Towards An Improved Stone Mine Pillar Design Methodology Observations From A Mistake
Towards An Improved Stone Mine Pillar Design Methodology Observations From A Mistake
Towards An Improved Stone Mine Pillar Design Methodology Observations From A Mistake
=
( / 144 )D (Eqn. 2)
rock. The formulation is:
v 1 E
(
p = k Weff
0.5
/h
0.7
) (Eqn. 5)
where v = Vertical stress in pillar (psi)
= Unit weight of overburden (pcf)
D = Depth (ft) to pillar roof level where p = Pillar strength in MPa (1 MPa = 145 psi)
E = Extraction ratio where k = Design rock mass strength in MPa, which is
calculated by a series of steps using a process
given in Stacey and Page (2) which results in a
wl reduction factor of approximately 50% to 60% for
E = 1 many limestones and dolomites
(w + R )(l + C ) Weff = 4 [(wl) / (2w + 2l)] or
[4 (pillar area / pillar perimeter)]
( )
where SFStacey-Page = Factor of safety in crushing by the Stacey-
a b
p = C0 w / h (Eqn. 3) Page Method
v = Pillar stress (in MPa) calculated using
Equation 2
where p = Pillar strength
= Discount factor to obtain estimated strength of a
12-inch-cube specimen from test data on smaller HARDY-AGAPITO METHOD
diamond-drill cores (here taken at 0.70 for a
Hardy and Agapito (3) in the United States developed a pillar
nominal 2-inch diameter core)
design method from observations in oil shale mines. Oil shale is
C0 = Unconfined compressive strength in the
neither oil nor shale, but a hydrocarbon kerogen distributed in
laboratory of a cylindrical rock core
a fresh-water limestone. The pillar strength is estimated from:
w = Pillar width
h = Pillar height
a = 0.5
(w p hs )
0.118 0.833
b = 0.75 Vs
= c
(w s h p )
p (Eqn. 7)
and the pillar stress due to overburden is calculated using V
Equation 2. p
OBERT-DUVALL METHOD
SFBieniawski = p / v (Eqn. 12)
Obert and Duvall (4) proposed a pillar design method for rocks in
general, but based mostly on strong rocks such as found in zinc and
lead mines. The formulation is where SFBieniawski = Factor of safety in crushing for the
Bieniawski Method
where p = Pillar strength Abel (10) developed the Soft Rock Pillar Method based upon
c = Unconfined compressive strength of a laboratory the work of Wilson and Ashwin (11) that uses the concept of a
specimen confined core of a pillar which is the principal load-carrying
w = Pillar width and length element in the system; the confining restraint around the pillar core
h = Pillar height being provided by the broken rock resulting from the pillar
excavation. The formulation for a wide rectangular pillar is (10)
The pillar strength is then compared to the pillar stress as in
where SFObert-Duvall = Factor of safety in crushing by the where L = load-carrying capacity in tons (2,000 lbs/ton)
Obert-Duvall Method )
v = peak stable stress in pillar in psi = h (tan B) + o
v = Pillar stress calculated using Equation 2
Obert and Duvall (4, p. 458) recommend a safety factor of at least where o = pillar edge strength (psi)
four for room-and-pillar mining with a checkerboard pattern using h = horizontal stress (psi)
this method. The Obert and Duvall Method is thus either very tan B = (sin + 1 ) / ( sin 1)
conservative or unrealistic, depending on the point of view. It [from Obert and Duvall (4, p. 288) as
should be noted that the original application of this formula to pillar referenced by Wilson and Ashwin (10);
design was by Bunting (5) for use in the anthracite mines in note Abel (10) used B in this context while
northeastern Pennsylvania. Bunting reported that Johnson (6) Obert and Duvall (4) and Wilson and
derived the formula given in Equation 9 from laboratory strength Ashwin (11) used ]
data obtained by Bauschinger (7) for sandstone samples of different
shapes. Close scrutiny of Buntings paper shows that there was no where = angle of internal friction of pillar rock
)
attempt to account for reduction in strength of a pillar due to the y = yield zone thickness (ft)
effects of scale or discontinuities. )
= {h / [ (tan B) 0.5 (tan B) 1)]} loge ( v / y )
Recently, while examining existing shallow room-and-pillar These three methods yield a safety factor of near one for this
stone mines, a few pillars were noted that had been excavated narrow pillar situation, which is indicative of distress. Had the
undersized. In one mine, the plan in place and performing calculated safety factors for the encountered narrow pillars been
successfully uses 45-ft by 45-ft square pillars with 45-ft wide significantly higher than unity or significantly lower than unity, as
rooms and 45-ft wide by 40-ft high crosscuts. The rock strength is indicated by the three methods, the result would be
approximately 20,000 psi, and the roof was at a depth of unrepresentative of encountered field in-mine conditions.
approximately 200 ft. The noted pillars were isolated, irregular,
and approximately 15-ft square and 40-ft high, with the room and The meaning of a Factor of Safety of 1.0 is that the load brought
crosscut widths widened to 75 ft (full width, not half-width) to keep to bear on the pillar is well-understood and properly characterized
the same center-to-center distances. While there are no known in- and that the strength of the mine rock has been correctly measured
situ rock stress measurements in the vicinity of the observed mine, and projected to the pillar rock mass scale, conditions, and
a literature search revealed twenty in-situ stress measurements of geometry, resulting in equilibrium. Such a circumstance of an
various kinds within a 150 mile radius. When averaged, the understanding of both the load and the strength (ability to resist
horizontal stresses were approximately four times the vertical load) can be problematic. For instance, natural materials such as
stress. However, no clear signs of horizontal stress effects were rock, in our experience, will vary in laboratory-measured strength
noted. Figure 1 shows the encountered situation in the mine. The by at least 25% from a mean strength. Practitioners will use
undersized pillars exhibited slabbing, opening of through-going something greater than unity for a factor of safety, based upon their
fractures, and hour-glassing, and were clearly distressed. Figure 2 understanding or their ignorance of the environment. I use
shows a photograph of one such pillar. different safety factors depending on the degree of acceptable risk.
Figure 1. Idealized Isometric Drawing of Encountered Undersized Mine Pillar (not to scale)
26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining
and at lower pillar width-to-height ratios for extending the use of
these formulae. This present field study can supply a lower pillar
width-to-height ratio data point of 15/40 or 0.375 for consideration
in comparisons. The 0.375 width-to-height ratio is lower than any
reported by Iannacchionne (12). For comparison with information
presented by Iannacchionne (12), Figure 4 shows the calculated
pillar strengths on this low 0.375 ratio (using a laboratory
unconfined compressive strength of 20,000 psi), while Figure 5
shows the average pillar stress with 200-ft overburden for these
same width-to-height ratios.
10,000
8,000
4,000
Hedley-Grant Method
Figure 2. Photograph of Distressed Undersized Mine Pillar 2,000
Stacey-Page Method
Encountered Hardy-Agapito Method
0
17.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
16.0 Width/Height Ratio
15.0
14.0 Figure 4. Calculated Pillar Strengths (divide psi by 145 to obtain
Hedley-Grant Method
13.0 MPa)
Stacey-Page Method
12.0
Hardy-Agapito Method
11.0
10.0 50,000
9.0
Safety Factor
45,000
8.0
7.0 40,000
6.0
Average Pillar Stress (psi)
5.0 35,000
4.0
30,000
3.0 Minimum Stable Width
2.0
25,000
1.0
0.0 20,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 15-ft Width, 40-ft Height
Pillar Width (ft) 15,000 w/h = 0.375
10,000
Figure 3. Calculated Safety Factors using Hedley-Grant, Stacey-
Page, and Hardy-Agapito Methods 5,000
0
Without engaging in a lengthy and interesting discourse on rock 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
mass loads, strength variability, and characterization, the pillar Width/Height Ratio
design practitioner should develop as good an understanding of the
mine design environment as practicable (not possiblewe will Figure 5. Calculated Pillar Stresses (divide psi by 145 to obtain
never have that degree of knowledge implied by possible, at least MPa)
with foreseeable technological developments).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (6) Johnson, J. B., The Materials of Construction, John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, 1897, 795 p.
The author is grateful to the various mining/construction
aggregate companies who have been the subject of the studies that
(7) Bauschinger, J., Mitteilungen aus dem Mechanisch-
have led to the development of these concepts, but, who, in the
Technishen Laboratorium der K, Technishen Hochschule in
highly competitive nature of the construction aggregate business,
Munschen, 6, 1876. [Cited in Abel (10)]
wish to remain anonymous. Special thanks are owed to
Drs. Michael P. Hardy and Douglas F. Hambley of Agapito
Associates, Inc., whose numerous discussions have immensely (8) Bieniawski, Z. T., Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and
helped the author. The author gratefully acknowledges the time Tunneling, A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1984, 272 p.
and assistance provided by Agapito Associates, Inc., in the
preparation of this manuscript. (9) Bieniawski, Z. T., M. Alber, and G. S. Kalamaras, Time
Dependent Strength of Coal Strata for Long-Term Pillar Stability,
Proceedings 13th Conference on Ground Control in Mining, West
REFERENCES Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, 1994, pp. 8190.
(1) Hedley, D. G. F. and F. Grant, Stope-and-Pillar Design for (10) Abel, J. F., Jr., Soft Rock Pillars, Intl J. Mining and Geol.
the Elliot Lake Uranium Mines, CIM Transactions, v. 75, 1972, Eng., v. 6, 1988, pp. 215248.
pp. 121128.
(11) Wilson. A. H. and D. P. Ashwin, Research into the
(2) Stacey, T. R. and C. H. Page, Practical Handbook for Determination of Pillar Size, The Mining Engineer, v. 131, part 9,
Underground Rock Mechanics, Trans Tech Publications, Clausthal- June, 1972, pp. 409417.
Zellerfeld, Germany, 1986, 144 p.
(12) Iannacchione, A. T., Analysis of Pillar Design Practices and
(3) Hardy, M. P. and J. F. T. Agapito, Pillar Design in Techniques for U. S. Limestone Mines, Trans. Instn. Min. Metall.
Underground Oil Shale Mines, Proc. 16th U.S. Symposium on (Sect. A: Min. Industry), v. 108, September-December, 1999,
Rock Mechanics, New York, American Soc. Civ. Eng., 1975, pp. A152-A160.
pp. 257266.