See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/365777284

Numerical Modelling and factor of safety analysis with regard to stability of

OB Dump slope resting on in-situ coal barrier

Conference Paper · November 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 86

4 authors, including:

Pritiranjan Singh
Central Mine Planning and Design Institute
4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Pritiranjan Singh on 27 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Numerical Modelling and factor of safety analysis with regard to stability of OB Dump
slope resting on in situ coal barrier
Pritiranjan Singh*,Alekha Naik** Debasish Roy ***, Sanjay Kumar Bhar****

*Dy Manager, **Manager, ***General Manager,**** Regional Director

Central Mine Planning and Design Instiute Limited Bhubaneswar

Abstract

In the present world‟s energy scenario, despite the push for net a zero target, there has been
soaring demand for coal for energy security for developing nations like India. Coal mining
companies are under tremendous pressure to boost production to meet this growing demand.
With scarce availability of land for mining, the coal mines are unable to maintain a safe pit
configuration. The catastrophic slope failure at Rajmahal coal mine created uproar in the
Indian Mining fraternity leading to a change in regulations for safe pit design. The dump
failure at Rajmahal was attributed due to the failure of disturbed situ rib pillar. This paper
discussed about this practical problem of slope instability of OB dump resting against in situ
coal barrier. The factor of safety (FoS) analysis was carried out with shear strength reduction
technique (SSR) and limit equilibrium method (LEM). SSR based estimation of FoS was
done by adopting continuum analysis of slope material. Simplified Bishop‟s method was
adopted for Limit equilibrium analysis. On field slope conditions were simulated under
multiple constraints to estimate FoS. Critical review of variations in safety factors under the
contrasting nature of influencing parameters was undertaken. Solutions based on numerical
modelling results were also explained in the paper.
Key words – Pit Stability, Dump Stability, Numerical Modelling FoS, SSR, LEM.

1.0 Introduction

The mining industry contributes a significant portion to the path of nation-building. Both
metal and non-metal sectors are continuously contributing to India‟s GDP. As per the press
release by the press information bureau of India, after the economic downtime due covid the
mining industry bounced back with a growth percentage of about 12.56%. The government of
India has set a target to achieve 8.5% growth in mining during the period of 2018-2023. Coal
which is still considered the king in the Indian mining industry is the backbone nation‟s
energy security. In spite of the global uproar to discard coal, the demand for coal has surged
high in recent years. Even developing countries like the USA have seen increased coal
demand following the period of the covid pandemic. Coal India Limited, the largest coal-
producing organization in the world is entrusted to achieve an unprecedented target of 1
billion MT of coal in 2025 with the slogan of Atma Nirbhar Bharat. The majority of coal
production in India is from opencast coal mines. For opencast mining, land is the prime raw
material. Land acquisition has been an arduous activity for most coal mining companies, in
this second most populous nation. With the disparity in the non-availability of sufficient land
and soaring demand for thermal coal, coal mining companies are burdened with the herculean
task of increase in production in limited available land. This in return adversely affects the
safety of mines. To increase production coal mines are forced to adopt unsafe mine geometry
leading to steep and deep excavations. Such unsafe mine excavations may lead to
catastrophic accidents in the form of slope failures. In the year 2016 India witnessed the
deadliest slope failure incident in the Rajmahal opencast mine of M/s Eastern Coalfields
Limited. A total of 23 persons died in the unfortunate incident when a mass of about 4.3
million cu. M came down on the working men and machinery (HPC report 2016). This
comprised of 1.35 million cum m of solid material and 2.95 million cu m of loose material.
Bharatpur opencast mine of M/s Mahanadi coal fields Ltd also witnessed a similar sort of
failure in the year 2019 where four persons lost their lives. Both the dump failures were due
to the failure of intact rock mass which were carrying the dead load of dump mass. Failure of
highwall lead to slipping of dump mass. Table 1 shows the list of highwall slope failures up
to year 2016. In this paper, a study was conducted considering the slope mass comprising
combined strata of highwall and overburden dump.

Table 1 List of Highwall slope failures (from satyanarayan etal after DGMS 2016)

Year State Name of Name of Date of No of No. of

Mine Company Accident persons persons
Killed Seriously
Injured
2007 Jharkhand Chasnalla IISCO 21-aug 07 1 0
2008 Madhya Jayant NCL 17-dec 08 5 0
Pradesh Colliery
2009 Maharashtra Sasti OCP WCL 04-jun-09 2 0
2010 Maharashtra Umrer OCP WCL 28-sep 10 1 1
2011 Jharkhand Chasnalla IISCO 9-mar-11 1 1
2011 West Bengal Dalurband ECL 14-jun-11 1 0
OCP
2013 Odisha Bharatpur MCL 21-apr-13 1 1
OCP
2013 Odisha Kulda OCP MCL 10-aug 13 13 0
2014 Madhya Dhanpuri SECL 01-jul-14 2 0
Pradesh OCP
2015 NIL
2016 Jharkhand Rajmahal ECL 29-Dec-16 23 0
OCP

2.0 Important Parameters affecting Mine Slopes

2.1 Physical Parameters

(a) Strength parameters:

The strength of a material may be classified as compressive strength, shear strength, and
tensile strength. Compressive strength is the maximum among the three for any material. In
any excavated slopes the slope mass undergoes shearing. Cohesion and angle of repose are
two components of shear strength. In most slope stability applications, these two values are
extensively used for computation purpose based on the famous Mohr Columb failure criteria.

b) Density
The density of slope material is one of the important parameters in stability calculation. It
determines the weight of waste rock / soil mass, and most important factor in the
determination of factor of safety of slope mass.

c) Strength of interface material

The strength of interface materials is vital in adding resistance in inter layer regions ,to keep
the slope stand safely. Generally interface materials become slurry due to the crust of coal,
soil and accumulation of rain water. It badly affects the cohesion of soil and the frictional
coefficient of the pedestal material dump. So arrangements should be made to prevent the
formation of slurry.

d)Discontinuities
Properties and orientation of discontinuities present in rock mass slope have a major impact
on the strength of rock slope. Closely spaced joints indicate low strength of the slope mass.
Orientation of joints helps in forecasting type of failure.

d)Grain size distribution of the material

It indicates composition of dump material comprising of clay, silt, sand, gravels and boulders
and the particle size of dump mass varies from 0.075 mm to more than 1.0 m and the
percentage composition of dump material. It influences the permeability, density, range of
values of shear strength parameters and other characteristics of the soil materials.

e) Void Ratio/Permeability
This indicates the amount of interparticle space present in the material. With increase in void
ratio, water content in the material increases. Increase in water content enhances the
porewater pressure which act as a driving force towards slope instability.

e) Hydro-Geological parameters
Shear strength parameters of dump materials get affected due to water saturation during rainy
season. Majority of the dump failure is reported during the rainy season & thus the effect of
water saturation due to rainwater is to be considered. Upward thrust of water i.e. hydro-static
force is created due to accumulated water at the base of dump. It is determined by the product
of unit weight of water and volume of submerged overburden dump material falling within
the failure mass. It also reduces the cohesion and friction between interface materials.
Flowing of rain water create large and deep cavity on the slope surface and it damages the
slope profile with formation of gully drains and erosion. In case of presence of tension
cracks, inflow of water creates a weak surface leading to the creation of a failure plane. In
case of highwalls , the accumulation of water behind the impermeable strata leads to an
increase in water pressure and there by increasing the forces acting upon the in-situ mas

2.2 Geo-mining parameters

a) Mine floor inclination
It is one of the major influencing parameters controlling stability of bench. As the high wall
is formed above the mine floor, which is the place of natural occurrence of coal seam or
layer, all benches are to be designed as per the gradient of coal seam which is not in the
control of the mine operators. Inclination of floor(dip) reduce the effective angle of repose as
such shear strength of materials. In case of external dump standing against a hill; it is also a
major factor influencing stability of bench.

c) Slope profile
The profile of the bench, i.e height, berm width and slope angle of individual benches are the
crucial factors to determine the stability of bench. As the height of bench increases, the
natural time period of slope mass increases as such amplitude of natural frequency. This
increases the momentum of whole mass and become susceptible to the even smaller
vibration.
d)Method of working
The type of working adopted such as pe of drilling, blasting, mechanization,. The sequence of
extraction, dumping etc affects the stability of mine slopes. Directorate geminal of mines
safety has laid down guidelines to adopt method of working based on scientific analysis.

2.2 Seismic forces

A slope mass is always under the constant loading due to earth‟s gravity. A sudden change is
this external forces due to any seismic event such as earthquake and blasting will hampers the
state of equilibrium condition of slope with decrease in the stability factor.

3.0 Investigation Site

Mine A is located in the IB valley coalfields of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and is situated
in Jharsuguda District of Odisha. The mine is located at about 8 k.m south of Belpahar
Railway station of S.E.C. Railway on the Howrah-Mumbai main line. It is at a distance of
4k.m. from the Chief General Manager‟s office and 5k.m. from the Bandhabahal colony.
National Highway No-200 connecting Sambalpur –Raipur (C.G.) via-Jharsuguda is passing
through Belpahar Town is at about 7k.m. from the mine. National Highway No-42 passing
through Jharsuguda, a Junction of SEC Rly is about 30 kms. from the Mine.. The Project
falls between latitude 21⁰ 42‟ 15” & 21⁰ 47‟ 10”N and longitudes 83⁰ 48” 11” and 83⁰ 52‟ 38”
E. M/s MCL is a subsidiary company of M/s CIL with its headquarters at Sambalpur.

The mine is being worked by engaging HEMMs in conjunction with deep hole blasting.
HEMMs were deployed by the contractual agency as well as the department (M/s MCL) for
the removal of overburden and extraction of coal. The Mine is segregated into departmental
and outsourced quarries. The OB removal was being done at quarry-6 departmentally and
quarry no.1, quarry no.3, quarry no.4, and quarry no.5 by contractual excavators (Tata
Hitachi, 3.1cum) and tippers (Benz, Scania, 18 cum & 23cum.)

Coal is extracted by the deployment of the departmental and contractual surface miner and
loading & transportation of coal is being done by contractual with payloader & tippers
combination.

4.0 Geological Setting

Mine A is developed in sector-III of Belpahar Block, covering an area of 20 square km and
has an estimated reserve of 154 MT coal in three seams - Lajkura seam, IB seam and Rampur
seam. Out of the three seams, only the Top seam i.e. Lajkura seam is quarriable and the other
2 seams are deep seated. Hence at present only Lajkura seam is being mined.

The place of study has a coaliferous horizon belonging to bottom most Lajkura Seam. The in-
situ rock has a height of about 32m. It has a thickness of about 72m. A spoil dump of about
90m height is resting supported by the coal pillar.
 (a)

(b)

The seam floor has a gradient of about four degrees. The working faces are at a distance of
about 150m from the edge of the coal rib. No work was carried out at the working slope
during the period of study. Signs of coal combustion were observed at a few places
indicating a decrease in the strength of the rib. The spoil dump showed growth of vegetation
over it signifying, moist condition of the dump material. At some portions of highwall, water
seepage was observed from the highwall side. Since there was no flowing stream on the
batter, hence it can be said that there was a buildup of hydrostatic pressure (fig 2).

Fig 2 Water Seepage observed from highwall

5.0 Rock Mass Characterization

Failure of any dump mass is preceded by failure of rock strata. It is generally presumed that
the dump has failed. But in most cases prior to any dump failures, failure of the strata
supporting the dump has been noticed. Strata may be classified as dump foundation or
highwall mass. In the coalfields of M/s Western Coalfields Limited, external dumping on
original ground is a tedious affair because of the presence of black cotton soil layer, on which
the dumping has to be done. The weak strata showing liquid-like behavior will lead to the
sliding of dump mass. Further, the dump failure at Rajmahal OCP and Bharatpur OCP was
due to the failure of rock mass only. Hence characterization of rock mass is essential for any
geotechnical study.

Many researchers have worked and devised methods to characterize rock mass. Some of the
methods are Rock Quality Designation(RQD) (Deere 1966), Rock mass rating (Bieniawski
1973), Rock mass quality -Q- system(Barton etal 1974) , Modified Mining Rock Mass rating
(Laubescher etal 2000), Rock Mass Strength (Stille et al., 1982), Geological Strength
Index(Hoek etal 1998), Rock Mass Number (N) and Rock Condition Rating (RCR)(Goel etal
1995) , Rock Mass Index (Palmström, 1996), etc .

Different rock failure theories are used by many engineers for investigations related to rock
failure. Mohr-Columb failure criteria is the most prominent amongst all. It is based on the
works of Mohr and Columb in two different periods were combined and represented by the
following equation

τ f = c + σn tan υ -----------------------------------------------(1)

where τf= the shear stress along the shear plane at failure,
c=the cohesion,
σn=the normal stress acting on the shear plane,
υ= the friction angle of the shear plane.

Hoek and Brown(1980) proposed failure criteria based on the relationship between maximum
and minimum principal stresses.

------------------------------------------[2]
where Ϭ1 and Ϭ3 are maximum and minimum principal stresses. Ϭci is the compressive
strength of the rock. Constants “m” and “s” are called Hoek and Brown parameters.

The equations further get modified (eq2) based on Geological Strength Index, as follows

----------------------------------[3]
Where

--------------------------------------[4]

Hoek and Brown failure criterion (2002) is one of the distinguished works by Hoek-and
Brown for the assumption of the realistic nature of rock mass encountered in field operations.
It is incorporated into many geotechnical software. Curve fitting of Mohr-Columb criteria
with Hoek and brown(2002) equation is carried out by plotting graphs . The equation of the
graph gives the equivalent Cohesion and Angle of friction of the material concerned(eq 5).
 ---------------------------[5]

Determination of the compressive strength of the rock has a vital role to play , because of its
use in many empirical equations.

The rock samples of the site were tested using Schimidt hammer on site. It provides a close
estimation of the compressive strength value of rock material. CMPDI has carried out
physico-mechanical tests of the core samples obtained from exploratory boreholes. Figure 3
shows the testing of rocks carried out on the field and testing rock cores at the laboratory.

Fig 3 Testing of rock materials

The exploratory bore has encountered various types of strata such as Sandy shale, shale,
Shaly sandstone, coal, etc. Rock strength parameters tested at the laboratory are as follows

Table 1 Physico-Mechanical Strength parameters of rock cores obtained from borehole

Sl Rock type Density(gm/cc) PSI Compressive Tensile Shear Young‟s

No Strength(Mpa) Strength(Mpa) Strength(Mpa) Modulus
(Gpa)
1 Sandy Shale 1.66-2.81 1.98- 12.86-39.21 2.40-10.29 2.50-4.66 1.69-
2.56 5.80
2 Shaly 2.25-2.30 - 14.79-32.51 3.07-4.19 - -
sandstone
 3 Shaly coal 1.26-2.10 1.07- 4.90-50.74 2.08-5.05 - 1.38-
2.30 2.36
4 Shale 1.48-2.80 1.89- 10.17-47.92 1.71-5.10 2.20 1.58-
2.63 3.29
5 Med hard 2.14-3.63 0.14- 6.04-38.08 1.09-5.07 0.90-3.27 1.84-
Sandstone 2.85 4.79
6 Carbonaceous 1.27-2.32 1.29- 22.45-50.05 2.39-5.33 2.55-3.06 2.18-
shale 2.77 2.87
7 Coal 1.23-1.89 1.06- - 3.55-6.88 - -
2.21

6.0 Numerical Modelling

FLAC/Slope software program is widely used for slope stability analysis using the shear
strength reduction (SSR) technique. It is one of the precise methods for the determination
instability in slopes used by many geotechnical engineers based on its suitability for fast
calculation.

In this method, the factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the original shear strength of the
material to the minimum shear strength the material can attend to before failure. This
procedure can be conducted by a systematic decrease of shear strength values by multiple
iterations till a stage of the unbalanced condition is reached. The ratio of shear strengths at
this point of instability where the stresses acting on the material is more than its shear
strength provides the factor of safety of the slope (eq 6 & 7). The shear plane created is
referred as the failure surface for the slope. Hence unlike the limit equilibrium method
defining a failure surface is not needed in this technique.

A number of iterations (say n) are performed till a state of the unbalanced situation is
reached in „n‟th stage with n time decreasing the values of Mohr-Coulomb parameters c and
υ as per following equations

…………………………………..……...[6]

………………………….………….[7]

FlAC/SLOPE computes Fn effectively by applying the bracketing techniques proposed by

Dawson, Roth and Drescher (1999) in which stable and unstable limits are selected. Then the
limit is iteratively decreased to converge at a value with an indication of instability. The state
of instability is determined by calculating the total stresses acting on each grid point.

Finite difference method can be called a subset of the finite element method. A major
difference between the two lies in griding. Since FDM is based on the differential scheme, it
holds good for regular geometry and with simple grids. With complex geometries, FDM
analysis is not suitable because of its restriction in irregular mesh generation. But in major
slope stability problems, a generalized approach can be adopted by creating simple geometry
to simulate on-field slopes and applying FDM approach to it. With FLAC/SLOPE, a model
of the slope was created. The model was meshed with medium size zone (fig 4)
 JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)

2.000

LEGEND
1.500
17-Nov-22 17:41

1.000
Factor of Safety 1.53
Grid plot

0 1E 2 0.500

0.000

-0.500

-1.000

-1.500

-2.000

.
.
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000
(*10^2)

Fig 4 Model preparation and meshing in FLAC/SLOPE

Following material properties were assumed for simulation purpose.

OB Material Coaliferous strata Hard strata

3
Density(kg/m ) 1800 1511 2400
Cohesion (KPa) 60 115 200
Friction angle(deg) 31 24 24

A parametric study was conducted considering different overall slope angles of the OB dump,
the thickness of coal strata, and height of the phreatic line. The thickness of the base of the rib
varied from 73m to 51m. The overall slope of the geometry was kept in the range of 260 to
320. To analyze the effect of pore water pressure, both dry and wet conditions were applied
on the model. In wet conditions, the phreatic surface was varied from 10m to 25m in height
from the base of the model,

6.1 Boundary conditions

Boundary conditions in FLAC/SLOPE is an inbuilt mechanism. The base of the model is kept
fixed to arrest the sliding movement of the block as a whole. The movement of the left and
right sides of the model is kept zero in horizontal directions. Fig 5 shows the boundary
conditions applied to the model.

Fig 5 Applied boundary conditions

7.0 Results
A total of seventy-six no models were created and simulated to generate a sizeable amount of
data for the study. It was seen that maximum safety factors were observed in dry conditions
in all the models with minimum OB to base angle. Figure 6 shows some of the safety factors
obtained with larger values.
 JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)
JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)
2.250

FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)

2.000

1.750
LEGEND LEGEND

1.500
5-Nov-22 15:11 5-Nov-22 1:23 1.250

Factor of Safety 1.85 1.000

Factor of Safety 1.82
0.750
Max. shear strain-rate Max. shear strain-rate
2.00E-06 2.50E-06
6.00E-06 7.50E-06
0.500 0.250
1.00E-05 1.25E-05
1.40E-05 1.75E-05
1.80E-05 2.25E-05
2.75E-05 -0.250
0.000
Contour interval= 2.0000E-06 Contour interval= 2.5000E-06
Extrap. by averaging Extrap. by averaging
(zero contour omitted) (zero contour omitted) -0.750
Boundary plot -0.500 Boundary plot

0 1E 2 0 1E 2 -1.250

-1.000

-1.750

-1.500

-2.250
.
.
.
0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 .
(*10^2) -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
(*10^2)

a) Slope-26 deg, FoS-1.85, b) Slope-28 deg, FoS-1.82

JOB TITLE : . (*10^2) JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)

1.750
2.000

LEGEND LEGEND

5-Nov-22 13:13 1.500 5-Nov-22 14:37 1.250

Factor of Safety 1.47

Factor of Safety 1.60
1.000
Max. shear strain-rate 0.750
Max. shear strain-rate
2.00E-05
1.00E-05
6.00E-05
3.00E-05 1.00E-04
5.00E-05 0.500
1.40E-04 0.250
7.00E-05 1.80E-04
9.00E-05 2.20E-04
1.10E-04 Contour interval= 2.0000E-05
0.000
1.30E-04 Extrap. by averaging -0.250
1.50E-04 (zero contour omitted)
Contour interval= 1.0000E-05 Boundary plot
Extrap. by averaging -0.500
(zero contour omitted) 0 1E 2
-0.750
Boundary plot

-1.000
0 1E 2
-1.250

-1.500

.
. .
0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250
. (*10^2)
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
(*10^2)

c)Slope-32 deg , FoS 1.6 d)Slope-34 deg, FoS-1.47

Fig 6 – Factor of safety observed in dry conditions with coal base thickness of a) 73m,
b)63m, c)55m and d)55m

The safety factor value decreases with an increase in the zone of strained contours. The strain
zone signifies the probable place of failure. In all cases of dry conditions, it was observed that
the safety factors are more than 1.4. The presence of pore water pressure causes a drastic
increase in shear stresses acting on the base of the slope. Considering one instance where a
model was created with a coal base of 51m and overall slope angle of 300. The phreatic water
surface was modeled with a height of 10m,15m,20m, and 25m. The corresponding factor of
safety reduced from 1.32 to 0.72(fig 7)
JOB TITLE : . (*10^2) JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)

2.000 2.000
LEGEND LEGEND

5-Nov-22 1:45 5-Nov-22 1:46

1.000
Factor of Safety 1.32 Factor of Safety 1.22 1.000

Max. shear strain-rate Max. shear strain-rate

1.00E-05 2.50E-07
3.00E-05 1.00E-06
5.00E-05 1.75E-06
7.00E-05 2.50E-06
0.000 0.000
9.00E-05 3.25E-06
1.10E-04 4.00E-06
Contour interval= 1.0000E-05 4.75E-06
Extrap. by averaging Contour interval= 2.5000E-07
(zero contour omitted) Extrap. by averaging
Boundary plot -1.000 (zero contour omitted)
-1.000
Boundary plot
0 1E 2
Water Table 0 1E 2
Water Table

-2.000 -2.000

. .
. .
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
(*10^2) (*10^2)

Phreatic level from base - 10m Phreatic level from base - 15m
 JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)
FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)
2.000
LEGEND 2.000
LEGEND
5-Nov-22 1:46
5-Nov-22 1:47

1.000
Factor of Safety 0.95
1.000
Max. shear strain-rate Factor of Safety 0.72
2.50E-07 Max. shear strain-rate
7.50E-07 2.00E-07
1.25E-06 6.00E-07
1.75E-06 1.00E-06
0.000 1.40E-06
2.25E-06 0.000
1.80E-06
2.75E-06
Contour interval= 2.5000E-07
Contour interval= 2.0000E-07
Extrap. by averaging Extrap. by averaging
(zero contour omitted) (zero contour omitted)
Boundary plot -1.000 Boundary plot -1.000

0 1E 2 0 1E 2
Water Table Water Table

-2.000 -2.000

. .
. .
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
(*10^2)
(*10^2)

Phreatic level from base - 20m Phreatic level from base - 25m

Fig 7 Change in factor of safety with change in Phreatic level

An increase in phreatic level inside slope mass has an adverse impact on stability. Hence in
all cases, the lowest factor of safety was obtained with the highest phreatic level. With
maximum pore water pressure, the coal block experiences maximum strain, and when the
shear stresses acting upon exceed the shear strength of the rock slope, failure tends to occur.
Other instances of highly strained conditions of coal barrier with maximum pore water
pressure are illustrated in figure no 8.

JOB TITLE : . (*10^2) JOB TITLE : . (*10^2) JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

2.250

FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)

2.000

1.750
1.750
LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND
1.500
5-Nov-22 15:12 5-Nov-22 15:32 5-Nov-22 1:25 1.250
1.250

Factor of Safety 1.27 1.000 Factor of Safety 1.08 Factor of Safety 1.24
0.750
Max. shear strain-rate Max. shear strain-rate Max. shear strain-rate
0.750
5.00E-07 2.50E-06 2.00E-07
2.00E-06 7.50E-06 6.00E-07
0.500 0.250
3.50E-06 1.25E-05 1.00E-06
5.00E-06 1.75E-05 1.40E-06
6.50E-06 2.25E-05 0.250 1.80E-06
8.00E-06 2.75E-05 2.20E-06 -0.250
0.000
9.50E-06 3.25E-05 Contour interval= 2.0000E-07
Contour interval= 5.0000E-07 3.75E-05 Extrap. by averaging
Extrap. by averaging Contour interval= 2.5000E-06 -0.250 (zero contour omitted) -0.750
(zero contour omitted) -0.500
Extrap. by averaging Boundary plot
Boundary plot (zero contour omitted)
Boundary plot 0 1E 2 -1.250
0 1E 2 -0.750
Water Table
-1.000 0 1E 2
Water Table
Water Table -1.750

-1.250
-1.500
-2.250
. . .
. . .
0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
(*10^2) (*10^2) (*10^2)

Coal-73m, Slope-260, FoS-1.27 Coal-73m, Slope-290, FoS-1.08 Coal-63m, Slope-280, FoS-1.24

JOB TITLE : . (*10^2) JOB TITLE : . (*10^2) JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)

1.750
2.000

LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND

2.000

5-Nov-22 12:30 5-Nov-22 12:54 1.250 5-Nov-22 13:15 1.500

Factor of Safety 1.24 Factor of Safety 1.09 Factor of Safety 1.06

1.000
1.000
Max. shear strain-rate Max. shear strain-rate 0.750 Max. shear strain-rate
1.00E-06 2.50E-06 2.00E-07
3.00E-06 1.00E-05 6.00E-07
5.00E-06 1.75E-05 1.00E-06 0.500

7.00E-06 2.50E-05 0.250 1.40E-06

9.00E-06 3.25E-05 1.80E-06
0.000
4.00E-05 2.20E-06
0.000
Contour interval= 1.0000E-06 4.75E-05 Contour interval= 2.0000E-07
Extrap. by averaging Contour interval= 2.5000E-06 -0.250 Extrap. by averaging
(zero contour omitted) Extrap. by averaging (zero contour omitted)
Boundary plot (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot -0.500

-1.000 Boundary plot

0 1E 2 -0.750
0 1E 2
0 1E 2
Water Table Water Table -1.000
Water Table

-1.250
-2.000
-1.500

. . .
. . .
-0.500 0.500 1.500 2.500 3.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500
(*10^2) (*10^2) (*10^2)

Coal-63m, Slope-300, FoS-1.24 Coal-63m, Slope-320, FoS-1.09 Coal-55m, Slope-320, FoS-1.06

JOB TITLE : . (*10^2) JOB TITLE : . (*10^2)

FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 8.10)

1.750
2.000
LEGEND LEGEND

5-Nov-22 14:44 1.250 5-Nov-22 1:47

1.000
Factor of Safety 0.92 Factor of Safety 0.72
Max. shear strain-rate 0.750 Max. shear strain-rate
5.00E-06 2.00E-07
1.50E-05 6.00E-07
2.50E-05 1.00E-06
3.50E-05 0.250 1.40E-06
0.000
4.50E-05 1.80E-06
5.50E-05
6.50E-05 Contour interval= 2.0000E-07
7.50E-05 -0.250
Extrap. by averaging
8.50E-05 (zero contour omitted)
Boundary plot -1.000
Contour interval= 5.0000E-06
Extrap. by averaging 0 1E 2
-0.750
(zero contour omitted)
Water Table
Boundary plot

0 1E 2 -2.000
-1.250
Water Table

. .
. .
0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000
(*10^2) (*10^2)

Coal-55m, Slope-340, FoS-0.92 Coal-51m, Slope-300, FoS-0.72

Fig 8 Minimum safety factors obtained with highest phreatic water level
8.0 Regression analysis

Regression is a statistical method to study the effect of the independent variable on dependent
variables. A total of 72 models were created in this study with different input parameters
classified as the thickness of coal mass, Overall slope angle, and phreatic water level height.
All the models were simulated to estimate the factor of safety in each case. Linear regression
was performed to investigate the significance of all the input parameters on the factor of
safety. The output of linear regression is shown below.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.876552475
R Square 0.768344241
Adjusted R Square0.75855597
Standard Error 0.135980408
Observations 75

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 3 4.35435434 1.451451446 78.496417 1.69E-22
Residual 71 1.31283766 0.018490671
Total 74 5.667192

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%
Intercept 3.148955223 0.29632954 10.62653148 2.524E-16 2.558091 3.73982 2.558091 3.73982
Coal Thickness -0.001715601 0.00235024 -0.729968263 0.4678112 -0.0064 0.002971 -0.0064 0.002971
Slope Angle -0.04714019 0.00740383 -6.366996485 1.662E-08 -0.0619 -0.03238 -0.0619 -0.03238
Phreatic Level -0.025394595 0.00182528 -13.9127005 5.759E-22 -0.02903 -0.02176 -0.02903 -0.02176
Fig 9 Regression output

A correlation coefficient value of 0.768 and significance F is 1.69E-22 signifies that the
regression is valid. The parameters with a P value less than 0.05 are generally accepted as
dependent variables with high significance. In the result, it can be seen that Slope angle
phreatic levels are highly significant toward the factor of safety evaluation. As per the
regression, a linear equation can be put up as follows

…………….[8]

9.0 Conclusion
The presence of in situ rock mass at the base of the spoil dump restricts the dump material to
attain its natural angle of repose, which the dump could have attained in absence of the
barrier pillar. When the dump profile steepens because of the increase in mass of the dump,
the magnitude of shear stresses acting on the barrier pillar increases. The development of
cracks on the highwall indicates an increase in shear forces on the barrier pillar and a state of
instability. Accumulation of water behind the barrier pillar further aggravates the situation by
the addition of pore water pressure on the pre-existing shear forces. This type of situation
may lead to catastrophic disaster leading sudden sliding down of dump mass by breaking the
barrier pillar. Few of the methods to enhance stability in this type of situation are as follows
 Decrease in the overall slope angle of the dump is most effective in minimizing the
development of stresses on barrier pillar.
  Adoption of dewatering and depressurization mechanism to stop the accumulation of
water behind the pillar reduces the pore water pressure.
 Creation of a rough dump foundation creates an interlocking mechanism resisting
sliding
 Dumping should never be done over water bodies, if required the place needs to be
dried up prior to dumping.

10.0 Acknowledgement
The authors convey their gratitude towards the management of CMPDI for allowing for
publication of this article. The views in this paper are solely of the authors and not of
CMPDI.

References
1. Singh & Bhar ,Report on Scientific Study and Slope Stability Analysis for Kaniha OCP
(2021),unpublished
2. Singh & Bhar ,Report on Scientific Study and Slope Stability Analysis for Kulda OCP
(2021),unpublished
3. Singh & Bhar ,Report on Scientific Study and Slope Stability Analysis for Balaram OCP
(2021),unpublished
4. P Singh and S Jayanthu ,―Design of stable slopes in opencast coal mines- a case study for
development of TARP" ,Proceedings of National Virtual Conference MTAMME-21 July 2021
5. Singh & Bhar ,Report on Scientific Study and Slope Stability Analysis for Garjanbahal OCP
(2022),unpublished
6. Singh & Bhar ,Report on Scientific Study and Slope Stability Analysis for Lajkura OCP
(2022),unpublished
7. DGMS Website(2016),Report on High powered committee on accident in the deep mining
zone of Rajmahal OCP, ECL on 29 december 2016,
8. Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., & Corkum, B. (2002). Hoek-Brown failure criterion-2002
edition. Proceedings of NARMS-Tac, 1(1), 267-273.
9. Dawson, E. M., Roth, W. H., & Drescher, A. (1999). Slope stability analysis by strength
reduction. Geotechnique, 49(6), 835-840.
10. Deere, D. U., & Miller, R. P. (1966). Engineering classification and index properties for
intact rock. Illinois Univ At Urbana Dept Of Civil Engineering.
11. Bieniawski, Z. T. (1973). Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Civil
Engineering= Siviele Ingenieurswese, 1973(12), 335-343.
12. Barton, N., Lien, R., & Lunde, J. (1974). Engineering classification of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support. Rock mechanics, 6(4), 189-236.
13. Jakubec, J., & Laubscher, D. H. (2000). The MRMR rock mass rating classification system in
mining practice. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference and exhibition on mass
mining, Brisbane, Australia (pp. 413-421).
14. Selby, M. J. (1982). Rock mass strength and the form of some inselbergs in the central Namib
Desert. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 7(5), 489-497.
15. Hoek, E., Marinos, P., & Benissi, M. (1998). Applicability of the Geological Strength Index
(GSI) classification for very weak and sheared rock masses. The case of the Athens Schist
Formation. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment, 57(2), 151-160.
16. Goel, R. K., Jethwa, J. L. and Paithankar, A. G. (1995). Correlation between Barton´sQ and
Bieniawski's RMR — A new approach, Technical Note, Int. J. Rock Mech.Min., 33 (2), 179-
181.
17. Palmstrom, A. (1996). RMi – A system for characterising rock mass strength for use inrock
engineering. J. of Rock Mech. and Tunneling Tech., India, 1 (2), 69-108

View publication stats