Mineral Resources Engineering, Vol. 10, No.

1 (2001) 3–37
c Imperial College Press

INCORPORATION OF A FAULT FACTOR INTO THE

STABILITY GRAPH METHOD: KIDD MINE CASE STUDIES

F. T. SUORINENI∗
Geomechanics Research Centre,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

D. D. TANNANT
School of Mining & Petroleum Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

P. K. KAISER
Geomechanics Research Centre,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

M. B. DUSSEAULT
Department of Earth Sciences,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

The stability graph method is a design tool used for open stope design in many mines
throughout the world. After eighteen years of experience with this design tool, some
limitations have been identified. One shortcoming of the stability graph method is the
fact that it does not contain a factor that accounts for the presence of faults near the
stope surface. This criticism is a legitimate one, considering that most metalliferous
orebodies are associated with faults by their genesis, and that invariably, dilution in
many open stopes is often related to the presence of faults. Therefore, a procedure that
leads to the incorporation of a factor to account for faults in the stability graph has been
developed to significantly improve the stability graph in predicting stope performance.
Fault factor curves for use in the Canadian Shield where the in situ stress ratio K is
often close to 2 have been proposed. This paper validates the use of the fault factor
with case histories from the Kidd #3 Mine in Timmins, Ontario, Canada, and presents
a stability graph that accounts for faults. The fault factor reduces the stability number
N and improves the prediction of stope performance and improves dilution control. Two
statistical indices are also presented for assessing the reliability of the stability graph in
predicting open stope performance.

∗ Address correspondence to: Dr. F. T. Suorineni, MIRARCO-Mining Innovation, F217 Fraser

Building, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury P3E 2C6, Ontario, Canada.
Tel: (705) 675-1151 ext. 5096; Email: fsuorine@mirarco.org

3
4 F. T. Suorineni et al.

1. Introduction
1.1. The stability graph method
The stability graph (Fig. 1) is a plot of a stability number N 0 against a shape factor
called hydraulic radius HR to assess the stability of each surface of an open stope.
Mathews et al.24 introduced the stability graph method for open stope design.
Because the original method was based on a small database, limited confidence was
placed in its application. Potvin30 expanded the original stability graph database
and re-calibrated the stability graph factors.

Fig. 1. The modified stability graph showing the stable, unstable and caved zones (modified after
Nickson, 1992).

The stability number, which is plotted along the vertical axis of the stability
graph, is based on a modified version of the tunnelling quality index or rockmass
quality Q.1 Modifications or adjustments are introduced to account for stress, de-
struction of rock bridges, and gravity-induced sloughage. The rockmass quality Q0
is defined as:
RQD Jr
Q0 = • • Jw (1)
Jn Ja
where RQD/Jn is interpreted as a measure of block size, Jr /Ja as a measure of inter-
block shear strength, and Jw is the joint water reduction factor. In dry conditions,
Jw is set to one. The stability number of a stope surface is defined as the product of
the modified tunnelling quality index, Q0 , the stress factor A, the rock defect factor
B, and the gravity factor C, as shown in the following equation:

N 0 = Q0 • A • B • C . (2)

Figure 2 shows the empirical graphs that are used to determine the factors A, B,
and C.
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 5

Fig. 2. Empirical graphs for determination of stability graph stress factor A, rock defect factor B,
and gravity factor C (from Hadjigeorgiou et al., Ref. 14).

The hydraulic radius of a stope surface is defined as the area of the stope surface
divided by its perimeter, expressed as:
AREA
HR = . (3)
P ERIM ET ER
The stability graph is empirically divided into three zones (Fig. 1) identified as
a stable zone, a supportable zone (unstable stopes without support), and a cav-
ing zone. Potvin30 proposed only two zones (stable and failed) for the stability
graph. Stewart and Forsyth33 reviewed the fifteen-year existence of the stability
graph method and emphasised that the design method was non-rigorous, and that
the division of the graph into only stable and unstable zones by Potvin30 was not
realistic. The three zones of the stability graph are separated by transition bound-
aries. Hutchinson and Diederichs18 offered the following qualitative definitions of
the stability graph zones. Stope surfaces plotting in the stable zone exhibit little or
no deterioration during their service life. The supportable zone contains unstable
stopes that exhibit limited wall sloughage involving less than 30% of the face area.
The caving zone comprises stopes that suffer unacceptable sloughage involving more
than 30% of the surface area. Stope surfaces that plot in the caving zone can be ex-
pected to perform poorly even if these stopes are supported. Stopes plotting in the
transition between stable stopes and caving stopes are described as supportable,
6 F. T. Suorineni et al.

while stope surfaces in the caving zone are described as unsupportable based on
current support technology.
With the advent of cavity monitoring survey CM S equipment, the stability
graph zones can now be defined quantitatively in terms of stope overbreak. Clark
and Pakalnis6 defined overbreak along a stope height in terms of equivalent linear
overbreak/slough ELOS (Fig. 3) to estimate dilution in the three zones of the
stability graph. A stability graph in terms of over break ELOS with the Potvin–
Nickson transition boundaries is shown in Fig. 4. Considering Fig. 4, Table 1
quantitatively defines the zones of the stability graph in terms of equivalent linear
overbreak/slough ELOS.

sloughage
ELOS

Fig. 3. Definition of Equivalent Linear Overbreak\Slough ELOS.



 
 
 



       
  
    
    

  
 
 
   
  

      


 


   

 


 


 
 

  







  

   
       
        



 
 


  

Fig. 4. ELOS stability graph with Potvin–Nickson boundaries (after Clark and Pakalnis, 1996).
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 7

Table 1. Quantitative definition of stability graph zones (Suorineni, Ref. 29).

ELOS (m) Stability

≤ 0.5 Stable
0.5 − 5 Unstable
≥5 Caved

Suorineni34 showed that the three zones of the stability graph have transitional
boundaries with significant overlap. This implies that a stope surface that plots in
the stable zone could still be unstable or cave. This may be because not all factors
affecting open stope stability are accounted for in the stability graph method.

1.2. Limitations of the stability graph method

The major defects of the stability graph that have been identified to-date include:

• Lack of a fault factor

• Absence of a time factor (rockmass deterioration with exposure time)
• Neglects blasting effects (degradation of rockmass by blasting-induced fractures)
• Ignores effects of complex stope geometries and undercutting
• Inability of the stress factor to account for tension, and
• Inadequate gravity factor for shallow dipping (dip < 70◦ ) footwalls.

The original gravity factor graph proposed by Mathews et al.24 did not distin-
guish between gravity-induced free fall and gravity-induced sliding failure. Potvin30
introduced an additional empirical gravity factor graph to account for sliding failure
when the failure mode is not free fall. Hadjigeorgiou et al.14 and Pakalnis et al.29
argued that the gravity factor for sliding does not adequately apply to shallow dip-
ping footwalls. Based on mechanics, Hadjigeorgiou et al.14 proposed an alternative
gravity factor graph (Fig. 5) to account for the effect of gravity in footwalls when
the mode of failure is sliding. There are not enough case histories on footwalls yet,
to validate this development.
The stress factor A is observed to be inadequate in accounting for stress ef-
fects in stope walls,19 especially when the stresses in these walls are in tension.
Therefore, the performance of stope walls prone to tension-induced sloughage can-
not be adequately predicted by the stability graph method. Diederichs and Kaiser8
suggested a tension component to the stress factor graph in order to account for
tension-induced failures. Invariably, stope hangingwalls and footwalls, which are
of concern to mines as sources of dilution, are often in tension. Mathews et al.24
suggested a stress factor of 1 for stope surfaces in tension, and for moderate stresses
(σc /σi < 10). This seems to suggest that stope surfaces in tension are equivalent to
stope surfaces under moderate confinement in terms of their performance. This con-
clusion is inconsistent with experience which shows that rockmasses in moderate
stresses are stable1,4,12 while those in tension are unstable. It may be suggested
8 F. T. Suorineni et al.


- . / 0 / - 1 2 3 4 / 5 0 6 / 7

8 9 : ;

6 / 7

'

 (

&

: ;

$%
- . / 0 / - 1 2 3 4 / 5 0 6 / 7 < 6 / 7

%


 #"

"

 !

  

 

   
  

                  

Fig. 5. Proposed gravity factor graph for sliding failure (after Hadjigeorgiou et al., Ref. 14).

that for moderate stresses the stress factor should be greater than 1 to reflect the
increased stability for this stress state. Indeed the stress reduction factor, SRF
concept1 reflects this proposition. A comparison between the stress factor, A, and
the stress reduction factor SRF is given by Kaiser et al.,19 who conclude that the
stress factor A is approximately an inverse of the stress reduction factor (SRF ).
When stresses are below zero in a blocky rockmass, stability is controlled by
gravity, and failure is by unravelling. For this case, stress-driven fracturing is not
important and therefore, the stress factor A should be set to 1 to reflect lack of
stress driven instability. In this paper, effects of faults on the stability of stope
hangingwalls and footwalls are analysed, and the stress factor A is set to 1 because
faults enhance sloughage in stope walls by reducing stresses and increasing the
tension zone.36
Open stope walls are often considered planar surfaces in planning, and are used
as such when calculating the shape factor HR in the stability graph. In practice,
stope surfaces may not be planar due to orebody irregularities and blasthole de-
viations. Undercutting a stope wall increases the size of the tension zone38 and
complicates the stope geometry. Germain et al.11 showed that stope surfaces with
complex geometries are less stable than stopes with regular geometries. Conse-
quently, when the actual stope geometry is complex and differs from the planar
surfaces used in design, wrong predictions may be made with regards to the perfor-
mance of the stope surface. The use of a volumetric index was proposed by Germain
et al.10 to account for complex stope geometries. Milne and Pakalnis26 showed that
while the hydraulic radius term21 was an improvement to the single span term,1,2
it was inadequate for complex stopes. They proposed the use of a radius factor RF
that is linked to the deformation of points in a stope surface. Milne et al.26 ad-
mits that there is little difference between HR and RF for openings with length to
span ratios less than 10 : 1. Because many stope surfaces fall within this category,
hydraulic radius HR can often be used without adverse consequences.
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 9

No factor is incorporated in the stability graph method to account for poor

blasting practices although this could be achieved by reducing Q0 or the rock defect
and gravity factors.34 Poor blasting may break rock bridges and loosen rock blocks
to reduce the quality of a rockmass. Löset22 noted that poor blasting significantly
affects the qualities of rockmasses in the range 4 < Q < 30.
Exposure time results in degradation of a rockmass quality3,20 and affects stope
performance. Dune and Pakalnis9 showed an increase in stope sloughage with time
at the Detour Lake Mine through repetitive cavity surveys. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to account for time in the stability graph if experience shows that stopes
remain open for long periods of time.
Until now the lack of a fault factor in the stability graph method has been an
important limitation. Potvin and Milne,31 when referring to the stability graph
method, stated: “The design technique cannot account for discrete geological fea-
tures such as faults, shear zones, dykes or waste inclusions which may act to cause
instability”.
Figure 6 shows an example stability graph for three stopes near faults, in which
the three stope surfaces plot as stopes that should require little or no support, but
they all caved in service. This figure demonstrates how the stability graph method
can be misapplied in designing open stopes near faults.
Faults and shear zones are frequently identified as causes of dilution in open
stopes. Most metalliferous orebodies are associated with faults by their genesis.

Fig. 6. Stability graph showing three stopes wrongly classified due to presence of faults (after
Potvin and Milne, Ref. 31).
10 F. T. Suorineni et al.

Therefore, the incorporation of a fault factor in the stability graph to account for
the presence of faults near stopes is a significant improvement to this design method,
and to the control of fault-related dilution.

Fig. 7. Fault-related overbreak in Mt. Charlotte Mine in Australia (after Mikula, Ref. 25).

Fig. 8. Fault-related sloughage in an open stope footwall in Detour Lake Mine DLM in Canada
(after Dune and Pakalnis, Ref. 9).
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 11

cablebolts

Gouge
Fault
54-735

cavity
survey
blasthole
outline

Fig. 9. Fault-related hangingwall sloughage at Kidd Mine in Canada.

Fig. 10. Stope overbreak due graphitic shear zone in Ashanti Goldfields Mine in Obuasi, Ghana.

1.3. Faults and stope stability

Faults have been responsible for several underground mine excavation failures in
the form of sloughage. Mikula25 gave examples of fault-related failures (Fig. 7)
at Mt. Charlotte Mine in Australia, where the principal mining method was open
12 F. T. Suorineni et al.

stoping. Dune and Pakalni9 described fault-related footwall caving in an open stope
at Detour Lake Mine in Canada. The cause of the caving was attributed to a fault
intersecting the stope footwall (Fig. 8) at the toe. At the Kidd Mine in Timmins,
Ontario, Canada, an important source of dilution is from fault-induced hangingwall
sloughage.34 Figure 9 shows a typical fault-related sloughage of a stope hangingwall
at Kidd Mine. Many graphitic shears, characterize the orebodies and host rocks in
Ashanti Goldfields at Obuasi, Ghana, and are a source of stope sloughage in the
mine. Figure 10 shows a stope back that caved due to the presence of a 2.5m wide
graphitic shear in the hangingwall. An unmined Stope 2 above the mined-stope
(Stope 1) collapsed causing 20m depth of overbreak, and affected the hangingwall.

2. Scope of Study
The focus of this paper is to apply the fault factor concept37 to case studies in
order to validate the procedure. More importantly, the paper presents an improved
stability graph for Kidd Mine that accounts for the many faults encountered under-
ground. The paper also includes generic fault factor graphs for use in the Canadian
Shield, and elsewhere where the conditions are similar to those used in this study.
The use of a fault factor improves reliability of the stability graph method of open
stope design. Two statistical indices are presented for assessing the reliability of
the stability graph in predicting stope performance.

3. Fault Factor F
The fault factor F is an adjustment to the stability number of the stope surface
when the stope surface is near a fault. It is incorporated in the modified stope
surface stability number N 0 as in the following equation:

Nf0 = Q0 • A • B • C • F (4)

where Nf0 is the modified stability number taking into account the fault near the
stope surface. Q0 , B and C are the modified rockmass quality, rock defect factor, and
gravity factor respectively, as defined for the conventional stability graph method.
The stress factor A is set to one for the stope surfaces analysed in this paper because
only hangingwalls and footwalls are analysed, and numerical modelling often show
these walls are in tension.
Numerical modelling was used to determine the fault factors for a variety of
given rockmass conditions, in situ stress ratios K, fault friction angles (strength
properties) and geometry, and stope geometries. Details describing how to deter-
mine a fault factor from numerical modelling are presented in Ref. 37. Figure 11
shows a typical open stope, used in the model to determine the fault factors and
Fig. 12 gives the definition of the included angle ξ between a given fault surface and
the stope wall.
The fault factor concept is based on the premise that the magnitude of the
fault factor F is directly related to the amount of sloughage attributed to the fault
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 13

Fig. 11. Typical open stope used in modelling for fault factor determination.

fault

stope

Fig. 12. Definition of included angle ξ between fault and stope surface.



  

 
    
   
  
      
  
 
   

  

  
   
      

 

 

      

  
  


 

 
  
 
     
 
 

  




  

  
    
    



 
 

    

Fig. 13. ELOS stability graph with (after Clark and Pakalnis, Ref. 6).
14 F. T. Suorineni et al.

ELOSf .36 To convert values of ELOSf to fault factors F , the stability graph con-
taining contoured ELOS values presented by Clark and Pakalnis6 and shown in
Fig. 13, is used. This figure is based on dilution contours proposed by Scoble and
Moss.32 The position of the ELOS contours were obtained by superimposing field
measurements of ELOS on the stability graph, and using statistical tools to re-
define the contours.23
The fault factor F is defined as:

Nξ0
F = (5)
N00

where, Nξ0 is the stability number corresponding to the ELOS caused by the fault,
and N00 is the stability number at the ELOS = 0.5 m contour (Fig. 13). Stope
surfaces with ELOS ≤ 0.5 m are considered stable and hence, the ELOS = 0.5
contour acts as a point of reference when calculating F . The following procedure is
used to convert ELOSf to F :

• Determine the hydraulic radius of the stope surface.

• The ELOS contour for stable stopes is taken to be the 0.5 m contour. N00 is
the stability number given by the intersection of the stope surface HR and the
ELOS = 0.5 m contour,
• For the same HR, Nξ0 is the modified stability number given by the intersection of
the given ELOSf contour and the HR of the stope surface (using interpolations
if necessary), and
• The fault factor F is the ratio of Nξ0 to N00 .

The procedure as presented is illustrated in Fig. 14.



" # $ %

& %

6 7 8

' %

 3 4 5
5

( ) * +

, - . / - 0 1 2

 

 



 

9 : ; < = >
? @ A B

 

 



 



      

        

Fig. 14. Illustration of F determination from ELOS stability graph.

 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 15

The presence of the fault is accounted for in the modified stability number Nf0 ,
by setting A = 1 and multiplying by the fault factor F :

Nf0 = Q0 • B • C • F . (6)

The fault factor has a maximum value of 1 when the fault has no adverse effect
on the stope stability, and a minimum value of 0.01 when the fault has maximum
impact on stability.
It is found that depending on the location and orientation of a fault relative
to a stope surface, the inclusion of the fault factor F in N 0 may or may not be
necessary. When a fault intersects a stope surface near the bottom at an included
angle ξ between the fault and the stope surface that is less than about 70◦ , the fault
factor must be determined and applied. For faults intersecting the stope surface
near the centre, and for short or squat stopes intersected near the bottom, the fault
factor should be applied for included angles less than about 40◦ . At included angles
greater than these threshold values, the fault factor can be ignored as it approaches
unity. For faults that do not intersect the stope, the normalised distance between
the fault and the stope surface is important. When the normalised fault distance
is less than 0.3 H (H is height of stope surface), the fault factor must be applied.
The fault factor F can be ignored for normalised distances greater than 0.3 H as
F approaches unity. These limits were determined from numerical modelling.37
Figure 15 is a set of curves for estimating the fault factors F in the Canadian
Shield.
The fault factor F can reduce the modified stability number by as much as two
orders of magnitude or more, if critical adverse factors combine. This makes the
fault factor a dominant factor in predicting stope stability compared to factors A,
B, and C, when stopes are near faults. Factor A can at most, reduce N 0 by only
one order of magnitude but in many cases A is about 1 anyway because the stope
surfaces that often cause dilution are the hangingwalls and footwalls, which are
often in tension. Factors B and C affect N 0 by less than an order of magnitude.

4. Kidd Mine Case Histories

Kidd Mine, a property of the Timmins Division of Falcombridge Limited, is located
27 km north of Timmins, Ontario, Canada and produces copper, zinc, lead and
silver.39 The mine is divided into three zones (Fig. 16) with the #3 Mine being the
deepest part of the mine (Fig. 17).
Kidd #3 Mine employs sub-level open stoping, and in upper part of #3 Mine the
method involves an overhand primary/secondary/tertiary mining sequence. Stopes
are about 15 m wide, typically 40 m high, and have lengths (hangingwall to footwall)
between 20 m to 30 m. Figures 18 and 19 respectively show a longitudinal section
and a plan view of stope sequencing in #3 Mine.
The geology of #3 Mine as seen on a 5,100-foot level (1,530 m below surface) is
shown in Fig. 20. The #3 Mine contains three systems of faults, the Gouge Fault,
16 F. T. Suorineni et al.






 

  

 

 

     


  




 



     
  
  
  
   
 





      



























  
 
  
 




 




 

 

 





  
   
 



  
   
 


























  

   






 

 

 

 




 

 













     
  ! " 
  
  


    


  
 "   
 

























  
 
  





 

 






   "  #

    















     !"

Fig. 15. Fault factor F curves for stopes of different geometries in given ground conditions and
fault properties: for AR = 0.4, h = 63 m, w = 24 m; AR = 0.2, h = 73 m, w = 12 m; AR = 0.8,
h = 31.5 m, w = 24 m; AR = 1.5, h = 15.8, w = 24 m.
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 17

Gouge Fault Splays, and minor calcite-filled south dipping faults. Figure 20 illus-
trates the location of the Gouge Fault and Gouge Fault Splay relative to the stopes,
and also indicates the major rock units.
The orebodies in Kidd Mine dip about 72◦ NE. The host rock is a foliated
rhyolite and is the source of most sloughage in the mine. The Gouge Fault and
Gouge Fault Splay systems strike north-northwest, and dip between 55◦ to 65◦ to
the NE. In #3 Mine, the Gouge Fault and Gouge Fault Splay are contained in
the hangingwall rhyolite of the massive sulphide orebody, but are contained in the
footwall of the copper stringer orebody. Consequently, the faults affect the stability
of stope hangingwalls in the sulphide orebody, and the footwalls of stopes in the
copper stringer orebody.

Fig. 16. Set-up of Kidd Mine showing #3 Mine.

18 F. T. Suorineni et al.

Fig. 17. Details of #3 Mine infrastructure.

Fig. 18. Longitudinal section of stope sequencing in #3 Mine showing typical stope heights
and widths.
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 19

 

 

  

 

Fig. 19. Plan view of stope sequencing in #3 Mine as seen on 5,400-foot level showing stope
dimensions.

Fig. 20. Simplified geology of #3 Mine as seen on 5,100-foot level showing fault systems, orebodies,
and major rock units.
 20 F. T. Suorineni et al.

4.1. Geomechanical characteristics of #3 Mine

Figure 21 is a stereonet of minor faults found on 5,200-foot level. Table 2 is a
summary of the inferred trends as observed in Fig. 21, and how they are related
to major structures. The Gouge Fault and schistosities are approximately parallel
to the hangingwall in the massive sulphide orebody, and the footwall of the copper
stringer orebody. The presence of faults and schistosity lying sub-parallel to the
orebody contact typically causes deterioration of stope surfaces containing these
features and helps explain the hangingwall buckling observed by Yu and Quesnel39
and the hangingwall sloughage discussed by Suorineni.34
The orebody hangingwall and footwall contacts are approximately 80◦ /045◦ and
85 /230◦ (dip/direction) respectively, making them approximately parallel to the
◦

S1 and S2 schistosities and the Gouge Faults.

Fig. 21. Stereonet of faults as seen on 5,200-foot level.

Table 2. Orientations (in degrees) of dominant structural features in relation to identified structures.

Trend Dip Dip Direction Parallel to Structure

#1 64 325 Gouge Fault/Gouge Fault Splays (65/045)

#2 84 287 S1 schistosity (75/015-average)
#3 39 178 Minor calcite-filled faults (variable)
#4 80 045 Orebody/HW contact
#5 85 230 Orebody/FW contact
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 21

Table 3. Geomechanical properties of discontinuities in Kidd Mine rocks (after Henning et al., Ref. 15.)

Structural Feature Friction Angle, φ(◦ ) Cohesion, c (MPa)

Gouge Fault and Gouge Fault Splay 15 0

South dipping faults 30 1
N-S and E-W Shear Zones 20 0.5
Rock joints 40 2

   

 





 


 

  
 
    

 

   
 
 
 
      

EW $%
  

&% 
 %  

    
 
 
 
     
 


 %
$% $%
 


&%


 

 
  
  

$%




 
  
  !""# 
 


 


  

 
 
 
    
$%  

 
' 

 

   

 
   
 
 

 
$%



 
  

$% 


  
    










  
   

Fig. 22. Longitudinal section through #3 Mine showing fault distances to stopes.
22 F. T. Suorineni et al.

The mechanical properties of faults and shear zones in Kidd Mine are summa-
rized in Table 3. Henning et al.15 reports that the Gouge Fault contains a significant
content of clay and silt, up to 30 cm locally. The weak fault gouge may lead to
significant fault slips when stopes are opened near the faults.
The closer a fault lies to a stope surface, the more likely that the stability of the
stope surface will be degraded. Distances between stopes and faults in Kidd #3
Mine were determined using procedures presented by Suorineni et al.35 Figure 22
is a vertical section through #3 Mine showing fault distances in relation to stopes.
The figure shows that most faults either intersect the stopes or are at short distances
from the stope. Most faults are found close to hanging walls (sulphide orebody) and
footwalls (copper stringer orebody). Out of the 112 stope surfaces analysed, 51%
(57) are intersected by faults or are at distances that make them impair the stability
of the stope. Fifty one percent of the fault-affected stopes are hangingwalls, and
33% are footwalls, the rest being other stope surfaces in ore. Consequently, the
stability of the stope walls near the faults would be affected by the faults, and
hangingwalls and footwalls stabilities are most affected.
Table 4 is a summary of the rock joint characteristics. Observed failure modes
underground13 indicate that schistosity plays a major role in the stability of hang-
ingwalls in the rhyolite. There are two sets of schistosity, referred to as S1 and S2
schistosity. In the cherty breccia the S1 schistosity is well defined at an strike of
276◦ and a dip of between 74◦ and 79◦ to the north with the S2 schistosity oriented
at 012◦ , and dipping 83◦ southeast. In the vocaniclastic rhyolite the trend of the
S1 schistosity is similar to that in the cherty breccia, while the trend of the S2
schistosity varies between 220◦ and 000◦ . The wide variation in trend of the S2
schistosity is probably a result of the F 2 folding.38 For rockmass classification pur-
poses in the Q-system,1 Table 4 shows the resultant joint systems taking schistosity
into account.

Table 4. Summary of joint sets in main rock units including schistosity (after Suorineni, Ref. 34).

Rock Type Number of Joints Dip (±5◦ ) Dip Direction (±5◦ )

Andesite\diorite 3+ 17 255
83 065
78 120
Cherty breccia 3+ 09 170
87 355
79 005
Rhyolite 3+ 07 180
75 000
75 030
Massive sulphide 2+ 08 130
85 135
+ Refers to presence of random joints
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 23

Table 5. Global RQD values based on rock type.

Rock type Median Mean Min. Max. Recommended Std. # of

Value Dev. Values

Rhyolite 90 85 10 100 85 18 822

Massive sulphide 90 84 10 100 90 17 27
Talc-carbonate 90 86 10 100 86 13 111
Greywacke 70 57 10 85 70 25 791
Andesite/diorite 95 94 20 100 95 12 162

- ) )

              

9 : ;

, ( )

, ) )

N O P Q R S T P U V

< = > ? @ A B > C D

E F C B G

+ ( )

6 7

23 4

. /0

+ ) )

H I J K I H

* ( )

H I J L M H

* ) )

( ( )

                 

  ! " # $ % & '

Fig. 23. Relationship of faults to RQD on 5,200-foot level.

24 F. T. Suorineni et al.

   

   

( ) * + , - . /

   

5 7 2 3 4 6

0 6 2 3 4 6

8 9 :

0 6 2 3 4 0

   

' " "

   

0 4 2 3 4 0

& "

 

% "

 

   

0 5 2 3 4 0

$ "

   

0 1 2 3 4 0

# "

"

   

   

   

 
      
 
 

     

Fig. 24. RQD distribution in panel 735 of 5,400-foot level.

RQD is an important component of the Q rockmass quality assessment. Nearly

80,000 RQD records were obtained from 4,600-foot level to 6,000-foot level of the
mine, and used to determine average RQD values for the volume of rock near each
stope surface. Details of the procedure are described in Tannant et al.38 Not all
RQD values were in rock units relevant for the stope stability analysis. Table 5 is a
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 25

summary of the RQD values critical for assessing stope stability in each rock unit.
Based on Deere’s7 classification system, the rocks at Kidd #3 Mine classify as fair
to very good. Figure 23 shows contoured RQD values as observed on 5,200-foot
level, and Fig. 24 shows the RQD distribution in panel 735 of 5,400-foot level. Some
RQD contours show that the location of faults correlate well with locally reduced
RQD values. In other cases, faults seem to have little effect on RQD, implying
that RQD is not a prima facie measure of fault effects.
Table 6 is a Q-classification of major rock units at Kidd Mine. The rocks classify
as fair to good in the Q-system.
Hangingwalls and footwalls are mostly in the rhyolite with ore being either the
massive sulphide or copper stringer. Based on the Q-system, hangingwalls and
footwalls are less stable than end walls in the orebodies. In fact, most failures
observed in the #3 Mine are in the hangingwalls and footwalls. A deficiency in the
Q classification system is that it does not adequately account for the presence of
faults, and stability assessments based on Table 6 will be over estimated.

Table 6. Classification of main rock units in Kidd Mine.

Rock Type RQD # of Joint Joint Set Joint Joint Rockmass

Sets Number, Jn Roughness, Jr Alteration, Ja Quality Q0

Rhyolite 85 3+ 12 1.5 2 5
Massive sulphide 90 2+ 6 1 1 15
Talc- carbonate 86 3+ 12 1.5 2 5
Greywacke 70 3+ 12 1.5 2 5
Andesite/diorite 95 3+ 12 1.5 2 6
+ Refers to additional random joints



     

    

    

    

 

    




    

    ! " # $

    

    

   


  

Fig. 25. Graph for estimating principal stresses at depth in Kidd Mine (after Tannant et al.,
Ref. 38).
26 F. T. Suorineni et al.

The in situ stress ratio affects stope performance. In situ stress measurements
have been conducted over the years at Kidd Mine, and are discussed by Tannant et
al.38 Due to the complexity of the Kidd Mine rock structure, a relatively high
scattering of results has been reported. Tannant et al.38 proposed Fig. 25 for
estimating stresses at depth in Kidd Mine. The figure suggests a tendency for
equalization of principal stresses at depth, which is more realistic, compared to
the method of estimating stresses at Kidd reported by Haapamaki.13 At depth all
three principal stresses should tend to equalize as shown by Hoek and Brown17 and
several others. The #3 Mine lies between depths of about 1,400 m and 2,100 m,
and hence the principal stress ratio K0 (σ1 /σ3 ) is about 2.

4.2. Stope performance at Kidd Mine

Mathews et al.24 in developing the stability graph method assigned such qualitative
terms as stable, unstable or caved to stope surfaces depending on the judgement of
the mining or geotechnical engineer. With the development of the cavity monitoring
system CM S by Miller et al.27 stope performance can be more accurately described
quantitatively. Cavity survey profiles of stopes at Kidd Mine were used to assess
the performance of #3 Mine stopes. The performance of stope surfaces were judged
based on the average depth of overbreak in each stope surface.
Overbreak is here defined as average distance from the planned stope wall de-
fined by blast layouts, to the actual wall as picked by the cavity monitoring system
after complete or near complete mucking of the stope. Overbreak is equivalent to
ELOS (equivalent linear overbreak/slough) defined by Clark and Pakalnis6 to re-
flect dilution in terms of average depth of overbreak over the stope height. Profiles
of cavity surveys and blasthole layouts were superimposed by digitising in Auto-
CAD. Such profiles sometimes included nearby faults and cablebolt support layouts.

cablebolts

56-705

blast layout cavity

survey

Fig. 26. Stope showing no overbreak — no fault observed.

 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 27

cablebolts

cavity
survey

53-695 cablebolts

blast layout

Fig. 27. Tall stope showing significant wall sloughage — no fault identified in this panel.

Figure 26 is a stope that has no fault near it and shows no overbreak, and Fig. 27 is
a tall stope showing significant overbreak, that seems not fault-related but due to
geometry. Stopes with fault-related caving are shown later in the paper. When tall
stopes are near faults, their stability will be much more reduced. In the #3 Mine,
a total of 48 stopes involving some 112-stope surfaces were assessed.
Figure 28 is a vertical section through #3 Mine showing the overbreak distribu-
tion. The figure shows most problem stopes are in the massive sulphide orebody,
and tend to occur in taller stopes and stopes near faults. Majority of the failures
occurred on the 5,100-foot level and in the 735 and 750 panels. Figure 20 shows
that the Gouge Fault and Gouge Fault Splay converged on the 5,100-foot level
and in panels 735 and 750. Consequently, the failures at these locations are likely
fault-induced.

4.3. Kidd #3 Mine stability graph

The stability graph method was applied to the Kidd database to develop a stability
graph for future stope design at Kidd. Figure 29 shows the distribution of the stope
surfaces. All the stope surfaces analysed in the #3 Mine are walls. Stope backs in
Kidd #3 Mine are often cablebolted and supported with rebars. This is to prevent
back failures that may result from the strong horizontal joint set in the massive
sulphide. During the study, no evidence of back instability was observed.
The procedure for developing a stability graph requires a determination of the
stability number N 0 , and the shape factor HR for each stope surface. The stability
number is then plotted against the hydraulic radius for each stope surface. The
semi-empirically established stability boundaries (Potvin–Nickson boundaries) are
then superimposed on the plot identify stable and unstable stopes.
28 F. T. Suorineni et al.

Level Elev.
46L 1932


47-821 47-725 47-695 47-645 47-630

2 m FW
overbreak

47L 1902
1 m FW 1.5 m FW
overbreak overbreak
48-821 48-782 48-725 48-695 48-645

48L


1862

49-821 49-811 49-782 49-731 49-725 49-705 49-695 49-665 49-645

49L 1822

51-782 1 m FW 51-665
51-821 51-811 51-731 overbreak 51-735 51-725 51-705 51-695 51-645
51-675
51-781

51L


1782

copper


52L 1752 >1 m

stringer


side wall
orebody 53-735 53-695


overbreak
2 m FW
overbreak

53L


1712

54-821 54-781 54-755 54-735 54-695

Hangingwall
overbreak (m)
54L


1672

unknown
56-781 56-755 56-735 56-705 56-695


0 to 1


>1 to 3
56L 1632


>3 to 5


>5

massive
57L


1592
sulphide


orebody


undercut by 60-
695
58-695

58L 1552

1 m FW
overbreak 60-756
60-791 60-725 60-695
60-755

60L


1512
840 825 810 795 780 765 750 735 720 765 750 735 720 705 690 675 660 645

Fig. 28. Overbreak distribution in #3 Mine.

 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 29


 

( )

'

&

#$

! "

 

             

       

           

Fig. 29. Distribution of stope surfaces analysed.

To determine the stability number of a stope surface, the orientation of the stope
surface and critical joint sets controlling its stability are required in addition to the
angle between the stope surface and the identified critical joint set. Suorineni et al.35
presented procedures for the determination of stope dips, includedangles, and stope
surface dimensions from wire-frame stope model coordinates. These procedures
were used to determine stope dips and included angles for the determination of
the rock defect factor B, and gravity factor C that were required to calculate the
stability numbers.
The shape factor HR of each stope surface is required in order to predict its
performance in the stability graph. Stope surface dimensions were determined from
wire-frame model coordinates obtained from the mine. Suorineni34 gives the com-
plete database.
The actual performance of stopes was assessed by comparing cavity survey pro-
files with planned stope designs. Overbreak was estimated as average depth of
overbreak along the stope heights, which is similar to ELOS. By plotting each
stope surface of known performance, stable and unstable stopes could be identi-
fied and their location in the stability graph zones reflects the reliability of the
conventional stability graph in predicting stope performance.
The conventional stability graph for Kidd #3 Mine is presented in Fig. 30, in
which the faults near stopes are not taken into account. Figure 30 shows a high
overlap of stable and failed stopes that makes designs based on Fig. 30 erratic. The
high overlap of stable and unstable stopes is largely attributed to not accounting
for the presence of faults in the stability graph.
The effect of the fault factor on the modified stability graph is shown by plot-
ting eight sample stopes (Fig. 31) with known faults that caved as evidenced from
their cavity survey profiles. The eight stopes are plotted without correcting for the
presence of the faults (unfilled markers) and then, after correcting for the faults
30 F. T. Suorineni et al.


#$

"

 



 

 

% & ' ( ) * + , - .

 



% & ' ( * + , - 0 - .

 

% & ' ( / * - .



      

           

Fig. 30. Conventional modified stability graph for Kidd #3 Mine.

 
 
   

  
 
    
  

 

   

      
   
 
   
   

  

 
 
   
   


 
  
     
   
     


 
 
 
 

    
 

   


     
 
 
   
 

 
    
  

 


Fig. 31. Stopes showing their relationship with faults for fault factor verification.
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 31


#$

"

 



 

 

 



 



      

           

Fig. 32. Fault factor verification stability graph: unfilled markers are stability numbers without
correcting for faults, and filled markers are stability numbers corrected for faults.





      









 



 
 

   

Fig. 33. Kidd #3 Mine stability graph incorporating fault factor F .

(filled markers) in Fig. 32. Comparisons of the points before and after correcting
for the faults show significant improvement. The fault factor concept is applied to
the whole Kidd #3 Mine database, and Fig. 33 is a stability graph for #3 Mine
taking into account a fault correction factor F for the stope surfaces.
In theory, the stable and caved zones should only contain stable and caved stopes
respectively. The unstable zone is a “grey zone”, and contains stable, unstable and
caved stopes. In practice, the stable and cave zones in the stability graph are not
absolute but usually contain a mixture of stopes of various degrees of performance.
This implies that using the stability graph to predict the performance of a stope
32 F. T. Suorineni et al.

surface carries with it some inherent error. Not much attention is paid to inherent
errors in applying a stability graph for open stope design, despite the enormous
gains that this has in reducing risks of failure. In the next section, two statistical
indices are introduced for determining the inherent error in any stability graph, and
used to estimate the level of improvement achieved by introducing the fault factor
to the Kidd #3 Mine stability graph.

4.4. Statistical evaluation of the reliability of a stability graph

Statistical tools can be used to assess the reliability of the stability graph with
and without the fault factor. Two parameters, the data separability index υ 34 and
apparent error rate AP ER16 can be used to assess the reliability of the stability
graph in predicting stope performance.
The data separability index υ is defined as the distance |d| between the centroids
of two data groups, Xu and Xs , divided by their pooled variance Sp . The larger
the data separability index, the smaller the overlap of data (Fig. 34). A high
data separability index between stable and unstable stope surfaces implies a well
defined boundary between stable and unstable stopes with minimum grey area,

Fig. 34. Effect of data separability index on data overlap: data separability index decreasing from
(a) to (c) with increasing data overlap.
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 33

and a high degree of accuracy in predicting stable from unstable stopes. This
parameter is independent of the conventional stability graph zones, and can be
applied to any mine data that does not necessarily obey the Potvin–Nickson stability
graph boundaries.
While data overlap may be high in a stability graph, it does not necessarily mean
the data moved into the correct stability graph zones according to the performance
of the stope. To determine whether data separability is improved, and whether the
stopes moved into the correct stability graph zones according to performance, the
apparent error rate AP ER16 should be used. Higher values of AP ER reflect better
stope performance predictability, with the stability graph.
AP ER is calculated from the confusion matrix16 based on the data classification
or discriminant rule used (e.g. the Potvin–Nickson boundaries). With respect to
the stability graph zones and a given data classification rule, the confusion matrix
is defined as in Table 7.

Table 7. Confusion matrix for determination of AP ER.

Predicted Membership Total

Stable Unstable

Stable zone nsc nsm = ns − nsc ns

True membership
Unstable zone num = nu − nuc nuc nu

where nsc = number of stable stopes correctly classified as stable, nsm = number
of stable stopes misclassified as unstable, nuc number of unstable stopes correctly
classified as unstable, num = number of unstable stopes misclassified as stable,
ns = number of stable stopes, and nu = number of unstable stopes.
Because the Potvin–Nickson empirical rule is used as the discriminant, the
Potvin boundary is assumed as the classification rule, and the stopes are classified
as either stable or unstable based on this rule. Therefore the AP ER is determined
based on this rule.
AP ER is mathematically expressed as:
 
nsm + num
AP ER = • 100% . (7)
ns + nu
The data separability indices before and after application of the fault factor
are 0.01 and 0.02 respectively, while the AP ER without and with the fault factor
are determined to be 2% and 9% respectively. For comparison, the AP ER for
the stability graph using the calibration database is about 8%.34 Based on the
AP ER values an improvement of 350% is estimated, while the data separability
index shows an improvement in data overlap (i.e. separation of stable stopes from
unstable stopes) of about 100%.
Figure 33 shows improved separation of stope surfaces into clusters of similar
performances in accordance with the designated stability graph zones of stable, and
34 F. T. Suorineni et al.

unstable, compared with Fig. 30. Consequently, inclusion of a fault factor in the
stability graph method is strongly recommended for improved reliability of stope
performance prediction, when stopes are near faults.

5. Conclusions
The stability graph method has been in use for about two decades now, but still
has some shortcomings. These shortcomings surface with more use of the stability
graph. This paper addresses one criticism that is often cited as a major limitation
in the stability graph. Because most orebodies extracted by open stope mining are
associated with faults from their mode of origin, a fault factor should be included in
the stability graph to account for the reduction in stope stability. This is necessary
because the presence of faults is not adequately accounted for in the Q rockmass
classification system also.
A fault factor is introduced to reduce the stability number N 0 to reflect the
increased instability in a stope surface intersected by a fault or close to a fault.
The reduction in N by a fault depends on the geometry of the fault, the geometry
of the stope, the angle between the stope and the fault, the distance between the
stope and the fault, rockmass and fault mechanical properties, and the in situ or
mining-induced stress ratio.
The fault factor curves introduced show that the fault factor can reduce N 0 by
as much as two orders of magnitude. Therefore the fault factor is potentially more
important than the stress factor A, rock defect orientation factor B, and gravity
factor C as these reduce N 0 by only an order of magnitude or less.
A stability graph that accounts for the presence of faults near stopes is presented
for the Kidd #3 Mine and fault factor graphs are given for estimating fault factors
in the Canadian Shield.
The inclusion of the fault factor has significant effect on open stope design. The
presence of a fault near a stope demands that a smaller hydraulic radius be used
(with due consideration to economics) if the stope should be unsupported, and
that much more support would be required to maintain a stable stope at a larger
hydraulic radius. These conclusions are due to the fact that the presence of a fault
increases the size of the tension zone in the wall of a stope of any geometry.
The data separability index and the AP ER can be used to assess the reliability
of the stability graph in predicting stope performance. These indices are applied to
the Kidd #3 Mine database and show improvements in the stability graph of about
a 100% and 350% respectively.
The use of the fault factor is strongly recommended when assessing stability of
stopes near faults with the stability graph.

Acknowledgements
This research was sponsored by NSERC through the Geomechanics Research Centre
of Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, and the Ghana Government.
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 35

We are grateful to the Management of Kidd Mine for making the mine available
for the research. We sincerely thank Shawn Seldon for his role in organising the
data collection.

References

1. N. Barton, R. Lien and J. Lunde, Engineering classification of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support, Rock Mechanics 6 (1974) 188–236.
2. Z. T. Bieniawski, Engineering classification of jointed rock masses, Trans. South Afr.
Inst. Civil Eng. 15 (1973) 335–344.
3. Z. T. Bieniawski, Engineering Rock Mass Classification (John Wiley and Sons, New
York, 1989) 251.
4. B. H. G. Brady and E. T. Brown, Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining (Chapman
& Hall, Landon, 1993) 527.
5. T. L. Brekke and R. Selmer-Olsen, A survey of main factors influencing the stability
of underground construction in Norway, Proc. 1st Int. Congr. ISRM, Montreaux (A.
A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1966) 257–260.
6. L. M. Clark and R. C. Pakalnis, An empirical design approach for estimating
unplanned dilution from open stope hangingwalls and footwalls, 99th CIM-AGM,
Vancouver, 1997.
7. D. U. Deere, Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes, Rock
Mech. Eng. Geol. 1, 1 (1964) 163–176.
8. M. S. Dierderichs and P. K. Kaiser, Tensile strength and abutment relaxation as
failure control mechanisms in underground excavations, Paper submitted to Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1998.
9. K. Dune and R. C. Pakalnis, Dilution aspects of a sublevel retreat stope at Detour Lake
Mine, Proc. 2nd NARMS Rock Mech. Symp. Rock Mech. Tools Techniques, Aubertin,
Hassani and Mitri, Quebec, 1 (A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1996) 305–313.
10. P. Germain and J. Hadjigeorgiou, Influence of stope geometry on mining performance,
Proc. CIM-AGM, Montreal, CD-ROM, 1998.
11. P. Germain, J. Hadjigeorgiou and J. F. Lessard, On the relationship between stability
prediction and observed stope overbreak, Proc. 2nd NARMS, eds. Aubertin, Hassani
and Mitri, Quebec. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema 1 (1996) 277–283.
12. R. E. Goodman, Methods in Gedogical Engineering (West Publishing, New York) 472.
13. S. Haapamaki, Ground conditions at Kidd Creek Mines, Deep Mining Forum,
Timmins, Ontario, Canada, 1996, 6 pages.
14. J. Hadjigeorgiou, J. LeClaire and Y. Potvin, An update of the stability graph method
for open stope design, 97th CIM-AGM, Rock Mech. Strata Control, Halifax, Nova
Scotia, 1995.
15. J. G. Henning, T. R. Yu and D. H. Zou, Rock mechanics aspects of sill pillar recovery
at Kidd Creek Mine, 1992, 7 pages.
16. R. A. Johnson and D. W. Wichern, Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 3rd edn.
(Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1992) 642.
17. E. Hoek and E. T. Brown, Underground Excavations in Rock, Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy, London (1980) 527.
18. D. J. Hutchinson and M. S. Diederichs, Cablebolting in underground hard rock
mines, A practical guide and final report of a joint research project through the
Mining Research Directorate and the Australian Mineral Industries Research Asso-
ciation (AMIRA); Bitech Publishers Ltd., 173-11860 Hammersmith Way, Richmond,
BC, Canada, V7A 5G1., 1995, 400 pages.
36 F. T. Suorineni et al.

19. P. K. Kaiser, V. Falmagne, F. T. Suorineni, M. S. Diederichs and D. D. Tannant,

Incorporation of rockmass relaxation and degradation into empirical stope design,
CIM-AGM, Vancouver, 1997, 15 pages.
20. D. H. Laubscher, A geomechanics classification system for the rating of a rock mass
in mine design, J. South Afr. Inst. Mining Metall. 90, 10 (1990) 257–273.
21. D. H. Laubscher and H. W. Taylor, The importance of geomechanics classification of
jointed rockmasses in mining operations, Exploration of Rock E, Cape Town, A. A.
Balkema, ed. Bieniawski 1 (1976) 119–128.
22. F. Löset, Use of the Q-mathod for securing small weakness zones and temporary
support, NGI Internal Report No. 548140-1, 1990.
23. S. G. L. Mah, Quantification and prediction of wall slough in open stope mining
methods, MSc Thesis, Mining and Mineral Process Engineering, University of British
Columbia, Canada (1997) 215.
24. K. E. Mathews, E. Hoek, D. C. Wyllie and S. B. V. Stewart, Prediction of stable ex-
cavations for mining at depth below 1000 metres in hard rock, CANMET Report DSS
Serial No. OSQ80-00081, DSS File No. 17SQ.23440-0-9020, Department of Energy,
Mines and Resources, Ottawa, 1980, 39 pages.
25. P. Mikula, The influence of geotechnical monitoring on mine design at Mt. Charlotte,
Proc. Conf. Geotech. Instrumentation Monitoring Open Pit Underground Mining, ed.
Szwedzicki (A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1993) 375–382.
26. D. Milne and R. C. Pakalnis, Theory behind empirical design techniques, 12e Colloque
en Controle de Terrain de l’Association Minierre du Quebec, 1997, 20 pages.
27. F. Miller, D. Jacob and Y. Potvin, Cavity monitoring system — Update and applica-
tions, 94th CIM-AGM, Montreal, 1992.
28. S. D. Nickson, Cable support guidelines for underground hard rock mine operations,
MA Sc thesis, Department Mining and Mineral Engineering, University of British
Columbia (1992) 276.
29. R. Pakalnis, S. Nickson, P. Lunder, L. Clark, D. Milne and P. Mah, Empirical methods
for the design of mine structures, 11e Colloque en Controle de Terrain de Association
Minierre du Quebec, Val d’Or, Quebec, 1996, 12 pages.
30. Y. Potvin, Empirical open design in Canada, PhD Thesis, Department of Mining and
Mineral Processing, University of British Columbia, 1988, 343 pages.
31. Y. Potvin and D. Milne, Empirical cable bolt support design, Proc. Rock Support, eds.
Kaiser and McCreath (A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1992) 269–275.
32. M. J. Scoble and A. Moss, Dilution in underground bulk mining: Implications for
production management, mineral resource evaluation II: Methods and case histories,
Geological Society Special Publication No. 79, 1994, 95–108.
33. S. B. V Stewart and W. W. Forsyth, The Mathews method for open stope design,
CIM Bull. 88, 992 (1995) 45–53.
34. F. T. Suorineni, Effects of faults and stress on open stope design, PhD Thesis,
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada, 1998,
344 pages.
35. F. T. Suorineni, D. D. Tannant and P. K. Kaiser, Determination of stope geometry and
relative structural orientations for use in the stability graph, CIM-AGM, Vancouver,
CD-ROM, 1997.
36. F. T. Suorineni, D. D. Tannant and P. K. Kaiser, Determination of fault-related
sloughage in open stopes, Paper accepted by Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech.
Abstr., 1999a.
37. F. T. Suorineni, D. D. Tannant and P. K. Kaiser, A procedure for determining fault
factors for incorporation into the stability graph method of open stope design, Paper
submitted to Inst. Min. Metall. Trans. Section A, 1999b.
 Incorporation of a Fault Factor into the Stability Graph Method 37

38. D. D. Tannant and M. S. Diederichs, Cablebolt optimization in #3 Mine, Report to

Shawn Seldon, Kidd Mine Division, Timmins, Ontario, Canada, 65 pages.
39. T. R. Yu and D. B. Counter, Backfill practice and technology at Kidd Creek Mines,
CIM Bulletin 76, 856 (1983) 56–65.