Chapter 5.

Caving Operations Drift Support Design

FRANCISS. KENDORSKI

INTRODUCTION initial premining stabilization, or the reserve of strength

Drift design problems in caving operations are a re- is used up.
sult of the geologic factors contributing to the overall MINE PLANNING
success of the system, of the engineering factors dictated
The efficient mine planning engineer not only must
by economic and technical considerations, and of ore
production practices. satisfy the economic, human, and environmental aspects
of his task but must also consider the mechanical con-
these a underground sup- sequences of his plan. The problems created for the
port system of rock reinforcement, light steel channel mine by placing parallel drifts too close, by crossing
section or welded wire fabric, and shotcrete can be de-
drifts on different levels with inadequate, if any, separa-
signed based on rock fracturing. rock load, abutment tion, and by installing connections and crossovers in the
loadings, ground and desired haulage plan without regard for the effective spans ere-
flexibility. The design concept uses the effect achieved ated, are only a few of the problems a mine planning
by restraining, reinforcing, and maintaining some of the engineer can create for himself and the mine.
intrinsic strength of the fractured rock mass composed
The effect on immediately adjacent mine areas when
of interlocked blocks of intact rock and rock fractures.
Three different an area is caved is important to drift design because the
drift support design in removal of vertical support from a rock mass causes the
thetical mines using the caving system are given. weight of that rock mass to be shifted elsewhere. The
caving is a system of underground mining where ore
adjacent rock mass will carry this load and reach a new
is extracted means of gravity after the Ore is equilibrium with the applied stress. The advancing front
allowed to fail by removing from llnderneath. of stress increase that results from caving (and many
The rock mass Of the Ore body fractures and flows ver- other mining systems) is generally called the abutment
tically downward to let gravity do as much work as pose load and is the increase in stress over the gravity or tee-
sible. Caving differs from many other mining systems in tonic stress that already exists, as shown in Fig. In
that blasting is used only to initiate the rock mass failure general, the abutment load will be similar in nature to
removing the rock supporting the Ore but break the stress &ange found around an opening in rock and
the ore itself. The initial movement of the rock mass dur- will be taken as causing an increase in the vertical prin-
ing failure and the consequent crushing and grinding cipal stress, due to an approaching caving boundary, so
during the continued movement serve to reduce the ore that
to particles of a manageable size, with only limited sec-
ondary blasting necessary. The broken ore is extracted U" = uz + A U ~ (1
from the bottom of the failed rock mass through funnels where u, is maximum vertical stress existing at a point
of some sort pre-excavated in the rock. Ore extraction following excavation (FL-2); vz is original vertical
must continue or the swell of the broken rock will even-
tually fill the cavity and stop further rock mass failure
and movement. The excellent general discussion on
block caving in the SME Mining Engineering Handbook
(Julin and Tobie, 1973) adequately covers the principles
and application of this type of underground mining.
Many rock mechanics aspects of block caving have
been covered by others (McMahon and Kendrick, 1969;
Swaisgood, et al., 1972; Mahtab and Dixon, 1975; King,
1946) and will not be reviewed further.
Maintaining the stability of production drifts is one
of the most troublesome problems plaguing the mine
manager in a caving operation. Many factors contrib-
ute to drift support problems, and identifying the causes
of instability and producing a reasonable support design
are two steps toward achieving stability consistent with
the mine plan.
This chapter sets forth a technique for the design of
support systems for production drifts in caving opera-
tions. The basic support system elements employed are
rock reinforcement, welded wire fabric, and shotcrete.
Recognized as contributing to the design are the factors
Drift
1I Existing Stress

of rock load, additional load from mining activity, rock I Additional Stress
fracture characteristics, repair expected, and flexibility. 1 Due to Abutment Lood

It must be emphasized that the drift must first be t

stabilized as for a tunnel, and the additional strengthen-
ing for mining-induced loads cannot contribute to the Fig. 1. Abutment load.

1568
 ROCK REINFORCEMENT

stress ( F L - 2 ) ;and ACT, is change in a, resulting from Failure Surface

abutment load or excavation ( F L - = ) .
The abutment load will tend to increase the magni-
tudes of the vertical stress so that a new equilibrium will
result. Generally, the abutment load can result in a
doubling of the existing magnitude of the stress field.
If
Am, = a , , as assumed,
a, = 2az. (2)
If more than one caving boundary is nearby, as in
corners or peninsulas of caving boundaries, the stress
can build to high levels. Stresses will probably never
reach very high levels in the fractured rock masses
of caving ore bodies because the rock will fracture more, PERSISTENT FRACTURING
or the rock mass will loosen more, and will expand until
it fills the hole created by the drift. Excessive abutment Foilure Surface -,
loads should be avoided, since the alternative is un-
economical support design or lost production, or both.
PRODUCTION PRACTICES
The manner in which the ore extraction proceeds is
just as important as the geologic setting and the mine
plan for achieving a sucessful drift design. The undercut
blast is perhaps one of the greatest shock loads ever
transmitted to nonmilitary underground openings. How-
ever, if this blasting is done carefully, with due regard to
the advantages of proper timing of the components of
the blast, most problems can be avoided. A recent study
has shown that large - undercut blasts will not damaee -
shotcrete or concrete drift linings as long as millisecond NON-PERSISTENT FRACTURING
delays are properly used (Kendorski, et al., 1973; Fig. 2. Effect of nonpersistent frac-
Towner and Kendorski, 1974). Spreading out the shock turing on the strength of a restrained
waves over a long period of time avoids adding the peaks rock mass.
from the smaller blasts and lessens the occurrence of
blast-induced damage.
Evenness of draw is desirable to keep the loadings on will key together, and any failure will be forced to de-
drifts stable. When large differences in draw are allowed, velop at least partially through intact rock, thereby giv-
small areas can be subjected to high concentrated loads ing a stronger rock mass than otherwise thought. If the
that may fail the support systems. Techniques for care- rock mass characterized by nonpersistent fracturing is
fully controlling draw to distribute load as desired, such not restrained, a fracture surface will develop that is
as quickly drawing to relieve areas near exhaustion, or stepped, allowing spaces to open up. The quantification
moving the cave boundary away, or stopping draw to o r estimation of fracture persistence is generally accom-
form arches of rock pack to stop movements and to dis- plished by a fracture survey (Duncan, 1969; Robertson
tribute more evenly high loads over problem areas under and Piteau, 1970; Mahtab, et al., 1973) where individual
repair, have been successfully applied by the author. fractures or sets of fractures are evaluated. However,
the author has recently used a technique of estimating
ROCK FRACTURE
the degree of interlocking or fracture persistence for a
It was recognized very early that ore bodies amenable rock mass as a whole, which resulted in some success in
to block caving had to be well-fractured. The individual estimating rock mass properties for a tunnel. Through-
intact rock blocks could be very strong as in siliceous going planes of weakness such as faults, bedding, or mas-
ores, or weak as in kaolinized ores, since the intensity of ter joints deserve and require individual design attention
the fracturing, and not the intact rock strength, led to even if only by the miner at the face.
the success of the method.
The importance of the persistence of fracturing, i.e., DRIFT SUPPORT DESIGN
the portion of any given failure surface in a rock mass In order to design support systems for drifts in cav-
that is made by a fracture surface compared to that por- ing operations, the influences of rock fracturing, rock
tion that is intact rock, has been recognized in rock mass load, abutment loadings, ground movement, expected r e
stability (Brekke, et al., 1974; Duncan, 1969; Call, 1972; pair, and flexibility must be considered. Also, the essen-
Robertson and Piteau, 1970). Some workers call this tial elements of the support system must be known, and
parameter fracture continuity. From Fig. 2 it is easy to fully resin-grouted rock reinforcement, welded wire fab-
see that a restrained rock mass composed of through- ric, and shotcrete will be used here.
going, persistent fractures will be intrinsically weaker The design concept used is that the intrinsic strength
because of the ease of development of failure surfaces, of the fractured rock mass made up of interlocked blocks
while a restrained rock mass composed of interlocked of intact rock separated by discontinuities or fractures
blocks of intact rock formed by nonpersistent fracturing can be mobilized to contribute to support. Fractures are
1570 UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS HANDBOOK
-1 / ,ARE4 S H O W N I N FIGURE B
Tensile Compress~ve
Principal Stresses
Fig. 3A. Mohr envelopes for intact rock blocks
and discontinuities.
not generally throughgoing, so any failure surface that
tends to develop or is assumed in a fractured rock mass
will pass partially along fracture surfaces and partially
through intact rock blocks, provided that the rock mass
adjacent to the excavation is reinforced or restrained in
some way that minimizes loosening and expansion. The
mobilized strength possible in a rock mass resulting from
a small amount of restraint or reinforcement has been
demonstrated by Rosengren and Jaeger (1968), Horino,
et al. ( 1971 ) , and Brady and Duvall ( 1973). Since the
failure surfaces will be made up of fractures and intact
rock, a strength assigned to this rock mass will be inter-
mediate between the strength of a fracture surface and
the strength of intact rock. This is shown using Mohr
envelopes in Fig. 3. It can be seen that a relatively small
amount of intact rock present on a failure surface sig-
nificantly increases the strength assignable to the re-
strained or reinforced rock mass.
The artificial support system required to maintain
stability in an underground excavation can then be de-
signed by (1) determining a rock load to be carried by
an empirical or theoretical means, (2) assessing the con-
tribution to load-carrying capacity of the reinforced or
II-
Unconfined Compressive
Strength Assogned l o
Loosened Rock Moss
Unconfined Compressive
Strength Assigned to
Restrained Rock Moss
Fig. 3B. Rock mass strength mobilization
achieved with reinforcement.
restrained rock arch, and ( 3 ) designing artificial support
to take care of the remainder, assuming that whatever
load is not carried by the rock arch is carried by the
artificial internal support system. Design of a composite
structure using the rock arch and artificial internal sup-
port in the manner of reinforced concrete design will not
be attempted here because of the many uncertainties of
the interaction of the differing materials.
The practical work of Terzaghi (1946) has been
found as good as any method for determining the rock
load to be carried since it was developed from extensive
observation. Terzaghi's concept assumes that for blocky
and seamy rock the load transferred to an artificial sup-
port system results from the movement of the loosened
rock surrounding the excavation. This concept of the
loosening load has inherent in it the observation that the
artificial support is only helping the rock support itself;
to require otherwise results in a drift or tunnel filled with
concrete or steel (Abel, 1968). Fig. 4 shows the as-
sumed load distribution for an underground excavation
in fractured rock and the resulting numerical load deter-
mination for very blocky and seamy (fractured) rock,
often typical of caving ore bodies. From Fig. 4, the ver-
tical load on the excavation support is:
h, = 1.0 ( b + h,) (3)
where h, is rock load in height of rock, (L); b is width
of opening, ( L ) ; and h, is height of opening, ( L )
(Terzaghi, 1946).
By using the results of a fracture survey the persist-
ence of the fractures can be assessed, and if the rock
mass is reinforced or restrained, the rock mass strength
can be found from the geometry of the Mohr-Coulomb
criteria (Jaeger, 1969) :
/
0
-- -1
\
/ \ Z
ih / ,'
/ -I---
\
I
Artificiol
I
Intern01 Support -.
-J
I
Ic------b&
Fig. 4. Assumed loading on drift support.
 ROCK REINFORCEMENT
U, = 2c Tan ($+$) + u, Tanz ($+f ) (4)
where a, is maximum principal stress, (FL-2); u3 is
minimum principal stress, (FL-2) ; c is cohesion of rock
mass, (FL"); and 4 is angle of internal friction of rock
mass.
The cohesion and angle of internal friction for the
rock mass will be defined as intermediate between the
values for the fracture surfaces and intact rock, and
varying as the fraction of intact rock present, so that
where cf is cohesion of fracture surfaces, (FL-2); c, is
cohesion of intact rock, (FL-2); R is fraction of intact
rock present on failure surface in rock mass (dimension-
less), and
+
Tan 4 = T a n +f R (Tan 4, - Tan (6)
where 4f is angle of internal friction of fracture surfaces.
4, is angle of internal friction of intact rock; and R is
fraction of intact rock present on failure surface of rock
mass (dimensionless), so that for the reinforced rock
arch when a, = 0 near the surface of the excavation,
where urn is strength assigned to rock mass (FL-2); and
S,,,, is factor of safety assigned to rock mass arising from
uncertainty of rock mass characteristics.
If the loosened rock mass is assumed to extend be-
yond the depth of the reinforced rock mass, then the
rock load will be resisted by both the rock arch and the
artificial internal support system. Therefore, the arch
thrust equilibrium (ignoring the weight of the arch) will
be given by
where h, is rock load defined in Eq. 3, ( L ) ; A is hori-
zontal area of excavation, (L2); y is unit weight of rock
mass, (FL-3); A , is horizontal area of reinforced o r re-
strained rock arch, (L2); and AS is horizontal area of
artificial internal support system, (L2).
U, = C~S,,= strength assigned to
(9)
artificial internal
support system
where S,, is factor of safety assigned to artificial internal
support system and a, is allowable strength of artificial
internal support system, (FL-z).
This will result in a rational deterministic design for
a support system using a reinforced or restrained rock
arch and an artificial internal support system for an ex-
cavation created in a fractured rock mass subject only to
the consequences of its own excavation.
When the active caving area is brought close, Eq. 2
shows that the abutment load will increase the existing
stress system that is initially at equilibrium, so that now
where y is percent increase in existing stress due to abut-
ment load (dimensionless), and A, is additional area of
artificial support required, (Lz), since the reinforced or
restrained rock arch is assumed to be already doing all
it can.
The support system resulting from this procedure
will have to be checked for shear resulting from antici-
1571
pated faults in the rock mass, which are common in
caving ore bodies.
Shotcrete does not act as a thrust-carrying member,
and this concept is valid only for such artificial support
systems as timber, steel, poured-in-place concrete, or
precast concrete. Shotcrete will, however, act as a re-
straining member or membrane tending to minimize the
deformation of the rock mass by maintaining the inter-
locking of rock blocks and by providing shear reinforce-
ment against the failure of throughgoing faults or joints
(Cecil, 1970). Rock reinforcement will similarly act as
shear reinforcement by providing a resisting tensile
strength across a shear plane, since rock reinforcement,
as in concrete reinforcement, can be viewed as acting not
in shear but in tension.
If a throughgoing fault or joint is anticipated, the
support system can then be checked or designed by con-
sidering the shotcrete as shear reinforcement, such that
summing forces on the shear plane results in
where F, is driving shear force on plane ( F ) ; Ff is
shear resistance along plane ( F ) ; F, is shear resistance
of shotcrete ( F ) ; and F, is resistance to shear on plane
provided by rock reinforcement ( F ) ;
Ff = (cfA,) + N Tan 4f (12)
where cf is cohesion of the surface of the plane (FL-2);
N is normal force on plane ( F ) ; and A, is area of plane
(L2).
F,.!= Ari2 fl
where A,, is area of shotcrete along shear plane (LZ),
and f', is allowable stress in shotcrete, (FL-').
where n is number of reinforcing bars intersecting plane
in each unit length of drift (dimensionless); A, is area
of one reinforcing bar (L2); and is allowable stress
in reinforcing bar (FL-2).
Although repair considerations will not directly enter
into the design examples, the rock reinforcement-welded
wire fabric-shotcrete support system is preferred because
of the ease of repair (Towner and Kendorski, 1974).
Areas of shotcrete that require repair consisting of addi-
tional shotcrete applications are easily treated, and ad-
ditional rock reinforcement can be installed to help ar-
rest deterioration of the system by minimizing further
movement.
During installation of the support system, special
areas of noticeably weaker rock mass conditions or inter-
secting excavations can be reinforced by supplementary
rock reinforcement and additional thicknesses of shot-
Crete. Light steel channel sections secured to the rock
reinforcement bars could also be used in anticipated
trouble areas.
Design Example 1
Hypothetical mine A has a block of ore that is gen-
erally siliceous with an unconfined compressive strength
C, of 173 GPa (25,000 psi), a cohesion of 34.5 GPa
(5000 psi), and an angle of internal friction 4r of 43".
The rock mass unit weight is 2700 kg/m3 (168 pcf);
fracture surfaces were found to have a cohesion cf of
138 kPa (20 psi); and an angle of internal friction 4f of
20". A fracture survey shows that the fracture persist-
1572 UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS HANDBOOK

ence is generally 85%, so that 15% of any failure sur-
face can be expected to be made up of intact rock. Dis-
trict experience has shown that a 1.22 x 1.22-m (4 x
4-ft) pattern of fully resin-grouted 22-mm (%-in.) diam
(No. 7) by 1.53-111 (5-ft) long rock reinforcement bars
are necessary for ground stabilization. The load-haul-
dump equipment employed requires a 3.66 x 3.66-111
(12 x 12-ft) drift. Using Eq. 4, the maximum princi-
pal stress the rock mass can support adjacent to the
excavation is
(126) (144) Ari = (126) (144) (0.47) = 37.9 kN (8530
lb), which gives a new factor of safety of 1.74. -.
Therefore, mine A will have a 3.66 x 3.66-m (12 x
12-ft) drift support design of 1.53-m (5-ft) long 22-mm
(%-in.) diam fully resin-grouted rock reinforcing bars
on 1.22-m (4-ft) centers with 102 mm (4 in.) of
shotcrete.
Design Example 2
Hypothetical mine B has an ore body in fractured
rock that has been altered to clay, and has these rock
properties: unit weight y of 2700 kg/m3 (168 pcf),
unconfined compressive strength of intact rock C , of

U,
(:
u l = 2 ( 7 7 0 ) Tan -

= 16.4 GPa (2370 psi)

1
+ 12 + 0 = 1540 (1.54)
69 GPa (10,000 psi), cohesion of intact rock c, of
10.4 GPa (1500 psi), angle of internal friction of intact
rock 4,. of 45", cohesion of fracture surface cf of 69 kPa
(10 psi), and angle of internal friction of fracture sur- -
and by Eq. 7, the strength assigned to the rock mass is face 4, of 12". Drift size is 3.66 x 3.66 m (12 x 12 ft).
u7,~= u1/s87,L (7) Mine B uses poured concrete drift linings. Rock re-
U, = 2370/ 3 = 5.45 GPa (790 psi).
inforcement is used only to pin back loose rock so that
no account will be taken of a strength contribution from
The rock load on the support from Eq. 3, assuming the reinforced or restrained rock arch.
the rock arch formed in the fractured rock mass is inside Therefore, Eq. 3 gives a rock load
the excavation, will be
+
h, = 1.0 ( b h,) = 7.32 m (24 ft) (3)
+
h, = 1.0 ( b h,) (3) and Eq. 8 gives for a 0.305-m (I-ft) unit length
h, = 7.32 m (24 ft).
The relation to be satisfied for equilibrium in thrust Y~PA +
= u,?&A,, USA,
(Eq. 8) is +
215 kN (48,400 lb) = 0 u,A,.
+
yhPA = m,,,A,,, u8A, (8) If a concrete batch design of f', = 34.5 GPa (5000
psi) is used with a safety factor of '2.5,
so for a 0.305-m (1-ft) length of drift, if the rock arch
is assumed to extend only the depth of the rock reinforc-
ing bars or 3.05 m (10 ft) for the full arch,
(168)(24) (12) = (790) (10) (144) uaA, + = 0.01 58 m2 (24.5 sq in.)
+
48,400 lb = 1,140,000 lb u,A,. for a 0.305-111 (1-ft) length of drift. The thickness of
Therefore concrete required is 25 mm ( 1 in.) per side. For the
abutment load period, A will be taken in Eq. 10 as equal
u8An= - 4848 kN (-1,090,000 lb) to 200% because of a caving boundary approaching,
so that no artificial support is necessary, even during the
abutment load period.
Checking one side for shear during abutment load-
ing of 200% on a throughgoing fault unfavorably ori- 48,400(2)
ented at 45" to the horizontal, with properties similar to
-
-

(5,000) (144)/2.5 = (A, +

A,)
a rock fracture, cf = 138 kPa (20 psi), 4f = 20°, and +
(A, A,) = 0.34 sq ft
using shotcrete, if needed, with f',= 27.6 GPa (4000 = 0.03 16 m2 (49 sq in.)
psi), summing forces along the fault plane,
for 0.305 m (1 ft) of drift, 51 mm (2 in.) of concrete
F, = Ff F, F,i+ + per side are needed.
(48,400) (0.707) = (20) ( 144) (5) (1.414) Checking the concrete on one side for shear during
+
(0.5) (0.60) (60,000) abutment loading
+
Ari (126) (144) (48,400) (0.707) = A, (1.414) (144) (2 c)
+
33,900 lb = 20,300 lb 12,200 lb 33,900 Ib = 28,600 A,
+
18,000 1b
+
A,i (126) (144)
A, = 0.111 m2 (1.19 sqft)
33,900 lb = 50,500 lb or 356 mm (14 in.) of concrete are required, with no
+
Ari (126)(144) factor of safety. Therefore, mine B will have a 3.66 x
3.66-m (12 x 12-ft) drift support design of rockbolts for
151,000 N = 225,000 N
+
Ari (869 kPa). pinning back loose rock, and 356 mm ( 14 in.) of poured
concrete.
.-
Ignoring the contribution from any shotcrete, the re-
sulting factor of safety is 1.49. Shotcrete [lo2 mm Design Example 3
( 4 in.)] will protect the surface from loosening and de- Hypothetical mine C has the same drift size and rock
terioration plus provide a higher factor of safety, so if mass properties as mine B. Fully resin-grouted 22-mm
Arc= (144)
4 x 12
(1.414) = 0.0437 m2 (0.47 sq ft) and
( % in.) diam (No. 7) by 1.53-m (5-ft) long rock re-
inforcement bars on 1.22-m (4-ft) centers with shotcrete
 ROCK REINFORCEMENT
are used. T h e rock mass fracture persistence is 9 5 % , so
that only 5 % of any fracture surface is intact rock.
Eq. 4 gives
cl=2cTan ($+f) + 0 (4)
a, = 2 ( 8 5 ) T a n 52" = 1.5 G P a (218) psi).
Using a factor of safety of 3.0, Eq. 7 gives a, =
503 k P a ( 7 3 psi) for the strength assigned to the rock
mass. Eq. 8 then gives for thrust o n a 0.305-m (1-ft)
unit length o n the full arch width of 3.05 m ( 1 0 f t )
yhg= +
aeA, (8)
48,400 = (73) (144) (10) +
u,A,
a,A, = 48,400 lb - 105,000 Ib
a,A, = -252 k N (-56,700 lb).
N o artificial support is necessary for initial design.
During abutment loading X = 200%, so that
(yhpA)h = 4 3 1 k N (96,800 l b ) ,
100
and
a,A, = -178 k N (-40,100 lb)
so some shotcrete will probably be needed.
Checking for shear o n one side for a 0.305-m (1-ft)
unit length during abutment loading on a n unfavorable
fault at 45", and allowing for shotcrete with f',= 27.6
G P a (4000 psi),
with no shotcrete, a safety factor of 1.04 results, which
is unacceptable. If 102 m m ( 4 in.) of shotcrete are
added s o that (126) (144) Ari = 37.9 k N (8530 l b ) , the
factor of safety is 1.29, still low. If 4 x 4-6/6 welded
wire fabric is added t o the shotcrete, it provides 184
m m 2 / m (0.087 sq in. per ft) of steel reinforcement at
414 G P a (60,000 psi) o r a tensile reinforcement in the
shotcrete of 21.4 k N (4800 lb), s o a safety factor of 1.43
results, which is acceptable.
Heuer ( 1974) suggests that up t o 102 m m ( 4 in.) be
added to a designed shotcrete thickness to allow for
variable thickness and surface irregularities, so that a
203-mm (8-in.) design shotcrete thickness results for
this example.
Therefore, mine C will have 3.66 x 3.66-m (12 x
12-ft) drift support design of 22-mm (% in.) diam fully
resin-grouted rock reinforcement bars 1.53 m (5-ft) long
on 1.22-m (4-ft) centers, 4 x 4-6/6 welded wire fabric,
and 203 m m ( 8 in.) of shotcrete with a batch design of
f',= 27.6 G P a (4000 psi).
1573
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abel, J.F., Jr., 1968, "A Philosophy of Underground Sup-
port," Annual Meeting, Arizona Section, AIME, 24 pp.
Brady, B.T., and Duvall, W.I., 1973, "Strengthening of
Fractured Rock Pillars by the Use of Small Radial Rein-
forcement Pressures," Report of Investigations 7755, US
Bureau of Mines, 20 pp.
Brekke, T.L., Lang, T.A., and Kendorski, F.S., 1974, "Some
Design and Construction Considerations for Large Per-
manent Underground Openings at Shallow Depths," Pro-
ceedings, 3rd International Symposium on Rock Me-
chanics, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC,
pp. 1507-1517.
Call, R.D., 1972, "Analysis of Geologic Structure for Open
Pit Slope Design," Ph.D. Thesis, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, 201 pp.
Cecil, O.S., 1970, "Shotcrete Support in Rock Tunnels in
Scandinavia," Civil Engineering, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 74-79.
Duncan, N., 1969, Engineering Geology and Rock Me-
chanics, Vol. 2, Leonard Hill, London, pp. 1-105.
Heuer, R.E., 1974, "Selection/Design of Shotcrete for Tem-
porary Support," Proceedings, Engineering Foundation
Conference, South Berwick, ME, pp. 160-179.
Horino, F.G., Duvall, W.I., and Brady, B.T., 1971, "The
Use of Rock Bolts or Wire Rope to Increase the Strength
of Fractured Model Pillars," Report of Investigations 7568,
US Bureau of Mines, 24 pp.
Jaeger, J.C., 1969, Elc~sticity,Fracture and Flow, 3rd ed.,
Methuen and Co., Ltd., London, 268 pp.
Julin, D.E., and Tobie, R.L., 1973, "Block Caving," SME
Mining Engineering Handbook, Vol. 1, A.B. Cummins
and I.A. Given, eds., AIME, New York, pp. -. 12-162-
12-222.
Kendorski, F.S., Jude, C.V., and Duncan, W.M., 1973,
"Effect of Blasting on Shotcrete Drift Linings," Mining
Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 12, pp. 28-41.
King, R.U., 1946, "A Study of Geologic Structure at Climax
in Relation to Mining and Block Caving," Trans. AIME,
Vol. 163, pp. 145-155.
McMahon, B.K., and Kendrick, R.F., 1969, "Predicting
the Block Caving Behavior of Ore Bodies," SME Pre-
print No. 69 AU 51, AIME Annual Meeting, Wash-
ington, DC, 15 pp.
Mahtab, M.A., Bolstad, D.D., and Kendorski, F.S., 1973,
"Analysis of the Geometry of Fractures in San Manuel
Copper Mine, Arizona," Report of Investigations
- 7715,
~ s - ~ u r e of
a uMines, 24 pp.
Mahtab, M.A., and Dixon, J.D., 1975, "Influence of Rock
Fractures and Block Boundary Weakening on Cavability,"
Trans. SME-AIME, Vol. 260, 24 pp.
Robertson, A.M., and Piteau, D.R., 1970, "The Determina-
tion of Joint Populations and Their Significance for Tun-
nel Stability," Proceedings, South African Tunneling Con-
ference, Johannesburg, pp. 71-76.
Rosengren, K.J., and Jaeger, J.C., 1968, "The Mechanical
Properties of an Interlocked Low-Porosity Aggregate,"
Geotechnique, Vol. 18, pp. 317-326.
Swaisgood, J.R., McMahon, B.K., and West, L.J., 1972,
"Rock Mechanics in the Planning and Control of Block
Caving," Print No. T-11-e-2, Joint Meeting MMU-AIME,
Tokyo, 14 pp.
Terzaghi, K., 1946, "Rock Defects and Loads on Tunnel
Supports," Rock Tunneling with Steel Supports, R.V.
Proctor and T.L. White, eds., Commercial Shearing and
Stamping Co., Youngstown, OH, pp. 15-99.
Towner, R.K., and Kendorski, F.S., 1974, "Performance of
Shotcrete Linings at the Climax Mine," 1974 RETC Pro-
ceedings, Vol. 2, AIME, New York, NY, pp. 1013-1026.