR Siltstone H 100 3 1 1 0.66 25.0 3.70 6.76 3.43 6.41 2.5 0.85 0.90 12.27
113.03 129.61 16.58 FR Coal & Tuff M-H 95 9 1 1 0.66 8.0 4.12 1.94 15.36 0.45 2.5 0.75 0.90 0.77
129.61 131.00 1.39 FR Sandstone, healed fault or dyke onM lower contact
100 4 1.5 1 0.66 24.0 4.43 5.42 4.48 5.53 2.5 0.85 0.90 10.57
131.00 137.21 6.21 FR Siltstone M-H 100 9 2 1 0.66 25.0 4.56 5.48 4.41 3.32 2.5 0.75 0.90 5.61
137.21 143.63 6.42 FR Sandstone to Conglomeratic Sandstone
M-H 100 6 1 1 0.66 30.0 4.77 6.28 3.75 2.94 2.5 0.85 0.90 5.62
143.63 155.20 11.57 FR Siltstone H 100 6 1 1 0.66 25.0 5.08 4.92 5.02 2.19 2.5 0.85 0.90 4.19
155.20 162.45 7.25 FR Sandstone to Conglomeratic Sandstone
H 100 4 1 1 0.66 30.0 5.40 5.56 4.34 3.80 2.5 0.85 0.90 7.27
169.86 180.43 10.57 FR Siltstone H 100 3 1.5 1 0.66 27.0 5.95 4.53 5.54 5.95 2.5 0.85 0.90 11.39
180.43 181.02 0.59 FR Coal & Tuff M 100 3 1 1 0.66 8.0 6.14 1.30 24.77 0.89 2.5 0.85 0.90 1.70
181.02 182.44 1.42 FR Sandstone & minor coal M-H 100 3 1 1 0.66 30.7 6.18 4.97 4.96 4.43 2.5 0.85 0.90 8.48
182.44 218.86 36.42 FR Coal & Tuff M 95 4 1 3 0.66 8.0 6.82 1.17 28.08 0.19 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.36
218.86 225.85 6.99 FR Coal & Tuff M 60 6 1 3 0.66 8.0 7.56 1.06 31.77 0.07 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.05
225.85 236.46 10.61 FR Siltstone H 95 4 1 1 0.66 30.0 7.86 3.82 6.81 2.30 2.5 0.85 0.90 4.40
236.46 251.72 15.26 FR Sandstone H 100 4 1.5 1 0.66 35.0 8.30 4.22 6.05 4.09 2.5 0.85 0.90 7.83
251.72 253.06 1.34 FR Siltstone H 50 4 1 1 0.66 25.0 8.58 2.91 9.42 0.88 2.5 0.85 0.90 1.67
253.06 255.65 2.59 FR Coal & Tuff M 60 9 1 1 0.66 8.0 8.65 0.93 37.33 0.12 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.23
255.65 280.25 24.60 FR Carbonaceous Siltstone & SiltstoneH 95 9 1 1 0.66 30.0 9.11 3.29 8.14 0.86 2.5 0.85 0.90 1.64
280.25 282.94 2.69 FR Coal & Tuff L 80 9 1 1 0.66 5.0 9.57 0.52 74.14 0.08 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.15
282.94 284.31 1.37 FR Siltstone M-H 100 3 0.8 1 0.66 30.0 9.64 3.11 8.71 2.02 2.5 0.85 0.90 3.86
284.31 289.12 4.81 FR Sandstone H 100 3 1 1 0.66 35.0 9.75 3.59 7.33 3.00 2.5 0.85 0.90 5.74
289.12 299.75 10.63 FR Siltstone & minor sandstone H 100 3 1 1 0.66 30.0 10.01 3.00 9.11 2.42 2.5 0.85 0.90 4.62
299.75 301.47 1.72 FR Coal & Tuff L 90 6 1 1 0.66 5.0 10.22 0.49 80.19 0.12 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.24
301.47 313.30 11.83 FR Siltstone & minor sandstone M - H 100 4 1 1 0.66 30.0 10.45 2.87 9.59 1.72 2.5 0.85 0.90 3.29
313.30 324.50 11.20 FR Sandstone & minor siltstone M - H 100 3 1.5 1 0.66 47.0 10.84 4.33 5.85 5.64 2.5 0.85 0.90 10.79
324.50 332.51 8.01 FR Siltstone M-H 95 6 1 1 0.66 35.0 11.17 3.13 8.63 1.21 2.5 0.85 0.90 2.31
332.51 334.06 1.55 FR Carbonaceous Mudstone M-H 90 6 0.5 1 0.66 20.0 11.33 1.76 17.19 0.29 2.5 0.75 0.90 0.49
334.06 339.23 5.17 FR Coal & Tuff L 100 12 1.2 1 0.66 5.0 11.45 0.44 91.85 0.07 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.14
339.23 342.89 3.66 FR Siltstone with minor sandstone &L mudstone
-H 95 3 1.5 1 0.66 7.0 11.60 0.60 62.31 0.50 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.96
342.89 359.64 16.75 FR Sandstone M-H 100 2 1.5 1 0.66 40.0 11.94 3.35 7.97 6.21 2.5 0.85 0.90 11.88
359.64 360.54 0.90 FR Siltstone & Mudstone M-H 85 4 1 1 0.66 30.0 12.24 2.45 11.60 1.21 2.5 0.85 0.90 2.31
360.54 360.88 0.34 FR Coal M-H 10 9 1.2 1 0.5 5.0 12.26 0.41 99.79 0.01 1.0 0.85 0.90 0.01
360.88 363.10 2.22 FR Siltstone & Mudstone M-H 85 6 1.5 1 0.66 36.0 12.31 2.93 9.38 1.50 2.5 0.85 0.90 2.86
363.10 370.50 7.40 FR Siltstone & Sandstone M-H 95 9 1 1 0.66 36.0 12.47 2.89 9.53 0.73 2.5 0.75 0.90 1.23
370.50 373.00 2.50 FR Siltstone & Mudstone L-M 45 6 2 1 0.66 10.0 12.64 0.79 45.04 0.22 2.5 0.75 0.90 0.37
373.00 392.16 19.16 FR Siltstone with minor sandstone M - H 95 6 2 1 0.66 30.0 13.01 2.31 12.47 1.68 2.5 0.85 0.90 3.20
392.16 394.03 1.87 FR Siltstone & Mudstone L 80 4 0.5 1 0.66 10.0 13.37 0.75 48.16 0.14 2.5 0.75 0.90 0.23
394.03 396.50 2.47 FR Coal L 20 9 1 1 0.5 5.0 13.44 0.37 111.37 0.01 1.0 0.85 0.90 0.01
396.50 399.40 2.90 FR Coal & tuff lenses L 80 9 1 1 0.66 5.0 13.53 0.37 112.28 0.05 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.10
399.40 400.13 0.73 FR Coal M-H 80 9 1 1 0.66 5.0 13.59 0.37 112.89 0.05 2.5 0.85 0.90 0.10
400.13 405.60 5.47 FR Siltstone with minor sandstone &M mudstone
-H 75 9 1 1 0.66 37.0 13.70 2.70 10.32 0.53 2.5 0.85 0.90 1.02
405.60 410.88 5.28 FR Sandstone M-H 95 4 1.5 1 0.66 43.0 13.88 3.10 8.75 2.69 2.5 0.85 0.90 5.14

DDG217
Field Estimated
0.00 12.77 12.77 Topsoil, Sandy Clay, Clayey Sand na NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
12.77 13.54 0.77 HW sandstone VL NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
13.54 18.30 4.76 HW basalt L 70 15 3 3 0.5 5.0 0.54 9.24 2.36 0.99 1.0 0.75 0.75 0.56
18.30 20.30 2.00 DW basalt L-M 90 12 3 2 0.66 8.0 0.66 12.19 1.69 4.39 2.5 0.75 0.90 7.41
20.30 22.60 2.30 DW basalt M 95 12 3 2 0.66 10.0 0.73 13.71 1.47 5.34 2.5 0.75 0.90 9.00
22.60 32.60 10.00 HW vessicular basalt L 95 12 3 2 0.66 5.0 0.94 5.33 4.57 1.72 2.5 0.75 0.90 2.90
32.60 38.60 6.00 HW basalt breccia VL-L 30 12 2 4 0.5 3.0 1.21 2.48 11.44 0.05 1.0 0.60 0.75 0.02
38.60 41.70 3.10 DW basalt L 10 12 2 3 0.5 5.0 1.37 3.66 7.16 0.04 1.0 0.75 0.75 0.02
41.70 42.65 0.95 HW, highly fractured basalt + core loss EL-L 60 15 2 4 0.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
42.65 44.50 1.85 DW basalt L 85 9 2 2 0.66 5.0 1.48 3.37 7.90 0.79 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.53
44.50 47.75 3.25 DW carbonaceous mudstone and claystone VL-L 90 9 1.5 2 0.66 2.0 1.57 1.28 25.39 0.19 1.0 0.75 0.75 0.11
47.75 52.96 5.21 SW-FR sandstone and siltstone L 100 9 1.5 1 0.66 10.0 1.71 5.84 4.09 2.69 2.5 0.75 0.75 3.78
52.96 64.40 11.44 FR Siltstone M 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 20.0 2.00 10.02 2.14 7.33 2.5 0.75 0.90 12.37
64.40 65.70 1.30 FR Carbonaceous siltstone L-M 80 6 1.5 1 0.66 10.0 2.21 4.52 5.56 2.37 2.5 0.75 0.90 4.01
65.70 67.19 1.49 FR tuff and tuffaceous siltstone M 90 6 1.5 1 0.66 20.0 2.26 8.85 2.48 5.98 2.5 0.75 0.90 10.09
67.19 67.75 0.56 FR coal L-M 90 9 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 2.29 2.18 13.35 0.74 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.50
67.75 68.74 0.99 FR tuffaceous siltstone L-M 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 15.0 2.32 6.46 3.62 4.33 2.5 0.75 0.90 7.31
68.74 70.77 2.03 FR Carbonaceous siltstone M-H 90 6 1.5 1 0.66 20.0 2.37 8.43 2.63 5.64 2.5 0.75 0.90 9.52
70.77 75.18 4.41 FR Siltstone and carbonaceous siltstone M-H 90 6 1.5 1 0.66 23.0 2.48 9.27 2.35 6.32 2.5 0.75 0.90 10.67
75.18 76.20 1.02 FR tuffaceous and carbonaceous siltstone L-H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 20.0 2.57 7.77 2.90 5.40 2.5 0.75 0.90 9.11
76.20 91.95 15.75 FR sandstone with interbedded siltstone H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 25.0 2.86 8.75 2.52 6.22 2.5 0.75 0.90 10.50
91.95 99.37 7.42 FR Siltstone with interbedded sandstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 24.0 3.25 7.38 3.09 5.34 2.5 0.75 0.90 9.01
99.37 99.99 0.62 FR Mudstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 24.0 3.39 7.08 3.25 5.08 2.5 0.75 0.90 8.58
99.99 100.54 0.55 FR Coal L-M 100 9 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 3.41 1.47 21.47 0.51 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.35
100.54 103.79 3.25 FR Sandstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 26.0 3.47 7.49 3.04 5.43 2.5 0.75 0.90 9.17
103.79 118.53 14.74 FR interbedded coal, carb. siltstone and tuffaceous siltstone L-H 95 9 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 3.78 1.32 24.30 0.43 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.29
118.53 125.62 7.09 FR Tuffaceous Siltstone H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 28.0 4.15 6.75 3.44 4.56 2.5 0.75 0.90 7.69
125.62 145.85 20.23 FR Siltstone M-H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 25.0 4.61 5.42 4.48 3.50 2.5 0.75 0.90 5.91
145.85 176.77 30.92 FR Sandstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 28.0 5.48 5.11 4.81 3.43 2.5 0.75 0.90 5.79
176.77 178.13 1.36 FR Siltstone H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 28.0 6.03 4.64 5.39 2.91 2.5 0.75 0.90 4.91
178.13 178.76 0.63 FR Silty Coal L-M 50 9 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 6.07 0.82 42.88 0.13 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.09
178.76 179.74 0.98 FR Tuffaceous Breccia H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 30.0 6.09 4.92 5.02 3.29 2.5 0.75 0.90 5.54
179.74 202.98 23.24 FR Interbedded coal and tuffaceous siltstone L-H 90 9 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 6.51 0.77 46.63 0.21 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.14
202.98 206.22 3.24 FR Tuffeceous siltstone M-H 95 9 1.5 1 0.66 20.0 6.96 2.88 9.57 1.09 2.5 0.75 0.90 1.84
206.22 219.40 13.18 FR Interbedded coal and tuffaceous siltstone M-H 95 9 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 7.24 0.69 52.98 0.20 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.13
219.40 230.19 10.79 FR Coal and silty coal with interbedded tuffaceous siltstone L-H 90 9 1.5 2 0.66 5.0 7.64 0.65 56.58 0.09 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.06
230.19 231.40 1.21 FR Tuffaceous siltstone H-VH 90 6 1.5 1 0.66 30.1 7.85 3.84 6.77 2.19 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.70
231.40 233.50 2.10 FR Siltstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 30.0 7.90 3.80 6.86 2.41 2.5 0.75 0.90 4.06
233.50 234.90 1.40 FR Siltstone H 90 9 1.5 3 0.66 30.0 7.96 3.77 6.92 0.48 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.32
234.90 256.22 21.32 FR Siltstone H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 25.0 8.35 2.99 9.12 1.72 2.5 0.75 0.90 2.90
256.22 258.43 2.21 FR Coal L-M 80 12 1.5 3 0.66 5.0 8.75 0.57 66.54 0.03 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.02
258.43 259.48 1.05 FR Carbonaceous siltstone H 80 9 1.5 1 0.66 30.0 8.80 3.41 7.81 1.13 2.5 0.75 0.90 1.90
259.48 262.75 3.27 FR Siltstone H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 30.0 8.88 3.38 7.89 1.99 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.35
262.75 267.50 4.75 FR Sandstone H-VH 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 40.0 9.01 4.44 5.69 2.90 2.5 0.75 0.90 4.90
267.50 273.45 5.95 FR Siltstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 30.0 9.20 3.26 8.23 2.01 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.38
273.45 275.69 2.24 FR Carbonaceous siltstone and Coal L-M 50 9 1.5 1 0.66 10.0 9.34 1.07 31.31 0.18 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.12
275.69 277.93 2.24 FR Siltstone M-H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 30.0 9.41 3.19 8.46 1.95 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.29
277.93 323.66 45.73 FR Sandstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 38.0 10.23 3.72 7.04 2.34 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.96
323.66 328.88 5.22 FR Coal with interbedded carbonaceous and tuffaceous siltstone L 70 9 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 11.09 0.45 88.47 0.09 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.06
328.88 332.50 3.62 FR Siltstone M-H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 35.0 11.24 3.11 8.70 1.90 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.20
332.50 343.47 10.97 FR Sandstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 40.0 11.49 3.48 7.61 2.17 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.66
343.47 344.74 1.27 FR Carbonaceous siltstone with coal band M-H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 35.0 11.70 2.99 9.13 1.81 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.05
344.74 346.25 1.51 FR Tuffeceous siltstone and sandstone M-H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 35.0 11.75 2.98 9.17 1.80 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.04
346.25 355.73 9.48 FR Siltstone and Sandstone H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 35.0 11.93 2.93 9.35 1.77 2.5 0.75 0.90 2.98
355.73 362.02 6.29 FR Sandstone H-VH 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 40.0 12.20 3.28 8.18 2.02 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.40
362.02 383.07 21.05 FR Interlaminated siltstone and sandstone H-VH 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 40.0 12.67 3.16 8.55 1.93 2.5 0.75 0.90 3.25
383.07 385.04 1.97 FR Siltstone / Mudstone M-H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 35.0 13.06 2.68 10.41 1.51 2.5 0.75 0.90 2.54
385.04 392.26 7.22 FR Coal with interbedded carbonaceous mudstone and tuff VL-M 50 12 1.5 1 0.66 5.0 13.21 0.38 109.13 0.04 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.03
392.26 394.59 2.33 FR Siltstone and Sandstone M-H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 38.0 13.38 2.84 9.71 1.61 2.5 0.75 0.90 2.72
394.59 395.41 0.82 FR Carbonaceous Mudstone and Siltstone L-M 80 6 1.5 1 0.66 20.0 13.43 1.49 21.08 0.63 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.42
395.41 403.90 8.49 FR Siltstone and Sandstone M-H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 35.0 13.59 2.58 10.92 1.51 2.5 0.75 0.90 2.55

DDG220
Q and Qr Interpretation, 15-Dec-2015, with SRF calculated according to Peck 2000* and considering Stress-Strength review results) Shaft Walls
Field Estimated
0.00 8.01 8.01 Soil NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
8.01 10.00 1.99 SANDSTONE - EW & HW VL-L 50 12 1.5 3 0.66 5 0.31 16.33 1.19 1.15 1.0 0.75 0.50 0.433
10.00 12.28 2.28 SANDSTONE - HW M 80 12 1.5 3 0.66 10 0.38 26.40 0.67 3.29 1.0 0.75 0.75 1.849
12.28 19.08 6.80 SANDSTONE - HW-MW M 100 12 1.5 2 0.66 15 0.53 28.14 0.62 6.65 1.0 0.75 0.75 3.743
19.08 21.71 2.63 SANDSTONE - MW-SW M-H 100 9 1.5 2 0.66 20 0.69 28.84 0.60 9.14 1.0 0.75 0.90 6.169
21.71 33.83 12.12 SANDSTONE - SW-FR M-H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 20 0.94 21.18 0.87 18.93 1.0 0.75 0.90 12.778
33.83 40.40 6.57 COAL / TUFF - SILTSTONE, FR L-M 80 9 1.5 1 0.66 7 1.26 5.55 4.35 2.02 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.365
40.40 42.67 2.27 SANDSTONE - FR M-H 90 6 1.5 1 0.66 22 1.41 15.58 1.26 11.78 1.0 0.75 0.90 7.954
42.67 43.34 0.67 COAL / TUFF - FR M-H 50 9 1.5 1 0.66 5 1.46 3.42 7.78 0.71 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.477
43.34 66.40 23.06 SANDSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 25 1.87 13.40 1.51 10.93 1.0 0.75 0.90 7.377
66.40 72.44 6.04 SANDSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 25 2.36 10.59 2.00 8.24 1.0 0.75 0.90 5.563
72.44 81.60 9.16 SILTSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 25 2.62 9.55 2.27 7.28 1.0 0.75 0.90 4.911
81.60 102.67 21.07 SANDSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 25 3.13 7.98 2.81 5.87 1.0 0.75 0.90 3.961
102.67 105.40 2.73 SILTSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 25 3.54 7.07 3.25 5.07 1.0 0.75 0.90 3.423
105.40 121.34 15.94 COAL / TUFF - FR M-H 90 9 1.5 1 0.66 15 3.85 3.89 6.66 1.49 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.004
121.34 136.40 15.06 SANDSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 30 4.38 6.85 3.38 4.88 1.0 0.75 0.90 3.295
136.40 143.64 7.24 SILTSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 25 4.76 5.25 4.65 3.55 1.0 0.75 0.90 2.397
143.64 170.57 26.93 SANDSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 30 5.34 5.62 4.29 3.85 1.0 0.75 0.90 2.598
170.57 203.70 33.13 COAL / TUFF - FR M-H 90 9 1.5 1 0.66 15 6.36 2.36 12.15 0.81 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.550
203.70 215.54 11.84 COAL / TUFF - FR M-H 90 9 1.5 1 0.66 15 7.13 2.10 13.92 0.71 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.480
215.54 217.43 1.89 SILTSTONE - FR H 90 6 1.5 1 0.66 30 7.36 4.08 6.30 2.36 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.592
217.43 243.38 25.95 SANDSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 35 7.83 4.47 5.64 2.92 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.974
243.38 245.30 1.92 SILTSTONE - FR M-H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 30 8.31 3.61 7.28 2.27 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.529
245.30 248.54 3.24 COAL - FR (QA Seam) L-M 60 9 1 3 0.66 5 8.40 0.60 63.32 0.02 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.016
248.54 250.95 2.41 SILTSTONE - FR M 85 6 1.5 1 0.66 30 8.49 3.53 7.48 1.88 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.266
250.95 261.68 10.73 SILTSTONE - FR M-H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 30 8.71 3.44 7.71 2.03 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.372
261.68 273.72 12.04 SANDSTONE - FR H-VH 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 35 9.10 3.85 6.75 2.32 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.567
273.72 276.80 3.08 COAL - FR (QB Seam) L-M 60 9 1.5 3 0.66 5 9.36 0.53 72.14 0.03 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.021
276.80 291.17 14.37 SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE - FR H-VH 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 35 9.66 3.62 7.25 2.16 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.459
291.17 292.22 1.05 CARB. SILTSTONE - FR M-H 70 6 1.5 1 0.66 30 9.92 3.02 9.01 1.28 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.865
292.22 293.61 1.39 COAL - FR (GU Seam) L 30 9 1 6 0.66 5 9.96 0.50 77.73 0.00 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.003
293.61 294.40 0.79 SILTSTONE - FR L 40 6 1.5 1 0.66 35 10.00 3.50 7.56 0.87 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.589
294.40 318.24 23.84 SILTSTONE / SANDSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 40 10.41 3.84 6.76 2.44 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.647
318.24 330.45 12.21 SILTSTONE - FR M-H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 35 11.03 3.17 8.50 1.94 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.310
330.45 335.67 5.22 COAL - FR (GR, PL1, PL2 Seams) L-M 60 9 1.5 3 0.66 5 11.32 0.44 90.68 0.02 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.016
341.68 349.38 7.70 SANDSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 40 11.75 3.40 7.82 2.11 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.425
349.38 354.87 5.49 SILTSTONE - FR H 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 35 11.97 2.92 9.38 1.76 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.187
354.87 355.24 0.37 COAL - FR M 40 9 1 3 0.66 5 12.07 0.41 97.91 0.01 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.007
355.24 357.14 1.90 TUFF - FR ('P Tuff') H 70 6 0.5 1 0.66 30 12.11 2.48 11.45 0.34 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.227
366.25 368.10 1.85 CARB. SILTSTONE - FR (GMR seam) M-H 50 9 1.5 2 0.66 24 12.48 1.92 15.52 0.18 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.120
368.10 381.47 13.37 SILTSTONE - FR H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 35 12.74 2.75 10.11 1.55 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.046
381.47 383.16 1.69 SILTSTONE - FR M-H 95 6 1.5 1 0.66 40 13.00 3.08 8.82 1.78 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.199
383.16 388.64 5.48 COAL - FR (GM Seam) L-M 80 9 1.5 4 0.66 5 13.12 0.38 108.21 0.02 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.014
388.64 393.35 4.71 SILTSTONE - FR M-H 80 6 1.5 1 0.66 38 13.29 2.86 9.64 1.37 1.0 0.75 0.90 0.924
393.35 396.42 3.07 SANDSTONE - FR H-VH 100 6 1.5 1 0.66 45 13.43 3.35 7.96 2.07 1.0 0.75 0.90 1.398

SHAFT STABILITY
APPENDIX C
Important Information
17 December, 2015
GAP Form No. LEG 04 RL 2
Golder Associates Pty Ltd
147 Coronation Drive
Milton, Queensland 4064
Australia
T: +61 7 3721 5400

2015 - Report - Grosvenor Mine Shafts 7 8 10 and 11 Review of Rock Strength

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2015 - Report - Grosvenor Mine Shafts 7 8 10 and 11 Review of Rock Strength

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2015 - Report - Grosvenor Mine Shafts 7 8 10 and 11 Review of Rock Strength

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17 December, 2015

GROSVENOR SHAFTS 7, 8, 10 & 11

Review of Rock Strength, In

Report Number. 1533246-017-Rev0

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................. 1

3.1 Geotechnical Investigations .......................................................................................................................... 1

3.2 Proposed New Shafts ................................................................................................................................... 2

4.0 EXISTING GROSVENOR SHAFTS AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA .......................................................................... 2

5.0 IN SITU STRESS ....................................................................................................................................................... 2

5.1 Estimation of Sigmav (Vertical Stress) .......................................................................................................... 3

6.0 INDUCED HOOP ELASTIC STRESS AROUND SHAFT PERIMETER .................................................................... 4

7.0 ROCK STRENGTH .................................................................................................................................................... 5

7.1 UCS and Correlation with Point Load Index ................................................................................................. 5

7.2 Point Load Index ........................................................................................................................................... 8

7.4 Risk of Stress-Induced Spalling .................................................................................................................. 10

8.0 QR EMPIRICAL STABILITY ASSESSMENTS ........................................................................................................ 10

8.1 Shaft stand-up conditions ........................................................................................................................... 12

8.1.1 Soil and Extremely Weathered Rock .................................................................................................... 12

8.1.2 Permian Coal Measures........................................................................................................................ 12

8.1.3 Kinematic Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 13

9.0 MORANBAH NORTH RAISE BORING EXPERIENCE ........................................................................................... 13

10.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

11.0 IMPORTANT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 14

Table 2: Details of Proposed New Ventilation Shafts .......................................................................................................... 2

Table 4: Sigmav ................................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 SCOPE OF REVIEW

3.0 PROPOSED SHAFT DEVELOPMENTS

3.1 Geotechnical Investigations

7 MG102-30c/t 1533246-012-R-Rev1, Factual Geotechnical Report, Grosvenor Ventilation Shaft 7 at

3.2 Proposed New Shafts

4.0 EXISTING GROSVENOR SHAFTS AND GEOTECHNICAL DATA

5.0 IN SITU STRESS

5.1 Estimation of Sigmav (Vertical Stress)

Depth = Z Sigmav = Z * 0.023

 Sigmav = Vertical stress

 SigmaH = The major principal horizontal stress

 Sigmah = The minor principal horizontal stress

Table 5a: Sigra (2000) Overcoring Stress Measurements and Derivatives

0074 174.39 Below 4.5 2.7 0.026 0.60 4.0 1.1

Average Excl. Overcore 0078: 0.027 0.663 NA 1.2

Table 5b: SCT (2015) Overcoring Stress Measurements and Derivatives

GR01 342.80 above 19 12 6.2 0.055 0.63 3.1

6.0 INDUCED HOOP ELASTIC STRESS AROUND SHAFT PERIMETER

Where k ≤ 1 is the ratio of Sigmah/SigmaH.

Mean SigmaAA SigmaBB

K=1 K = 0.63* K = 0.5 K=1 K = 0.63* K = 0.5

7.0 ROCK STRENGTH

Table 7: Valid Sandstone UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50)

2 SHAFT2 131.68 132.00 Sandstone M-H 0.5 47.9 DS 96

Table 8: Valid Siltstone UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50)

6 DDG184 70.97 71.13 Siltstone M 0.4 8.9 AS 22

Table 9: Valid Tuff UCS Tests and Correlation with Is(50)

7.2 Point Load Index

7.3 Comments on the Influence of the Intermediate Principal Stress

7.4 Risk of Stress-Induced Spalling

8.0 QR EMPIRICAL STABILITY ASSESSMENTS