Downgrading lab test results to rock

mass strength - towards a common

approach in Bowen Basin open cuts.
Discussion starter.
Please refer to ACARP project C25025
which has taken this topic far beyond the
John Latilla scope of this presentation. See last page of
this presentation for more information - J
Latilla 28/09/2018
11 March 2015
BOHOGS Meeting – Ensham Coal Mine
Ensham preso (11 March)
 Attendance register
 Observations and
comments made by
members at the Ensham
preso are shown in red
at the end of this preso
 Changes made by John
L after the Ensham and
Drayton presos are
shown in blue

www.amcconsultants.com 2
Drayton preso (24 March)
 Attendance register
 Observations and Irene Chan
comments made by Miles Thompson
Kai Koosmen
members at the Drayton Martin Bromer

preso are shown in Henri Prevost

Kim Peckett
green near the end of Stuart Bull

this preso Wayne Bartlett

John Simmons
Adrienna Brown
Dave McCormack
Cheryl Holz
Rachel Clark
Ali McQuillan

www.amcconsultants.com 3
Discussion kick-off

 Is there a “standard” approach that can be used to take

laboratory scale test results and downgrade them to
provide realistic rock mass values suitable for numerical
analysis?
 Can we develop a standard approach or does one already
exist?
 This discussion is about downgrading lab results to rock
mass values only. Other important questions
(e.g. realistically accounting for anisotropy) are not
covered
 This discussion centres primarily on UCS values as that’s a
fairly “universal” strength parameter. Also, to a lesser
extent, downgrading laboratory reported cohesion and
friction angle

www.amcconsultants.com 4
Where do our current rock mass
strength values come from?
 Many years of experience and sound engineering
judgement – very valuable
 Back analysis – good for existing operations (where
failures have been documented), maybe not so for
greenfields projects
 The literature – good for a general “feel” as to what
values to use
 Laboratory results – obviously downgraded by some
percentage – how is that determined?

www.amcconsultants.com 5
Why have a standardised approach?
 Some questions we get asked from time to time:
– What tests do we need to do and why?
– How many samples do we need to take from this borehole?
– What do you do with the lab results?
– Why carry out costly laboratory analyses and then not use them?
– Why do the material strengths in your model not mirror the lab
results?
 The last question is the one we are looking at now
 Easier to justify when questions are asked
 Legally, I think our position would be stronger if we can show we
have used a downgrading method agreed on by our peers (if it
ever comes to that)

www.amcconsultants.com 6
UCS from sonic velocity

 Why not use the in situ UCS from sonic velocity?

– It has been used for many years on Australian underground
coal mines
– Many mines have their own site specific correlations as
opposed to the general expression of McNally (1987). It’s a
good roof stability predictor where there is not much structure
– But…the sonic velocity relationship is used to estimate the
“laboratory” UCS and not the rock mass UCS
(Hossack, 2015)

www.amcconsultants.com 7
 RMR as a “framework” for
downgrading UCS?

 RMR is obtained from intact rock strength (UCS)*

 Modified to account for structure (joint spacing – RQD),
joint orientation and joint condition
 GSI may be converted from RMR for cases where RMR >
23. For RMR<23 a relationship to Barton’s Q value is
recommended (Eberhardt, 2010)

* Remember: laboratory UCS values are usually biased towards the better quality rock
(weaker rocks often cannot be sampled) and rock strength measured may depend on
sample orientation in anisotropic rock

www.amcconsultants.com 8
Beware!

• RQD can be a misleading

value depending on
structure orientation with
respect to the borehole.
(Leber & Schubert, 2010)
• Luckily we don’t drill many
angled or horizontal holes
so in our case we are
probably OK

www.amcconsultants.com 9
Two case studies

 Bowen Basin case with plentiful good laboratory data

(longwall assessment)
 Overseas case with limited lab data but good
structural data

www.amcconsultants.com 10
Case study 1 – project description
and requirements

 Greenfield potential multiple seam longwall

 Rock mass strength required for elastic 3D modelling
of stress and failure criteria around multiple seam
longwall panels
 Inputs required for the model: Elastic modulus (E) and
Poisson’s ratio (ʋ)

www.amcconsultants.com 11
Case study 1 – available data
 Good quality laboratory test data – well sampled and tested
according to ISRM methods and within the specified time
limits
– Triaxial compressive strength
– Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)
– UCS with Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio
– Brazilian tensile strength
– Slake durability
– Point load (axial and diametral)
 Generally no RQD or fracture spacing recorded (needed
for CMRR) but good quality core photos available and used
to determine RQD and estimate GSI and fracture spacing

www.amcconsultants.com 12
Case study 1 – downgrading
method
 RocData (RocScience) used to adjust laboratory values (can also
use RocLab)
 Within RocData / RocLab the failure envelope range chosen is
the Generalised Hoek-Brown criterion (2002 edition)
 Required inputs: Intact UCS, GSI, mi and D (disturbance factor).
GSI was estimated directly from core photographs. An alternative
would have been to determine RMR and then apply the RMR to
GSI conversion
 For fresh Permian overburden and interburden the results shown
on the next slide were obtained (based on average laboratory
values).
 Statistical analysis (mean and std. dev.) has not been carried out
for this example

www.amcconsultants.com 13
www.amcconsultants.com 14
 Case study 1 - results
 Rock mass elastic modulus was found to be 2.7 GPa for the fresh
overburden and interburden (4.97 GPa intact)
 RocData derived rock mass UCS values dropped from 14.95 MPa (intact
UCS) to….
 1.7 MPa for rock mass UCS (at excavation boundary)
 3.6 MPa for global rock mass UCS (further into the rock mass)
 Hoek (2005) states that the rock mass UCS is of limited use as it defines
the strength at pillar boundaries only and not the interior of the pillar.
 Translating this statement to slopes rock mass UCS would probably
relate to the “skin” of the excavation.
 Accepting global rock mass as the more realistic UCS for the rock mass
it is 24% of the intact UCS or approximately one quarter

www.amcconsultants.com 15
Case study 1 – results (ctd)

 What about Poisson’s ratio (ʋ)? (not considered in the

RocData application). Most models are not very
sensitive to Poisson’s ratio anyway.
 Some opinions from a quick look at the literature:
– No correlation between intact rock and rock mass for
Poisson’s ratio (Ulusay, 2009)
– and.. ʋ (rockmass) ≈ 1.2ʋ (intact rock) Kulatilake (2004) also
quoted in Ulusay (2009)

www.amcconsultants.com 16
Case study 2 – project description
and requirements

 Existing open pit hard coking coal operation –

overseas
 Rock mass shear strength required for limit
equilibrium (Galena) and finite element (Phase2)
analyses of slope stability (unit weight, cohesion and
friction angle)

www.amcconsultants.com 17
 Case study 2 – available data
 Older set of data, questionable quality, largely not included in database
 More recent good quality data but limited quantity – tested according to ISRM
methods but some not within the specified time limits due to sample export
problems (tested late samples)
 Core well wrapped and stored in freezer container to maintain constant temp.
– Triaxial compressive strength

– Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS)

– UCS with Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio

– Direct shear on discontinuities

 All recent exploration holes (post 2009) logged to CoalLog standard

 Geotech logs and core photos available
 Reasonably extensive field mapping structural database per pit sector
(geotechnical area) includes: discontinuity type, dip / dip direction, condition,
weathering, JRC, field strength estimate etc. Based on manual and Sirovision
mapping
 Back analysis of a few past failures (Galena)

www.amcconsultants.com 18
Case study 2 – accounting for
sample drying
 First problem was the length of time between sampling and
testing – closer to 1 year than 1 month for the “tested late”
samples
 Loss of moisture assumed with resultant strength increase
 Downgrading lab results to account for drying. Three references
found in the literature giving potential UCS reduction from dry to
saturated of 38% (USACE, Romana, 2007 and Barton, 2008).
For the “wrapped on time but tested late” samples this was
halved (i.e. 17% strength reduction applied)
 Barton (2007) indicates that the dry friction angle in sandstone
and siltstone is around 2° higher than for the wet case. Lab
results were therefore reduced by 1° (for 50% moisture reduction
while awaiting testing)

www.amcconsultants.com 19
Case study 2 – Method
 Mean and std. dev. was determined for all laboratory test
results with reductions made for the “tested late” samples
 Determined cohesion and friction angle using RocData -
required inputs: Intact UCS, GSI, mi and D (disturbance
factor)
 In this case GSI had been determined for the main
geotechnical domains in the pit so could be used with high
confidence. Core photographs were also inspected to
confirm the GSI from the pit data.
 Unit weight, cohesion and friction angle were determined
for each geotechnical domain
 Lab cohesion values from Triax tests were very high.
Limited investigations found two references indicating that
rock mass cohesion should be about 17% of lab result
(Stimson, 1979 and Lim, 2003)
www.amcconsultants.com 20
www.amcconsultants.com 21
Case study 2 - results
 RocData derived rock mass UCS values
dropped from 36 MPa (intact UCS) to….
 8.1 MPa for global rock mass UCS
 Accepting global rock mass as the more
realistic UCS for the rock mass, it is 23% of
the intact UCS
 Laboratory cohesion = 2.117 MPa and
applying 0.17 reduction value returned: c =
360 kPa

www.amcconsultants.com 22
Case study 2 – rock mass strength
for modelling purposes
 Problem - limited laboratory test results
 Advantages – back analyses for some failures and
good structural data
 Solution – geotechnical domains shear strength
values (for modelling) determined using (in order of
importance):
– Back analysis (Galena) – in this case, weighting factor (WF)
of 1.5)
– Averaged values of downgraded lab results (WF 1)
– Strength data from the literature (mainly from Bowen Basin)
(WF 0.5)

www.amcconsultants.com 23
GSI – when not to use it
 Marinos 2005:
– GSI is based on the assumption that the rock mass is
sufficiently disturbed by randomly oriented discontinuities that
behaves as a homogenous isotropic mass
– GSI should not be applied where there is a clearly defined
dominant structural orientation except where failure is not
controlled by the anisotropy (e.g. dominant structure dips into
the slope face and failure would occur through the rock mass).
 However, in this case GSI is used merely as a “tool” to
apply a “rock mass correction factor” to an intact sample in
order to downgrade its strength
 Where slope stability is controlled by a dominant structure,
kinematic analysis is more appropriate (plane and wedge
analysis)

www.amcconsultants.com 24
So where to next?

 Suggestions from this discussion to be noted

 Consider forming a rock mass strength sub-group in
BOHOGS to produce a guideline (framework) for
“Geotechnical sampling, testing, and result reporting”
 Sub-group should not be limited in numbers
 We surely have enough expertise and experience
between all our members to do a great job

www.amcconsultants.com 25
Comments – Ensham meeting

(M Sjoberg) Suitability of Hoek Brown criterion for coal slope stability

analysis was questioned. Most failures are due to structure.
(J Li) has found H-B to give good results in hard rock UG conditions
(S Duran) When H-B was developed and published the take-up of
the method was far wider than expected (may have been outside
empirical range in some cases as well). There has not really been
any “calibration” work done to compare actual with design where H-
B has been used in coal slope design.
(A Hossack) Direct shear results must also be included in any future
studies
(N Tucker) What info do we need, what have we got and what’s the
right amount of testing to have confidence in rock strength?

www.amcconsultants.com 26
Comments (ctd)
Some general points:
• Likely failure mechanism important when planning geotech data
collection
• Understanding of limitations of whatever methodology is used (make
sure uncertainty is addressed)
• Define what’s important for more realistic modelling
• Complete back-analyses where appropriate to determine rock mass
strength (range of strengths)

www.amcconsultants.com 27
Some items for the group to consider
 Rough framework needed (various contributors):
– Geotech drilling (how many holes are adequate for Pre-feas,
feas, design and construction phases?)
– Logging and sampling requirements (key to this would be
expected failure mode – rock mass strength / discontinuity
strength / both?)
– Testing standards (ASTM / ISRM)
– Test result verification (identification of outliers)
– Downgrading test results
– Determination of anisotropy
– Uncertainty
– Limitations

www.amcconsultants.com 28
Slopes in Weak Rock
 Prof Marc Ruest of UQ advises that the book
“Guidelines for the Design of Slopes in Weak Rock”
will be published later this year and will probably solve
part of the problem.

www.amcconsultants.com 29
Test results commonly downgraded
 UCS (UG use “lab” strengths from sonic with success)
 E and ʋ
 Triaxial (cohesion and friction angle)
 Direct shear

www.amcconsultants.com 30
Comments and suggestions from the Drayton
meeting
 John S
– From a legal perspective refer to findings as a ‘suggested method’ instead of
recommended guideline
– Back analyses are important however the failure mechanism needs to be
understood to complete a meaningful analysis
– Hoek-Brown failure criteria will bring the failure surface closer to the face
compared to Mohr-Coloumb criterion
– Hoek – HB criteria should not be used on rock with UCS’s < 20-50MPa..?
– Important to complete sensitivity analyses >> assume weak structures are present
behind the face
 Kai K –
– limited validation of results from users – not many people scrutinise results to
determine whether the sample result is valid
– What is the frequency of rock mass failures in coal mines..? similar to discussion at
Ensham

www.amcconsultants.com 31
Finally!!
 The comment that this is a “big can of worms” is often
made with regards to this problem.
 Undoubtedly it is – but if we can crack it, it will be a
very useful addition to our geotechnical “armoury”.
Especially if the final chosen method turns out to be
relatively easy to use while still being well founded and
robust. That of course remains to be seen.
 So where to next?
– Task group to be formed and they will select their leader
and come up with a strategy
– If you can help, please consider joining – contact J
Latilla or K Peckett
www.amcconsultants.com 32
Chapter navigator (to add Insert, Header & Footer, Footer and apply)

Task Group Members

• Who’s available to participate in the sub-group?
• Prof Marc Ruest
• Gift Makusha
• John Latilla
• Thomas Hahn
• Morteza Ghamgosar
• UQ PhD student (known to Nicole)

www.amcconsultants.com 33
References
 Barton N (2007) Rock quality, seismic velocity, attenuation and anisotropy

 Barton N (2008) Effects of specimen age on UCS and moisture content of weak coal measure rocks

 Eberhardt (2010) Review - GSI and Hoek-Brown procedure (modified Q)

 Hossack A (2015) personal communication

 Kulatilake P et al (2007) Estimation of rock mass strength and deformability for a 30m cube in three
dimensions – case study

 Leber & Schubert (2010) Review of current rock mass characterization practices

 Lim, H and Kim, C (2003) Comparative study on the stability analysis methods for underground pumped
powerhouse caverns in Korea

 Marinos 2005 GSI applications and limitations

 Romana 2007 Discussion on the decrease of UCS between saturated and dry rock samples

 Stimpson, B and Ross Brown, DM. (1979) Estimating the Cohesive Strength of Randomly Jointed Rock
Masses

 Ulusay R (2009) Rock properties and their role in rock characterisation, modelling and design (ISRM
presentation)

 US Army Corps of Engineers (undated) Suggested method for progressive saturation of rock samples
www.amcconsultants.com 34
Thank you
Presentations to BOHOGS June 2018