Geotechnical risk assessment for large-diameter raise-bored shafts A. McCracken and T. R. Stacey Synopsis ‘A significant increase in the diameter of raise-bored shafts has been seen recently with advances in tech niques and equipment. The increase in diameter leads to a greater potential for instability of the shaft walls and the advancing face of the raise. Although raise boring minimizes the disturbance of the rock mass, the ground conditions must be adequate to provide inherent stability for the raise diameter proposed. Raise boring of shafts with a diameter in excess of 4m. requires at least ‘fais"-quality ground conditions or better, as determined by rock mass classification methods. ‘A probability chart is presented from which the compatibility of raise-bore rock quality, Qn, and pro- posed shaft diameters can be assessed. The chart is ‘based on an adapted form of the Q system of rock mass classification. The method of analysing the reliability of a raise-bored excavation from the distributions of the rock mass parameters is documented and the acceptability of a particular probability of failure is, discussed. ‘A flow chart of the geotechnical evaluation activities required to determine the significant parameters for assessing the stability of a raise is presented. The of geotechnical information for raise-bored discussed in terms of the variability of the ical rock mass parameters and the specifications of a proposed shaft. In recent years rock boring has developed significantly, with improvements in techniques and the performance of boring machines. Similar advances, in techniques and the size of excavations, have been made in the area of raise boring. In the carly 1980s raise-bored holes in mining generally ranged in diameter from 1.2 to 2.44 m, with a maximum of 3.6 m. Since then, technological advances have made possible raise-bored shafts with diameters that exceed 6.0 m. This increase in diameter of raise-bored holes is, however, ‘accompanied by a greater potential for instability ofthe walls land advancing face of the raise. Whereas the 1.2- and 2.44-m raise-bored shafis tend to be self-supporting even in poor ‘ground, 6-m raise-bored shafts create e significant perimeter length (19 m) and a large undercut area (28 m?). Although itis, true that boring generally minimizes the disturbance of the surrounding rock mass by comparison with drilling and blasting, the ground conditions through which the shaft will pass must be of sufficient quality to allow a free-standing, ‘unsupported excavation. Itis, therefore, essential thatthe in situ rock mass conditions be known prior to excavation of the raise. ‘These relate mainly to the structural and strength Presented at the conference Shaft Engineering, organized by the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy i association withthe Intiu~ tion of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mining Engineers and held in Harrogate, England, from 5 to 7 June, 1989. Paper fist published in the conference volume (London: IMM, 1989), 309-16, find republished in Trans, Znin Min. Metall. (Sect. A= Min, industry), 98, September-Decemiser 1989, © The Institution of Mining and ‘Mecallargy 1989. features ofthe rock mass. The in-situ stress conditions should also be investigated and allowance made for eny changes in stress conditions that are likely o be induced by mining. "The present contribution discusses the potential risk asso- ciated with raise-bored shafts with respect to the size of the shaft and the method of boring and gives guidelines for the investigative activities that are required to define the ground conditions. A chart has been prepared that allows a quantitat- ive assessment of the risk attached to any shaft prior 10 ‘commencement of the excavation so that the reliability of the proposed system can be evaluated. Comparison of raise boring and conventional shaft sinking—effect on rock mass and geotechnical risk ‘So far as the effect on the immediately adjacent rock mass is concerned, the advantages of raise boring over conventional shaft sinking by drilling and blasting are, first, that damage 10 the rock mass behind the excavation is minimized, thus maintaining inherent rock strength and stability, and, second, that a smooth finish is obtained on the shaft, which dispenses ‘with the need for lining and is an important consideration in. ventilation shafts. There is, however, the disadvantage of a remote excavation face with no access for the installation of remedial support, ‘A raise-boring operation can he described as ‘remote’ as the ‘methods do not permit access to the working face. This contrasts with conventional shaft sinking, which is = ‘bands- ‘on’ operation, The major disadvantage of the remoteness from the excavated face is that it precludes the immediate provision of ground support when poor ground conditions are intersected. In conventionally sunk shafts rock support is included as part of the excavation cycle, with early access 10 the sidewalls from the floor of the excavation. The vertical nature of raise-bored shafts also makes them different from bored tunnels as access for support purposes in the latter is, usually available behind the advancing face. ‘The remoteness of the raise-boring operation means that the conditions of the rock mass in which a shaft is to be excavated should be sufficiently well known to establish whether it will support a raise bore of a given diameter, Unexpectedly adverse ground conditions that cannot be dealt, with successfully by remedial measures available in conven- tionally excavated shafts may force the abandonment of a ‘A geotechnical investigation for conventional shaft sinking, is usually concerned with location, support requirements and groundwater inflows. Cover drilling provides continuous geotechnical information during sinking. For raise boring, however, the focus of investigations isthe overall feasibility of the shaft, The risk to overall feasibility in conventional sinking is much lower than itis in raise boring. Its important that the risk to any raise-boring operation be eccurately, defined by means of appropriate pre-excavation investigations. Methods of raise boring ‘Two different raise-boring techniques are currently utilized ausfor large-diameter shafts: conventional (full-face) raise boring ‘and sequential raise boring. In full-face raise boring a single cutter head is raised from the bottom to the top station. The cutter disks or inserts describe circles on the face, the disk configuration being such that the rock fails mainly in shear, forming small chips. The raise-bore head may be one of several types, depending on the configuration of the cutters, ‘but the essential feature is that the head is confined by rock through an angle of approximately 270° (Fig. 1(a)) @ i i tear o Fig. 1 (@) Reise configurations: conventional (lf) and sequential (tight) heads; (8) sequential head reise-bore cutting action “The sequential raise-boring technique utilizes two cutting heeds; an upper head similar to a conventional single head and 4 lower, ‘reaming’ head. These cut alternately or ‘sequen- tially’ on short cuts (<1 m), the other head being disengaged from the face, The diameters of the two heads are such that their cutting areas are equal, Similar torque and thrust are therefore required to drive and bore with each head. ‘The upper head operates under conditions of rock confine- ‘ment similar to those of the conventional head. By contrast, the cutters on the lower, ‘reaming’ head act mainly on a brow" of material (Fig. 1(6)) with 270° of freedom and only 90° of rock confinement. The action of the cutters has a point- loading effect. On the upper head this results only in focal shearing of the rack to produce chips. With the lower head, however, the effect of this point-loading could be shearing through intact rock, causing failure of the brow. In poorer rock conditions—lower-strength andjor closely jointed rrock—this situation is exacerbated by the potential for signifi- cant failure of the brow area, Aus Suitability of ground conditions for raise boring—geotechnical factors Although the specifications of and other considerations ass0- ciated with a particular raise borer (characteristics of the method and the machine, operator experience and raise ‘geometsy—ie, diameter and length) have a significant bearing, fon the success or otherwise of an excavation, the most, important factors influencing risk are ofa geotechnical nature and can be itemized as: lithology; major geological features (€ykes, faults, folds, contacts, etc); rock fabric (discontinuity orientation, spacing, persistence); discontinuity shear strength (joint roughness, infill, slteration, water); rock, strength (intact strength, weatherability); groundwater; in- situ stress; and change in stress. ‘The common modes of failure in raise boring are face failure and sidewall failure (Fig. 2). These may be caused by gravity falls or slides of joint-delimited blocks or wedges or by plucking by the cutters. Depending on the size of failure, both, fan cause severe damage to the cutter head and affect the stability and effectiveness of the shaft 1. GRaviTy WEDGE FAILURE FROM FACE 2. ROW FAILURE : THROUGH INTACT ROCK OR JOINT DEFINED [POSSIBLE KEVBLOCK FAILURE Fig. 2 Possible modes of wall and face falure Rock mass classification for raise-bored shafts—raise-bore quality, Qx (a modified Q system) ‘A number of rock mass classification systems are available ‘that combine geotechnical parameters and quantify rock mass ‘quality and excavation stability. The Norwegian Geotechni cal Insticute’s tunnelling quality index (Barton and co-work- ers’ ‘Q" system!) is considered well suited to assess the classification of the rock mass quality for raise boring. The present authors propose the Q system, with Kirsten’s? approach to determining the value of the stress reduction, factor (SRF), a the basis on which to estimate raise-bore quality, Op. ‘The tunnelling quality index, Q, relation obtained from the 20D Ir, Je. jn Ja SRF 2 where ROD is rock quality designation,* Ju is joint set umber, Jr is joint roughness number, Ja is joint alteration ‘number, Je is joint water reduction factor end SRF is stress reduction factor. ROD|Jn gives an estimate of rock block size,JolJa. provides an indication of discontinuity shear strength and Jo|SRF indicates the conditions of active stress sur~ rounding the excavation. The normal form of the Q system chart is shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3. @ system of rock mass classification Ie should be noted that the value is itself simply a rock y indicator. Additional considerations that have a sig- nificant bearing on raite-bore stability are: the fact that the shaft wall (as opposed to the excavation roof) controls final stabilitys the orientation of the shaft relative to structural features; and the weatherability of the rock. To obtain the raise-bore quality index, Qs, the following adjustment factors that are to be applied to © to take these into account have been found accoptable in practice Adjustment factors Wall adjustment ‘The Q system is mainly concemed with the stability of tunnel roofs. In raise boring wall stability is of more importance to the final excavation. The following adjustments should be made: Qusewan = 2.50 where Q >1 Qrisewsn = Qwhere Q ST Orientation adjustment Of major importance isthe orientation of the raise-bore axis with respect to dominant or persistent discontinuities (e.g. bedding, schistosity). The effect ofa set of major discontinui- ties of given orientation on the sidewalls ofa raise is different from its effect on the face ofthe raise. Adjustment factors are siven in Table 1. These are simply convenient adjustments and are not intended to replace the detailed stability analyses that should be carried out co assess the stability of potential failure blocks and wedges that are likely to be present. Weathering adjustment ‘The likelihood of weathering of the rock mass and its degree should be considered where this will affect the stability of the raise in the long term. Adjustments for weathering are partly, accommodated in the Ja (joint alteration) term of the Q system, It is suggested that additional adjustment factors of 0.9, 0.75 and 0.5, respectively, be applied to Q 10 allow for slight, moderate and severe degrees of weathering ofthe intact tock of the sidewall expected in the long term. Cumulative adjustments The adjustments given above are cumulative in application. ‘The following example illustrates the use of che adjustment factors to celculate the deterioration of raise-bore quality, Qn. [A sidewall is intersected by two steeply dipping joint sets in, rock that is liable to moderate weathering. The initial Q value of the rock is, say, 4.2, The additional factors to be applied are: wall adjustment, 2.55 orientation adjustment, 0.753 and, ‘weathering adjustment, 0.753 thus Q x 25 x 0.75 x 0.75 = 140 On 88 Critical parameters in assessment of raise-bore rock quality Parameters that are critical to saise-bore stability are the intensity of the jointing, which defines block size (RODIFn)s ‘and inter-block shear strength (Jr/Ja). Problems may be expected in rock masses with small to medium rock block size tnd low inter-block shear strength. Table 2 gives a raise- boring classification for a range of block sizes with low inter~ block shear strength. Problems may be expected in large- ‘Table 1 Discontinuity-orientation adjustment factors for Q No, of major “Adjustment factor to be applied to Q Joint sets Face ‘Walt Flat-dipping (0-30°) Steep-dipping (60-50") sajor joint sets major joint sets 1 oss 085 2 075 05 5 0.60 00 Raise shaft assumed to be vertical ‘Table 2. Classification of cr raise boring 1 geotechnical parameters in Raise-bore elass Very Poor Fair © Good. Very Poor ood RODIfn 2-4 a eis 525 25-50 Jifa (025-05 05-015 OTR 23 FA diameter raises if the values of the critical parameter are poor Raise-bore stability ratios ‘The raise-bore stability ratio, RSR, is equivalent to Barton and co-workers’! excavation support ratio, ESR, which is ‘dependent on the function of the excavation and its life and ranges from 0.8 for long-term public facilities to 5 or more for, temporary mine openings. Raise-bored shafts generally havea ‘medium- to long-term service life requirement. A RSR of 1.3, aurhhas been assigned here and is inherent in all the tables and. charts that follow. This value is considered to be appropriate for a ventilation shaft. For ore passes a higher figure—say, 1.6—could be used Raise dimensions and stability “The major futor affecting the stability of raise bore is ts diameter, Length is a contributory factor in terms of the fncdenee of sidewall aires but docs not afect stability per fe The circular shape ofa rase-bored excavation is generally Accepted as optimal for stability in a uniform lateral stress Gavironment. Again, wall stability is controlled by the diameter of the shaft (analogous with rwnmel wall stability being controlled by the height of «tunne!) Face stability can be simply determined in terms of a ‘maximum unsupported span where Spann = 2RSR OM Fig. 4 presents the relationship between maximum unsup- ported span and Ox (at RSR ~ 1.3). Tecan be sen thatthe Fequired Og value for stability increases rapidly with inereas- ing tse diameter. For example, a dem raise will be marginally sable in poor-quality rock (Q = 28), whereas a f 4 Fig. 4 Relationship between maximum unsupported raise diameter and raise-bore rock quality 6-m raise requires a fair-quality rock with a Q value of 8. Its apparent from these considerations why few problems were experienced in the past with small-diameter Raises of up to 4 m in diameter are subject to only isolated incidents of failure in ground of poor to fair quality. ‘During raising the face is more liable to instability than the sidewall, although during the cutting operation itself the saise-bore head provides a degree of support on account of the pressure of the cutters. Whenever the head is lowered this, support is withdrawn, and it is at this time chat failures are ‘mast likely. Failures from the edges of the face can sub- sequently undercut the sidewall. An uneven face and, espe- cially, an enlarged, eccentric raise diameter cause particular difficulties in reinitializing the cutter head when drilling is, recommenced; this, in turn, creates vibrations in the head that, are transmitted to the rock, leading to further rock failures ‘and inducing stresses in the equipment. Geotechnical variability and risk assessment ‘The determination of tunnelling or raise-bore rock quality a8, described above is limited in that unique values are generally chosen as input into the Q equation. To be conservative, ower-bound values of ROD, Jr and jw and upper-bound values of fn, Ja, and SRF may be chosen, This can often lead, ‘to unacceptable conditions being indicated. Clearly, che larger the diameter of a raise, the more important itis to determine accurately the rock mass quality—or, alternatively, to be able to estimate the probability that the quality, Q, will exceed a required minimum value. ‘The risk attached to any raise-bore project will depend on the confidence with which the relevant parameters are known. ‘The level of confidence or reliability of information depends ‘on the amount of information that is available, the variation of individual parameters, the impact of this variability on the probable tunnelling quality index and the required minimum, rock quality for compatibility with the proposed raise-bored shaft specifications. “The important aspect is to assess the ground conditions ‘with respect to the required minimum quality for stability es obtained by reference to Fig, 4). The probability distributions es} [eoomer}] mmr S| GH vwron | be wearin H [BEY [eos a —] scone Rese | Fig. 5 Flow chart for assessment of geotechnical risk in raise boring A188of cach of the contributing parameters must be defined, cspecially those with the greatest bearing on shaft stability (ce, joint shear strength and joint spacing). ‘A flow chart that sets out the activities to be followed for a systematic assessment of the risk related to the geotechnical aspects of any raise-boring project is presented as Fig. 5 Tn mining a significant amount of geotechnical data will generally be available, which is not normally the case in a civil engineering project. In all cases, however, there will be a top station (often on surface) and a bottom station. These should bbe examined, together with all other sources of data, for input into a preliminary geotechnical evaluation and risk assessment. Initial risk assessment ‘The preliminary geotechnical assessment should be aimed at determining average and lower-bound conditions in terms of ‘raisability’ and stability. ‘The range and distribution of the raise-bore rock quality, Qg, and the important parameters RODIFn and Jr/Fa must be compared with the required ‘minima for stability at the proposed shaft diameter. In addition to a simple assessment of the range of predicted Ox. values against those required, the rock mass properties and discontinuity orientations would be used as input t0 detailed stability analyses. These should ideally be conducted ‘on a probabilistic basis by sampling the distributions of the various properties and thereby determining the probabilities of failure in terms of both incidence of failure along the raise Tength and volumes of failure. The failure wedges should be RELIABILITY (ay b1STRUBLTION analysed in terms of the potential for ‘'key-block failure'—i.e. the failure ofa particular block that would produce a domino effect, subsequent gravity failures causing significant damage 10 the raise wall ‘At the preliminary evaluation stage the risk should only be deemed ‘acceptable’ if the tunnelling quality is consistently indicated to exceed significantly (i.e. be in the next class up from) the required quality throughout its length, which presupposes the availability of sufficient information for this conclusion to be drawn, Conversely, the tisk is deemed ‘unacceptable’ if the tunnelling quality is consistently indi- cated as falling short of that specified for the proposed shaft. Marginal cases occur where the indicated quality is not known confidently or where the distribution of Ox straddles the required level. In these cases either additional information must be obtained of, altematively, the acceptability of the level of risk associated with the required Qp value with respect to the defined Op distributions must be judged. The risk to the raise can be assessed from Fig. 6, in which the required raise-bore quality is compared with the in-itu rock ‘mass quality. The area under the quality distribution curve to the left of the required quality line is that where the stability of the shaft is at risk. ‘The area under the complete curve is, ‘equal to unity, and the hachured area to the right of the required quality represents the reliability where Op exceeds the required value, ‘The method of obtaining the Og distribution has been described by Haare,’ who also gave alternative probabilistic methods of determining reliability on the basis of mul point estimate methods. Final risk assessment ‘The assessment of risk will depend ultimately on the acceptability of failures within the raise-bored shaft and on the incidence and volume of failures that can be tolerated. In general, an acceptable probability of failure of a raise-bored, shaft, given its function, is considered to be 0.05, ie. 5%. ‘This is commensurate with a RSR value of 1.3. Given a proposed raise-bore diameter and a rock mass of a certain, range of raise-bore quality values, the range of probability of faihure can be obtained. If the length ofthe raise is known, the cn tkely oxen of rase-wall nb oe affected by flutes can aseeont guauiny (on be calculated and the vohimes of failure determined fom Stability analyses, Fig 6 Risk enessment diagram "A cher showing the probiles of file, P(D, oF wo [ERT FomR Pope 300 Tr) fe gh gl z 5 Se o ee i 8 Loo Fh ae 9 z 8 is ey SS os fa (Gg VALUE - RAISE ROCK QUALITY Fig. 7 Chart of relisbiiyprobablity of future showing relationship between raise-bore quality index and raise diameter Alayalternatively, the reliability, R, ofa shaft where R = 1 — PCD) x 100, %) for the range of raise-bore diameters and rock ‘mass qualities is presented as Fig. 7 Acceptability of risk Different values of reliability against failure are considered to be acceptable for the raise fuce and the raise walls for the following reasons. First, the raise face is temporary; failure from the face is likely to affect the raise-bore head more than the final shaft. Second, the raise walls are permanent; instability of the walls may lead to progressive failure affect- ing the sheft after completion of the raise. Tt may be considered that a higher level of reliability of stability is desirable for larger raises as the consequences of failure are greater the larger the dismeter. ‘The life of the excavation should be taken into account (better reliabilities being required for shafts with longer service lives). Also, the function of the excavation should be considered. In mining the service life ofa shaft is often linked, to its function: a ventilation shaft is generally a long-term ‘excavation that is critical to production and it would require a higher level of reliability than an ore pass, which is not equipped and generally has a shorter life span. That suid, however, the stability of the ore pass must be ensured for the fall length of its production period. Excavation Acceptable risk Servicelif Ri % PO years. Unlined hoisting 215 99 oon shaft ‘Ventilation shaft 10 95 0.05 Ore pass >2 8 as Ore pass 1 B 025 Levels of reliability, R, and probabilities of failure, PCD, that are considered acceptable for the raise-wall stability of different types of excavations are presented in Table 3. These provide guidelines for other raise-bored shafts. © Bet 1AZA iis Aves Ais UC poder Ae Seco Th, Tite Conclusions ‘The remote nature of raise-boring operations necessitates the adoption of a more cautious approach then is required in the sinking of shafts by conventional methods. ‘A method of quantifying the geotechnical risk 10 a raise- ‘bored shaft has been presented, based on shaft diameter and a raise-bore rack quality index, Ox. ‘The approach that has been outlined provides an indication ‘of overall geotechnical feasibility. All excavations must, however, be considered individually end the potential prob- lems should be addressed on merit. The chart presented as Fig. 7 does not replace classical analysis as 2 means of evaluating the incidence and stability of potential feilure wedges, but it does allow the probability of failure to be predicted in a simple manner. Comparison of the probability so obtained with the required reliability permits assessment of the overall feasibility and the risk to a proposed raise. SS jarton N. Lien R. and Lunde J. Engineering classification of ‘masses for the design of tunnel suppor. Rock Mechanict, 6, 1974, 189-236. 2. Kirsten H. A. D. The combined Q-NATM system—the design and specification of primary tunnel support. 5. Afr. Twinall, 6 n0.1 1983, 18-24, 4, Deere D. U, Technical description of rock cores. Rock Mech ngng Geol y 1964, 16-22. Re A. McCracken Monber isa principal engineering geologist with Steffen Robertson and Kirsten, SRK (UK), Led. consulting mining. ‘and geotechnical engincers, based in Cardiff, Wales. He graduated in applied geology from the University of Strath, Glass, Seor- land, in 1974. He specializes in rock excavation stabiiy, tunnelling ‘and mining geotecncs, with a particlar interest in rlibiity-based ‘mining design ‘TLR, Stacey Member isa corporate consultant with SRK (UK), He ‘praduated with the doprees of B.Sc. and M.Sc. in mechanical ‘engineering from the University of Natal, South Africa, in 1965 and 1968, respective, and obtained a D.Se. in rock mechanies in 1973, ‘and a DIC in engineering geology from Imperial College, London, in 1974, He specializes in the application of mimerical techniques to stabllsy assesament in rock engineering. Tans wm el 98 TUNNELLING ‘88 Papers presented at the fifth international symposium, ‘Tunnelling ‘88", organized by the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, with the cooperation of the British Tunnelling Society, the Institution of Mining Engineers and the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Department of Transport, and held in London, England, from 18 to 21 April, 1988 Thirty-eight papers on practical developments in the design and construction of tunnels in the fields of civil and mining engineering by authors from Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the U.S.A, Limp, 296 mm x 208 mr Mining and Metallurgy 37 pages, price £46.00; published in April, 1988, by the Institution of ISBN 1 870706 01 3 A150