Proceedings, Slope Stability 2011: International Symposium on Rock Slope Stability in Open Pit Mining and Civil

Engineering, Vancouver, Canada (September 18-21, 2011)

Guidelines for Groundwater Modelling in Large Open Pit Mine Design

J. Hazzard Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, USA
B. Damjanac Geological Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, USA
L. Lorig Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, USA
C. Detournay Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, USA

Abstract
Groundwater analysis in open-pit mines can be quite complex. To model the groundwater state, simplifying
assumptions must necessarily be made. This paper presents guidelines on what simplifying assumptions can be
made and when it is safe to make them without significant loss of accuracy. A numerical model of a typical
large open-pit mine is used as a test bed. Different groundwater modelling procedures are tested under different
conditions (permeability and porosity). Rules of thumb are suggested for when a steady-state analysis is
acceptable, when a transient analysis is required and when a coupled (undrained-drained) approach should be
used. In addition, the effect of infiltration is examined and the importance of simulating seasonal infiltration
fluctuations is discussed.

Introduction

Accurate determination of groundwater conditions in large open-pit mines is critical in the assessment of slope
stability. The groundwater conditions are dictated by rock properties, joint properties, extraction rates, recharge
rates, drainage and many other factors. Beale (2009) provides a good overview of hydrogeological analysis in
open-pit slope design. A good review of the current state of the art in the understanding of the interaction
between water and pit slope deformations is given in Sullivan (2007).
To represent this system accurately and to determine a factor of safety (FOS) for a slope, complex numerical
models often are required. However, in many cases, certain assumptions can be made and the modelling can be
simplified without negatively affecting results. The goal of this research is to examine different aspects of the
system and determine when it is appropriate to use simplified models. The result is a set of guidelines that can
be used by practitioners when performing groundwater modelling for the purpose of analyzing the stability of
large open-pits.
A comprehensive suite of numerical models are run to answer the following questions.

Under what conditions can a steady-state pore pressure solution be used and when is it necessary to
perform a transient seepage analysis?
When is a coupled (undrained-drained) analysis required?
What is the effect of infiltration and when is it necessary to consider seasonal fluctuations?

Where possible, rules of thumb are proposed using dimensionless parameters that encompass the rock diffusivity
(which itself includes permeability, and via storage coefficient: porosity, fluid and rock moduli), recharge rates
and extraction rates. These guidelines should enable the engineer to determine what type of groundwater
modelling needs to be performed for a given open-pit mine design.
Similar types of analyses have been attempted before. Hoek & Bray (1977) showed the increase in slope angle
that can be attained through dewatering. Brown (1982) calculates the drop in pressure that can be expected for
different slope geometries and different diffusivities. Unfortunately, simplified one-dimensional models were

used that sometimes can drastically overestimate the pressure drop when compared with a two-dimensional
model with a phreatic surface. In this paper, a two-dimensional model of a typical mining scenario is
constructed. A series of numerical models are run with different fluid flow properties. Factor of safety values
are calculated for each model. The relations between FOS and different parameters are presented. Rules of
thumb are proposed to help decide what type of analysis needs to be performed for different mining scenarios.

Numerical model

2.1

Model geometry

A numerical model of a typical large open-pit mine was constructed using FLAC (Itasca, 2008). The problem
geometry is shown in Figure 1. The initial pit is excavated gradually over a period of 18 years to set up the initial
state for the study (shown). Blocks 1 through 7 then are excavated at 9-month intervals and the FOS is
calculated for each excavation. Each of these excavation blocks are removed instantaneously, after which the
model is run for 9 months to obtain the pore pressures in the slope. After 9 months, the FOS is calculated and
the next block is excavated.
The initial water table is 50 m below the surface. The head is fixed on the right boundary at a distance of
2500 m from the middle of the pit. The model base is an impermeable boundary, as is the left boundary
(symmetry condition).

2.2

Rock properties

The rock is assumed to be full of fractures at very close spacing, such that an equivalent continuum model can be
used. Rock properties are chosen to represent a typical, large open-pit mine. The rock behaves elastically for
the simulations, except when FOS calculations are performed, in which case a Mohr-Coulomb constitutive
model is considered. The rock stiffness and strength are the same in all models. Permeability and porosity are
varied to cover the range of possible scenarios expected to be encountered in the field. Rock and fluid properties
are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.

Rock properties used in the numerical model.

Property

Value

Youngs modulus, E
Poissons ratio,
Porosity, n
Density,
Cohesion, c
Friction,
Permeability, k
Fluid density, w
Fluid bulk modulus, Kw

5 GPa
0.25
0.1 to 1 %
2500 kg/m3
0.5 MPa
45
10-9 to 10-6 m/s
1000 kg/m3
2.2 GPa

200 m
50 m

1
2
1000 m

3
4
5
6

45

50 m

2500 m

Figure 1. Geometry of the numerical model used in the studies.

2.3

Modelling approach

Most of the models shown here employ a one-way fluid-mechanical coupling. This is achieved with these steps:
(1) Rock is excavated, and pore pressures at the surface of the excavation are set to zero.
(2) A steady-state or transient fluid flow calculation is performed. The transient analysis relies on specific
storage to obtain the pore pressures at 9 months after the excavation.
(3) A mechanical calculation is performed. The pore pressures calculated in step 2 are used to calculate
effective stress, which is used in the failure analysis to calculate the FOS.
With the approach taken, the pore pressures influence the mechanical behaviour (failure) but the mechanical
deformations do not influence the pore pressures directly. Note, however, that the stiffness of the rock is
accounted for in the transient flow calculation through specific storage.
Some of the models described employ a simplified two-way coupling (undrained-drained approach). In these
models, the undrained response is calculated first (in which the mechanical deformations affect the fluid
pressures) and then the calculation proceeds as above for the one-way coupling. This approach is described in
more detail in Hazzard et al. (2011).
Factors of safety are calculated using the shear-strength reduction method in which the cohesion and friction are
reduced gradually until failure occurs. From the amount of reduction required, an FOS can be calculated. See
Dawson et al. (1990) for details. Most models are run in plane strain (2D flow) mode, although some
axisymmetric analysis is performed as described in Section 3.1.

2.4

Dimensionless excavation rate

The rate at which excess pore pressure dissipates depends on permeability, porosity, fluid bulk modulus and rock
stiffness. These parameters are encompassed in the diffusivity:

k
S w

[1]

where k is the permeability, w is the unit weight of water, and the storage coefficient, S, is a measure of fluid
storage in the rock. Two possible modes of storage are identified for this problem: specific storage (associated
with water and rock compressibility) and specific yield (phreatic storage associated with effective porosity). In
this study, specific storage will be used to calculate diffusivity. This assumes that diffusion (rather than water
table movement) is the dominant mechanism for pore pressure adjustment. This may be slightly inaccurate for
models with very low porosity, but the error introduced will be small. The specific storage coefficient is given
by

Sv

1 1
n

Kw
E 1

[2]

where symbols are as defined in Table 1. :

The other factor that affects the pore pressures is the rate of mining. The volumetric mining rate (per unit model
thickness), Mr, is defined, with reference to Figure 2, as
[3]
In our model, the rate of mining for stages 5 to 10 is Mr = 200 m 133 m / 9 months. We therefore can propose
a dimensionless excavation rate metric based on the mining rate and the diffusivity,
[4]
as a number to be used to quantify the effect of different model parameters on pore pressures and slope stability.

Figure 2. Sketch of mining excavation showing quantities used to define excavation rate.

Results

3.1

Steady state, transient and fully coupled

This section briefly summarizes results from Hazzard et al. (2011). For this study, the model was solved for
different values of porosity and permeability over the ranges shown in Table 1. Three different approaches were
examined: steady-state flow, transient fluid analysis and coupled (undrained-drained) calculations.
A comparison was made between the FOS calculated with each scheme for the different values of porosity and
permeability. The goal of the study was to determine when it is acceptable to use a simple approach and when it
is necessary to consider more complicated analyses.
3.1.1 Steady state versus transient
Figure 3 shows a comparison of the pore pressures 9 months after excavation step 3 and at a large time after
excavation 3 (steady-state solution). Clearly there is a significant difference that will influence the stability of
the slope. The FOS values calculated for each excavation stage are shown in Figure 4. The steady-state solution
exhibits an FOS 20 30% higher than the transient solution.

Figure 3. Transient pore pressures after excavation stage 3 (left) compared to steady-state pore pressures (right)
for k = 10-8 m/s and n = 1%.
To determine the conditions under which a steady-state solution would be acceptable, models were run with
different values for permeability (k) and porosity (n). Changing k changes the diffusivity in Equation [1] and,
therefore, also changes the dimensionless excavation rate (R) in Equation [4]. The FOS of the transient solution
relative to the steady-state solution for the different porosities and values for R are shown in Figure 5. To obtain
this plot, the average FOS values for excavation stages 1 to 6 were calculated for each model. Excavation stage
7 was excluded because the different volume of this excavation results in a different R.
Figure 5 (top) shows that the FOS for a transient analysis is within 2% of the FOS for a steady-state analysis
only for low R (< 0.05 at n = 0.1%). Performing a steady-state analysis outside of this range will produce
unconservative results (calculated FOS will be too high). This result depends on the location of the constant
head (right) boundary. As the constant head boundary is moved farther from the pit, it takes longer to reach the
steady-state solution. Hazzard et al. (2011) show that the value R at which the steady-state solution becomes
approximately equal to the transient solution (Rs) depends on the distance to the boundary squared. Therefore, if
the distance to the boundary is doubled, we can expect Rs to reduce by a factor of 4. Figure 5 (bottom) shows the
result when the distance to the constant head boundary is doubled.

Figure 4. Comparison of FOS for transient and steady-state analysis (k = 10-8 m/s and n = 1%).

Figure 5. Factor of safety in the transient (one-way coupled) solution relative to the steady-state solution for
different dimensionless excavation rates. The top shows the results for a constant head boundary at a
distance of 2500 m from the pit centre (as in Figure 1). The bottom shows results for a constant head
boundary at 5000 m.

3.1.2 Effect of dimension

Axisymmetric models were compared to two-dimensional flow models. It was found that pore pressures were
higher in the axisymmetric models due to the geometry of the drainage face. However, the FOS in the
axisymmetric models was 5 - 30% higher than in the two-dimensional (plane strain) models, due to increased
confinement. The increase in FOS is related to the permeability, with the greatest increases being observed for
the lowest permeability models.
If FOS values are plotted relative to the steady-state solution in a porosity-versus-R diagram, then results similar
to those of the 2D models (Figure 5) are obtained
3.1.3 Undrained analysis
As described above, simplified two-way coupling can be simulated by first calculating the undrained response,
and then calculating the transient (drained) solution. Figure 6 shows the different behaviours. For the two-way
coupling, there is an initial drop in pore pressure when the rock is excavated, due to the stress decrease. The
pore pressure then gradually recovers with time. These pore pressure drops will result in a slope that is more
stable, depending on the rate of excavation, permeability, etc.
Figure 7 shows the FOS for two-way coupled analysis relative to the FOS for one-way coupling. This figure
shows that the FOS for two-way coupling is almost always greater than that for one-way. The pore pressure
drop due to the undrained response does not fully recover to equal the pore pressure in the transient analysis
except for very slow excavation rates or high permeabilities (low R). Therefore, for most large, open-pit
analyses, a one-way coupled solution will yield conservative results (calculated FOS is too low). The degree of
conservativeness depends on the value of R as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6. Pore pressures recorded at a point 100 m from the slope face and 400 m below the ground surface,
k = 10-8 m/s and n = 1%. Stage 1 is excavated at 216 months.

Figure 7. FOS for two-way coupled analysis relative to one-way coupled.

3.2

Infiltration

This section uses the numerical model to explore the effect of meteorological infiltration (rain) on slope stability.
Different net infiltration rates were tested. The net infiltration rate is rain minus evaporation. Both constant and
seasonal infiltration were simulated. One-way coupling was assumed for all simulations.
3.2.1 Constant infiltration rate
An infiltration rate of q = 3 m / year (~10-7 m/s) was simulated. This was thought to represent the maximum
infiltration rate likely to be observed in the field.
It was found that the effect of infiltration on pore pressure is a function of the infiltration rate relative to the
permeability of the material. When permeability is high (e.g. k = 10-6 m/s), the infiltration increases the pore
pressures and raises the water table. However, when the permeability is low, the model quickly becomes
saturated and much of the rain runs off. The pore pressure changes are reflected in the FOS as shown in
Figure 8. For the model with k = 10-6 m/s, the decrease in FOS due to infiltration is up to 15%, whereas for k =
10-8 m/s, the maximum decrease in FOS is about 6%.
The average FOS values for excavation stages 1 to 6 were calculated for models with different permeabilities
and porosities. These values then were compared to the FOS for the case of no infiltration. Figure 9 shows the
results. This plot shows that the lowest FOS values tend to correspond to infiltration rates approximately equal
to permeability. Complete resaturation occurs in this case. For lower permeabilities, the rain runs off and the
FOS is affected less. For permeabilities much higher than the infiltration rate, the rapid drainage ensures lower
pressures and higher FOS. This plot also shows that infiltration has less effect as porosity increases. This is
attributed to relatively lower level of resaturation.
The maximum decrease in FOS relative to models with no infiltration is about 20% when porosity is low and
permeability is approximately equal to the infiltration rate.
Other net infiltration rates were also tested (q = 1 m/ year and q = 0.3 m / year). Results were similar to those
shown here.

Figure 8. FOS for model with k = 10-6 m/s (left) and k = 10-8 m/s (right) at different net infiltration rates.
Porosity = 1%.

Figure 9. FOS for an infiltration rate of 3 m / year relative to no infiltration.

3.2.2 Seasonal infiltration rate
The effect of seasonal infiltration was examined by alternating the rate of infiltration between zero for six
months, and two times the average infiltration rate for six months. Example pore pressure histories are shown in
Figure 10 for models with k = 10-6 m/s and k = 10-8 m/s. It is clear that the high permeability model is affected
greatly by the seasonal variations, whereas the low-permeability model is not.
To examine the effect of the seasons on FOS, four different scenarios were simulated to consider different
offsets for the start of the wet season. The FOS for the different seasonal simulations in one model are shown in
Figure 11. Factors of safety were calculated nine months after each excavation. Depending on the start of the
wet season, this may or may not correspond to peak pore pressures. However, if we construct an envelope
encompassing the minimum FOS for the four different scenarios, then we should pick up the peak pressure state
for each excavation stage. We then can calculate the average FOS over stages 1 to 6 for this minimum envelope,
and compare the results to the FOS calculated for a constant infiltration rate.

Figure 12 shows the results for q = 3 m / year. This plot clearly shows that the seasonal variations essentially
have no effect on the FOS, unless R < 0.01. However, for high permeabilities and/or low excavation rates
(R < 0.003), the seasonality may result in a decrease in FOS of up to 8%.
Similar results are obtained for the other infiltration rates, except that as q decreases, the effect of seasonality
becomes even less severe. For q = 0.3 m / year, the maximum decrease in FOS caused by seasonality is only
about 2.5 % compared to constant q.

Figure 10. Example pore pressures for seasonal infiltration variation compared with constant rate for the model
with k = 10-6 m/s (left) and k = 10-8 m/s (right). n = 1%. The history point is located 400 m below the
ground surface and 150 m from the slope face.

Figure 11. Factors of safety for different seasonal simulations in the model with k = 10-6 m/s, n = 1%.

Figure 12. Factors of safety for models seasonal infiltration (minimum) relative to constant infiltration
(q = 3 m/year).

Conclusions

This paper presents results for a typical open-pit mine. Several simplifying assumptions have been made
including the following.

The rock mass can be represented by an equivalent continuum.

The equivalent continuum is isotropic and homogeneous.

The initial water table is close to the surface.

If these assumptions are approximately valid, then the following conclusions can be drawn regarding steadystate, transient and coupled analyses.

Steady-state flow modelling is only acceptable for low dimensionless excavation rates (i.e., low
excavation rates or high permeabilities). The value of R below which steady-state modelling is
acceptable (Rs) depends on porosity and the distance to the vertical recharge boundary. For a model
with the vertical recharge boundary at approximately 2.5 pit radii from the pit centre (2500 m in this
example), Rs ~ 0.07 for n = 0.1%. As the porosity increases, Rs decreases (at n = 1%, Rs ~ 0.02). As the
vertical recharge boundary is moved farther from the pit, Rs will decrease proportional to D2, where D is
the distance to the boundary. Therefore for D = 5000 m, Rs ~ 0.02 at n = 0.1% and Rs ~ 0.005 at n = 1%
(see Figure 5). For values of R > Rs, a steady-state solution will produce unconservative results (a false
sense of stability).

Axisymmetric models produce higher FOS values but the calculated values for Rs are similar to the twodimensional models.

For R > Rs, transient one-way coupled models can be used, but the results will be conservative. Twoway coupled (undrained-drained) solutions will yield higher FOS values due to the initial drop in pore
pressure caused by the stress drop that occurs when material is removed. The degree of
conservativeness depends on R. For R = 0.1, the one-way coupled analysis will produce FOS values
approximately 10% too low. At R = 1, the underestimation will be approximately 20%. This study
suggests that two-way coupled analysis is the best approach; however, care should be taken to ensure
that the pit is excavated in the predicted manner. If delays occur, then the reduction in pore pressure

(and resulting stability increase) caused by the undrained phenomenon may not be realized, resulting in
unconservative predictions.

Infiltration has the most dramatic effect on slope stability when the rate of infiltration, q, is
approximately the same as the rock permeability, k. If q >> k, then water runs off and the increasing
infiltration rate has no effect. If q << k, then low level resaturation ensures the rain has little effect.

The factor of safety (FOS) decreases by about 20% when q k.

Seasonal variation in infiltration rate does not affect the FOS dramatically, except for (very) highpermeability models. In this case, the seasonal variations can cause a decrease in FOS up to 5%.

Continuing research will address the three assumptions stated at the beginning of this section. The effect of
inhomogeneity and anisotropy in groundwater properties currently is being investigated. In addition, models
with discrete fracture networks are being examined to determine when it is appropriate to use an equivalent
continuum and what the properties of that continuum should be.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of CSIRO on this project.

References

Beale, G. (2009). Hydrogeological model. In Read & Stacey (eds.), Guidelines for Open-pit Slope Design. CSIRO
Publishing, Collingwood, pp. 141-200.
Brown, A. (1982). The influence and control of groundwater in large slopes. In Brawner (ed.), Proceedings, 3rd
International Conference on Stability in Surface Mining (Vancouver, June 1981). SME/AIMMPE, New York, pp.
19-41.
Dawson, E. M., Roth, W. H., Drescher, A. (1999). Slope stability analysis by strength reduction. Gotechnique 49: 835840.
Hazzard, J., Damjanac, B., Detournay, C., Lorig, L. (2011). Developing rules of thumb for groundwater modelling in large
open-pit mine design, In Proceedings of the 64th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, in press.
Hoek, E., Bray, J. (1977). Rock Slope Engineering, 2nd ed. Spon Press, London.
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc. 2008. FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua), Version 6.0. Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sullivan, T.D. (2007). Hydromechanical coupling and pit slope movements. In Potvin (ed.), Slope Stability 2007,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 3-43.