Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
International Symposium on Stability of Rock Slopes in Open Pit Mining and Civil Engineering
Manuel Schellman
Page 451
Figure 1: Overall view of Mantoverde mine. The East wall can be seen on the centre.
ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
The main rock types in the East wall of Mantoverde mine are: andesites (AND), brecciated andesites or transition zone (ZT), hydrothermal breccia (BXH), tectonic breccia (BXT), green breccia (BXV), diorite and other intrusive rocks (INT). Figure 2
shows the geology of a typical cross section through the East wall. These rocks present
hydrothermal alteration of the silica-chlorite type, with potassic feldspar in veinlets and
accretion veins, with a weak sericitic pervasive alteration. In some sectors, the rocks
also present argillic alteration. At Mantoverde the mineralization corresponds to copper
oxides.
The main structural feature at the mine is the Mantoverde Fault, a major geological
fault with an extent of about 14 Km, a strike N20W and a dip of 50E. The structural
data was obtained from bench mapping. There are three main structural trends:
subvertical structures with N30oE and N30oW strikes, and NS structures dipping 35o to
55o. The geological faults mapped on the East wall are shown in Figure 3.
The groundwater level is deeper than the bottom of the final pit.
GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION
Considering the rock and alteration types, thirteen geotechnical units were defined in
the East wall. The rock mass properties for these geotechnical units were evaluated with
the Hoek-Brown criterion (Hoek et al, 2002), using the results of laboratory testing
(unconfined compression and triaxial tests), and the geotechnical quality of the rock
mass defined from bench mappings and drill core logging.
Page 452
BXV
AND
INT
INT
BXV
ZT
BXH
INT
BXT
BXV
BXV
INT
N-99700
N-99800
N-99900
N-100000
N-100100
N-100200
N-100300
N-100400
N-100500
N-100600
N-100700
N-100800
Figure 2: Cross section N 100,300 showing the typical lithology of the East wall of Mantoverde mine, the current and the final pit.
E-60500
E-60400
E-60300
E-60200
E-60100
E-60500
E-60400
E-60300
E-60200
E-60100
N-99200
N-99300
N-99400
N-99500
N-99600
N-99700
N-99800
N-99900
N-100000
N-100100
N-100200
N-100300
N-100400
N-100500
N-100600
N-100700
N-100800
N-100900
N-101000
N-101100
N-101200
N-101300
N-101400
E-60000
RAJO MANTOVERDE
MANTOVERDE
PIT, EAST WALL
PLANTA PIT FINAL - DISEO ORIGINAL
GEOLOGICAL
FAULTS
FALLAS MAYORES
Figure 3: Map showing the geological faults mapped on Mantoverde mines East wall.
The geotechnical quality of the rock mass was rated using the Rock Mass rating (RMR)
defined by Bieniawski (1979), for drill core and the Geological Strength Index (GSI)
defined by Hoek (1994), for outcrop mapping.
The effect of the uncertainty on the geotechnical data was included as suggested by
Hoek (1998), using an Excel spreadsheet and the Excel add-on program @RISK
(available from www.palisade.com).
Page 453
Geotechnical Unit
Lithology
Andesite
Transition
Zone
Alteration
Code
Silica-Chlorite
AND
Argillic
AND-ARG
Silica-Chlorite
ZT
Argillic
Silica-Chlorite
Argillic
BXT-ARG
Green
Breccia
Silica-Chlorite
BXT
Argillic
BXT-ARG
Intrusive
Rocks
Silica-Chlorite
INT
Fault Zones
GSI
B
G
2.66
70
64
GSI
mb
58
62
2.88
30
80
2.65
(kPa)
(degrees)
(GPa)
(GPa)
35 to 60
0.70
700
37
2.8
1.7
25 to 50
0.37
500
31
1.7
0.9
35 to 60
0.42
600
32
2.7
1.7
25 to 50
0.22
400
26
1.6
0.9
40 to 60
0.53
675
34
3.0
1.8
30 to 50
0.28
450
28
1.7
1.0
30 to 55
0.47
450
28
1.6
0.9
20 to 45
0.21
275
21
0.9
0.4
35 to 60
0.39
625
34
3.0
1.9
25 to 50
0.21
425
27
1.8
1.0
35 to 55
0.30
475
28
2.1
1.3
25 to 45
0.16
325
22
1.2
0.7
60
24
0.5
0.3
10.8
72
52
2.68
10.5
46
2.20
Unit weight
Intact rocks unconfined compressive strength
Geological strength index (Hoek, 1994)
Bulk modulus of the rock mass
Shear modulus of the rock mass
15.7
26
INT-ARG
13.0
56
BXT
12.0
2.46
Argillic
19.6
62
ZT-ARG
Tectonic
Breccia
mi
(ton/m ) (MPa)
2.68
BXH
Hydrothermal Silica-Chlorite
Breccia
Argillic
BXH-ARG
ci
ci
3
mi
mb
c
Equivalent values for the rock mass cohesion and friction angle were computed from
the Hoek-Brown strength envelope, for confining pressures ranging from 0 to 2.5 MPa.
The rock mass modulus (E) was estimated as suggested by Hoek et al (2002):
D ci
10 ((GSI
E = 1
2 100
10 ) / 40 )
(1)
where the units of E are MPa, ci is the unconfined compressive strength of the intact
rock (in MPa), and D is a factor which depends upon the degree of disturbance to which
the rock mass has been subjected by blast damage and stress relaxation (in this case D
ranges from 0.8 to 1.0). The Poisson ratio of the rock mass, , was estimated as:
= 0.40 0.01 GSI
0.7
(2)
The values of E and were used to compute the bulk (B) and shear (G) modulus of the
rock mass. These geotechnical properties are summarized in Table 1. Laboratory direct
shear tests were performed on samples containing joints. From the results of these tests
and the experience from other Chilean open pits, it was considered that:
Major structures such as large faults and shears are continuous (ie they could affect
the stability of interramp and overall slopes). Their shear strength is defined by a cohesion of 60 20 kPa and a friction angle of 24o 4o (values from back analyses of
planar slides on faults with clay gouge in some Chilean open pits).
Page 454
Minor faults, whose lengths usually range from 20 to 40 m, are continuous at bench
scale (including double benches). Their shear strength is defined by a cohesion of
105 20 kPa and a friction angle of 26o 3o (estimated values).
Joints are continuous at bench scale (including double benches). Their shear strength
is defined by a cohesion of 95 20 kPa and a friction angle of 36o 3o (values from
results of direct shear tests and back analyses of planar and wedge slides at bench
scale in other Chilean open pits).
Bench-scale structures such as
minor faults and joints, are discontinuous and contain rock bridges at
the scale of interramp and overall
slopes. To include the effect of
these rock bridges, probabilistic
analyses were performed to define
the strength of equivalent structures like the one illustrated in
Figure 4. These probabilistic analyses consider the mean and the standard deviation for the strength of
the rock and the structures, and for
the length, dip and spacing of the
structures, in a form similar to the
one described by Baczynski (2000).
This computation was done only for
those structures subparallel to the
slopes (ie the angle between the
slope and the structures strike is
equal or smaller than 20o).
Equivalent structure
Joint Set 1
Joint Set 2
Rock bridge
Isotropic rock mass strength can be assumed if: (a) the rock mass is very massive and
does not have joints, (b) the rock mass is fractured but there are no structural sets with a
strike subparallel to the slopes strike (ie the angle between them is greater than 20o), or
(c) the rock mass is highly fractured and there are so many structures that there are no
predominant joint orientations. In these cases the Hoek-Brown criterion is applied
straightforward manner, and the strength properties of the rock mass are those of Table
1 in a straightforward manner.
Isotropic rock mass strength cannot be assumed if: (a) the rock mass is layered/foliated,
or (b) the rock mass is fractured, and contains one ore more predominant joint sets with
a strike subparallel to the slopes orientation. In these cases the directional effect of
the planes of weakness, defined by the structures or equivalent structures if they
contain rock bridges, is included in the following form:
The apparent dip of the structures (a) and its possible variation (a) are defined in
the cross section to be analyzed.
The strength of the structure (Sj) and the rock mass (Srm) are defined (note that the
term strength is generic and could mean cohesion or friction).
Page 455
Vertical
Joint Set 2
Joint Set 1
Srm
Horizontal
Horizontal
Sj
The strengths of the rock mass strength and the structure are overlapped defining a
directional strength, as shown in Figure 5.
If the rock mass contain two predominant joint sets with strike subparallel to the
slope the same procedure is repeated for the second joint set, as shown in Figure 6.
ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA FOR SLOPE DESIGN
At Mantoverde mine the following acceptability criteria were defined for slope design:
Benches: Double benches with a total height of 20 m and a bench face inclination of
80o. The berm or bench width should contain the debris from a planar/wedge slide from
the upper bench whose volume has a probability of exceedance of 20% (ie the probability of a larger instability is 20%).
Final Pit Slopes: There isnt any in pit infrastructure. The surface infrastructure is far
away from the East wall, and cannot be affected by subsidence problems. Hence, the
following criteria are applied in terms of the tonnage affected by the potential failure
(W, defined in tonnes per meter because stability analyses are bidimensional), the factor
of safety (FS), and the probability of failure (PF, defined as the probability of FS being
smaller than one):
- If W 15,000 tons/m, then FS 1.20 and PF 12%
- If 15,000 tons/m < W 30,000 tons/m, then FS 1.25 and PF 10%
- If 30,000 tons/m < W, then FS 1.30 and PF 8%
Page 456
Figure 7: Mantoverde mines East wall (looking SE). The well groomed double benches in
the upper were achieved using presplitting (20 m vertical blastholes, = 6).
Figure 8: Detail of the well groomed double benches achieved using presplitting (20 m
vertical blastholes, = 6).
Page 457
The limit of 15,000 ton/m for the maximum probability of failure is due to the fact
that an eventual interramp slope failure with a lateral extent of about 40 m (expected
lateral extent for 120 to 150 m high interramp slopes), would affect 600,000 tonnes.
This tonnage can be removed in one week by the current mining equipment (two
front loaders Caterpillar 994). This would have no effect on the plant operation
because there is a stockpile of about 800,000 tons that could keep on feeding the
plant.
Considering that the typical pit slope design means FS 1.3, which is more or less
equivalent to the condition PF 8%, these acceptability criteria are approximately
equivalent to increase 25% and 50% the permissible probability for a relatively
large failure (up to 1,200,000 tons) and a manageable failure (up to 600,000
tons), respectively.
The seismic condition is considered an eventual loading condition that has a low
probability of occurrence during the life of the pit. Hence, for seismic loading it was
considered that FS 1.1 was acceptable for pseudostatic analyses with a horizontal
seismic coefficient (kh) equals to 0.12g.
A more aggressive slope design requires good slope management. This means good
operational practices (good quality blasting, a good fulfilment of the design slope
geometry, etc.), good geotechnical monitoring and slope control. Indeed, Mantoverde Division began a training program on slope performance and control aimed
to general foremen and mine operators. Currently the East wall is under continuous
monitoring by a robotic Leica APS-Win system.
BENCH-BERM DESIGN
A bench height (hB) of 10 m was defined from operational considerations regarding efficiency of the loading equipment, and a double bench design was selected (20 m total
height).
The expected bench face inclination () was defined as 80o, in agreement with the current blasting practices and observed bench performance (see Figures 7 and 8), considering the fact that presplitting will be used.
Monte Carlo simulations were carried out to define the cumulative distribution of the
tonnages associated with structurally controlled bench instabilities (ie planar and wedge
slides). From these cumulative curves the tonnage with a 20% probability of exceedance was selected, and a swelled volume was computed assuming a 2.00 tons/m3
unit weight for the debris or broken rock.
The basal length of this volume (ld) was computed assuming that the debris is cohesionless and its friction angle is 39o.
The berm or bench width (wb) required was computed as ld plus one meter. According
to this, the minimum berm or bench width required for the benches of the East wall
ranges from 8.0 to 11.6 m.
Page 458
N-101000
N-101,000
N-100700
N-100,700
N-100525
N-100,525
N-100300
N-100,300
N-099950
N-99,950
N-099700
N-99,700
E-60500
E-60400
E-60300
E-60200
E-60100
N-99200
N-99300
N-99400
N-99500
N-99600
N-99700
N-99800
N-99900
N-100000
N-100100
N-100200
N-100300
N-100400
N-100500
N-100600
N-100700
N-100800
N-100900
N-101000
N-101100
N-101200
N-101300
N-101400
E-60000
Each section was analyzed using the Generalized Limit Equilibrium (GLE) method
available in the software SLIDE (available from www.rocscience.com), which is
equivalent to the Morgenstern-Price method (Morgenstern & Price, 1965). The stability
analyses were done according to the following:
In each section all the possible failures were considered: one interramp, more than
one interramp, overall slope, and local failures associated to lithological contacts
and/or geological faults.
The path search technique and four segment lengths were used to find the most
critical failure surface in each case. To do this 5,000 to 10,000 failure surfaces were
generated and once the critical surface was found, the optimization option of SLIDE
was used to find the critical FS.
For the most critical failure surface the probability of failure was computed using the
Taylor series method suggested by Duncan (2000), considering a coefficient of
variation equals to 17% and 25% for the angle of friction and the cohesion,
respectively and a variation of 5o for the apparent dip of those structures that were
subparallel to the slope.
Tension cracks were assumed to reach depths up to 10% of the slope height being
analyzed.
If required (eg due to a joint set with a strike subparallel to the slope orientation) a
directional rock mass strength was used, as previously discussed.
Page 459
As the groundwater level is below the bottom of the final pit, the slopes are in a dry
condition.
The current East walls slopes were analyzed and, as expected, the results obtained
indicated that these slopes are very stable (FS 1.7 and PF 1% in all cases). Figure
10 shows a typical result from these slope stability analyses.
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,525
CURRENT SLOPE
Tension
Cracks
INT
220 m
AND
INT
ZT
ZT
AND
BXT
BXH
ZT
ZT
BXV
Geological Faults
Andesite Dike
Figure 10: Slope stability analysis of East walls current slopes. This example corresponds
to section N-100,525, where the critical failure surface for the 220 m overall slope has a FS
of 1.90 and a PF smaller than 1%.
Then the original slope design for the final pit on the East wall was analyzed. The
results obtained indicated that:
The design can be optimized in the sectors of sections N-99,700, N-99,950 and N101,100 (ie in the Northern and Southern parts of the East wall), steepening the
slopes.
In the sectors of sections N-100,525 and N-100,700 the design can be maintained
because it fulfils the acceptability criteria previously defined.
In the sector of section N-100,300 (in the central part of the East wall), the original
slope design did not fulfil the acceptability criteria previously described.
According to these results, the slope design was modified by steepening the slopes in
those sectors where the design can be optimized, and by modifying the slope geometry
at section N-100,300 in order to fulfil the acceptability criteria (two options were
considered). The results of the slope stability analyses for the original and modified
slope designs are summarized in Table 2.
Page 460
Table 2
RESULTS OF THE SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
N-99,700
N-99,950
N-100,300
N-100,525
N-100,700
N-101,000
OD
OD
OD
MD
Parameters
OD
MD
OD
MD
OD
ho (m)
110
110
155
155
280
280
280
275
230
110
110
hf (m)
100
100
155
110
280
280
280
275
230
110
90
53o
53o
60o
r (degrees)
53o
r (degrees)
o (degrees)
54o
o (degrees)
51o
53
+6o
+1o
51o
59
45o
45o
52o
0o
0o
MD1 MD2
53
53
0o
0o
49o
45o
-3o
-7o
53
MD
53
MD
+7o
50o
46o
38o
38o
0o
W (kton/m)
6.8
6.8
25.0
10.6
57.5
62.6
63.3
66.5
43.8
16.8
7.1
FS
1.39
1.38
1.40
1.27
1.21
1.31
1.32
1.30
1.35
2.28
1.95
FSEQ
1.20
1.20
1.17
1.11
1.03
1.11
1.11
1.10
1.11
1.92
1.88
10
14
<1
<1
PF (%)
ho
hf
W
FS
FSEQ
PF
MD1
r
r
o
o
OD
MD
MD2
Hence, the East wall slopes can be steepened in some sectors, increasing the interramp
angles an average of 3o in the Southern sector, and 7o in the Northern sector. On the
other hand, the geotechnical evaluation showed that the slope in the central part of the
East wall (section N-100,300) did not fulfil the acceptability criteria (FS = 1.21 < 1.30
and PF = 14% > 8%, see Figure 11).
Two options were considered to modify the slope geometry in this section and fulfil the
acceptability criteria:
Option 1: The benches in the lower part of the slope (at elevations 870 and 850, being
810 the elevation of the final pit bottom) have wider berms or bench widths
(23.1 m), defining an abutment toe. This modified slope geometry fulfils
the acceptability criteria (W = 62.6 kton/m, FS = 1.31 > 1.30 and PF = 7% <
8%, see Figure 12).
Option 2: The geometry of the upper part of the slope is modified, leaving a 60 m
wide platform at elevation 1030, and at elevation 850 the bench has a wider
berm or bench width (23.1 m). This modified slope geometry fulfils the
acceptability criteria (W = 63.3 kton/m, FS = 1.32 > 1.30 and PF = 7% <
8%, see Figure 13).
Page 461
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
ORIGINAL SLOPE DESIGN
Tension
Cracks
INT
280 m
BXV
BXV
INT
ZT
INT
ZT
BXH
BXV
INT
ZT
BXH
BXT
Geological Faults
Figure 11: Slope stability analysis of section N-100,300, original slope design (final pit condition). Acceptability criteria are not fulfilled (W = 57.5 kton/m, FS = 1.21 and PF = 14%).
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
MODIFIED SLOPE DESIGN
OPTION 1
Tension
Cracks
INT
BXV
BXV
Wider Berms
INT
ZT
Original
Slope Design
INT
ZT
BXH
BXV
INT
ZT
BXT
BXH
Geological Faults
Figure 12: Slope stability analysis of section N-100,300, modified slope design - Option 1.
Acceptability criteria are fulfilled (W = 62.6 kton/m, FS = 1.31 and PF = 7%).
Page 462
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
Original
SECTION N-100,300
Slope Design
FINAL PIT CONDITION
Tension
MODIFIED SLOPE DESIGN
Cracks
OPTION 2
Platform
INT
280 m
BXV
BXV
Wider Berm
INT
ZT
Original
Slope Design
INT
ZT
BXH
BXV
INT
ZT
BXT
BXH
Geological Faults
Figure 13: Slope stability analysis of section N-100,300, modified slope design - Option 2.
Acceptability criteria are fulfilled (W = 63.3 kton/m, FS = 1.32 and PF = 7%).
Option 1 leaves a larger abutment toe in ore, but it seems preferable to Option 2
which requires a relatively large removal of waste rock. On the other hand, the goal was
to extract as much ore as possible and, in spite of the fact that the original design for the
final pit condition did not fulfil the acceptability criteria, some questions arise:
Is it really so bad to have FS = 1.21 instead of FS = 1.30?
Could we afford a probability of failure of 14% for a relatively large slope failure?
Which is the best course of action considering the mining business?
Hence, it was decided to compare the original slope design with Option 1 by means of
numerical analyses using the software FLAC (available from www.itscacg.com),
including the geological structures (or equivalent structures to consider the effect of
rock bridges) as ubiquitous joints when they were subparallel to the slope orientation.
These numerical models are shown in Figures 14 and 15.
The results of these numerical analyses indicated that:
In both cases, original and modified slope geometries, the slopes are stable (ie the
numerical models reached an equilibrium condition).
The plasticity indicators (failure through the rock mass by shear and/or tension, and
slippage along ubiquitous joints) show the following:
Page 463
(*10^3)
1.125
LEGEND
1.075
18-May-05 12:36
step 500000
5.350E+03 <x< 5.850E+03
7.500E+02 <y< 1.150E+03
GEOLOGICAL FAULTS
1.025
User-defined Groups
Dio
BxVer
BxTec
ZF
BxHid
ZoTran
Boundary plot
INT
0.975
0.925
BXV
INT
1E 2
BXV
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
ORIGINAL SLOPE DESIGN
0.875
ZT
0.825
ZT
INT
BXH
0.775
BXT
5.425
5.475
5.525
5.575
(*10^3)
5.625
5.675
5.725
5.775
5.825
Figure 14: Geotechnical units considered in the finite difference (FLAC) model of East
walls section N-100,300, for the original slope design (final pit condition).
JOB TITLE : Pared Este Mina Mantoverde, Sec 100300
(*10^3)
1.125
LEGEND
1.075
18-May-05 6:58
step 500000
5.350E+03 <x< 5.850E+03
7.500E+02 <y< 1.150E+03
GEOLOGICAL FAULTS
1.025
User-defined Groups
Dio
BxVer
BxTec
ZF
BxHid
ZoTran
Boundary plot
INT
0.975
0.925
BXV
INT
1E 2
BXV
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
MODIFIED SLOPE DESIGN
OPTION 1
0.875
ZT
0.825
ZT
INT
BXH
0.775
BXT
5.425
5.475
5.525
5.575
(*10^3)
5.625
5.675
5.725
5.775
5.825
Figure 15: Geotechnical units considered in the finite difference (FLAC) model of East
walls section N-100,300, for the modified slope design Option 1 (final pit condition).
Page 464
- Original slope geometry (final pit condition): Tensile failures occur in the upper
part of the slope and also, locally, at elevation 870. Shear failures occur mainly in
the bottom of the pit and in the zones adjacent to geological faults. Slippage along
ubiquitous joints occurs in the upper mid-part of the slope, especially at the
contact between intrusive rocks and green breccias. The plasticity indicators do
not define a continuous rupture surface through the overall slope (see Figure 16).
- Modified slope geometry Option 1 (final pit condition): Tensile failures occur in
the upper part of the slope. Shear failures occur mainly in the bottom of the pit
and in the zones adjacent to geological faults. Slippage along ubiquitous joints
occurs in the upper mid-part of the slope, especially at the contact between
intrusive rocks and green breccias. The plasticity indicators do not define a
continuous surface of rupture through the overall slope (see Figure 17).
In both cases the slopes maximum horizontal displacements occur locally, at those
benches affected by geological faults (see Figures 18 and 19). In the original slope
geometry these displacements do not exceed 90 cm (see Figures 18); and in the case
of the modified slope design Option 1, they do not exceed 80 cm (see Figure 19).
Hence, in both cases the ratio between the slope crests horizontal displacement and
the slope height is smaller than 0.5%, which means that the slopes do not show signs
of instability (Hoek & Karzulovic (2001) suggested that slopes begin to show signs
of instability when this ratio is about 1%).
In both cases the zones of maximum shear strain increment are associated to the
presence of geological faults, and do not define a continuous surface of rupture
through the slope (see Figures 20 and 21).
Considering all these results Mantoverde Division decided to optimize the mining
business using what Terzaghi called the observational method (eg see Peck, 1969).
Hence, the slopes of Section N-100,300 will be developed according with the original
slope design, considering this a flexible design that can be modified to Option 1 if the
slope monitoring indicates a sudden increase in the slope displacement rate when the
wall toe reaches elevation 870 (Contingency Plan A), or modified to Option 2 if these
sudden increase is detected when the wall toe reaches elevation 850.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of more aggressive acceptability criteria for slope design (considering that the
typical case FS 1.3 is more or less equivalent to PF 8%, these acceptability criteria
are approximately equivalent to increase 25% and 50% the permissible probability
for a 1,200,000 tons failure and a 600,000 tons failure, respectively), the Mantoverde
mines East wall interramp slopes were steepened locally up to 7o.
The definition of these acceptability criteria considered the operational practices, and
the fact that the eventual occurrence of a 600,000 tonnes can be cleaned-up in one week
by the current mining equipment (two front loaders Caterpillar 994), having no effect
on the plant operation because there is a stockpile of about 800,000 tons that could keep
on feeding the plant.
Page 465
(*10^3)
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
ORIGINAL SLOPE DESIGN
1.125
TENSILE FAILURES
1.075
1.025
Plasticity Indicator
* at yield in shear or vol.
X elastic, at yield in past
o at yield in tension
^ slip along ubiq. joints
. ubiq. joints fail in past
Boundary plot
0
1E 2
0.975
0.925
TENSILE
FAILURES
SLIP ALONG UBIQUITOUS JOINTS
0.875
0.825
0.775
5.425
5.475
5.525
5.575
(*10^3)
5.625
5.675
5.725
5.775
5.825
Figure 16: Plasticity indicators in East walls section N-100,300, for the original slope design
(final pit condition).
JOB TITLE : Pared Este Mina Mantoverde, Sec 100300
(*10^3)
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
MODIFIED SLOPE DESIGN
OPTION 1
1.125
TENSILE FAILURES
1.075
1.025
Plasticity Indicator
* at yield in shear or vol.
X elastic, at yield in past
o at yield in tension
^ slip along ubiq. joints
. ubiq. joints fail in past
Boundary plot
0
0.975
0.925
1E 2
SLIP ALONG UBIQUITOUS JOINTS
0.875
0.825
0.775
5.425
5.475
5.525
5.575
(*10^3)
5.625
5.675
5.725
5.775
5.825
Figure 17: Plasticity indicators in East walls section N-100,300, for the modified slope
design Option 1 (final pit condition).
Page 466
(*10^3)
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
ORIGINAL SLOPE DESIGN
1.125
1.075
MAXIMUM
HORIZONTAL
DISPLACEMENTS
1.025
X-displacement contours
-9.00E-01
-8.00E-01
-7.00E-01
-6.00E-01
-5.00E-01
-4.00E-01
-3.00E-01
-2.00E-01
-1.00E-01
0.975
0.925
0.875
0.825
0.775
0
1E 2
A. Karzulovic & Asoc. Ltda.
Santiago, CHILE
5.375
5.425
5.475
5.525
5.575
(*10^3)
5.625
5.675
5.725
5.775
5.825
Figure 18: Horizontal displacement field in East walls section N-100,300, for the original
slope design (final pit condition).
JOB TITLE : Pared Este Mina Mantoverde, Sec 100300
(*10^3)
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
MODIFIED SLOPE DESIGN
OPTION 1
1.125
1.075
1.025
MAXIMUM
HORIZONTAL
DISPLACEMENTS
0.975
0.925
0.875
0.825
1E 2
0.775
5.425
5.475
5.525
5.575
(*10^3)
5.625
5.675
5.725
5.775
5.825
Figure 19: Horizontal displacement field in East walls section N-100,300, for the modified
slope design Option 1 (final pit condition).
Page 467
(*10^3)
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
ORIGINAL SLOPE DESIGN
1.125
1.075
GEOLOGICAL FAULTS
1.025
0.975
0.925
0.875
1E 2
0.775
5.425
5.475
5.525
5.575
(*10^3)
5.625
5.675
5.725
5.775
5.825
Figure 20: Zones of maximum shear strain increment in East walls section N-100,300, for
the original slope design (final pit condition).
JOB TITLE : Pared Este Mina Mantoverde, Sec 100300
(*10^3)
MANTOVERDE MINE
EAST WALL
SECTION N-100,300
FINAL PIT CONDITION
MODIFIED SLOPE DESIGN
OPTION 1
1.125
1.075
GEOLOGICAL FAULTS
1.025
0.975
0.925
0.875
1E 2
0.825
0.775
5.425
5.475
5.525
5.575
(*10^3)
5.625
5.675
5.725
5.775
5.825
Figure 21: Zones of maximum shear strain increment in East walls section N-100,300, for
the modified slope design Option 1 (final pit condition).
Page 468
This optimized slope design requires good operational and blasting practices, and also
an efficient slope instrumentation and monitoring system. Currently the quality of the
blast allow to achieve well groomed 20 m double benches, with 80o bench face inclinations, and the East wall is under continuous monitoring by a robotic Leica APS-Win
system. Mantoverde Division also began a training program on slope performance and
control aimed to general foremen and mine operators.
Limit equilibrium and numerical methods were used to assess slope stability, and the
slope design was optimized by steepening the slopes in those sectors where it was
possible to do so. In the central sector of the East wall the observational method was
used to define an aggressive slope design, but flexible enough to allow modifications
according to well defined contingency plans if the observed slope behaviour deviates
from the expected one. These contingency plans were defined considering the results of
limit equilibrium and, especially, numerical analyses of slope stability.
REFERENCES
BACZYNSKI, N R P. STEPSIM4 step-path method for slope risks, GEOENG2000:
An International Conference on Geomechanical & Geological Engineering, Vol 2, pp
86. Technomic Publishing Co: Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA, 2000.
BIENIAWSKI, Z T. The geomechanics classification in rock engineering applications,
Proc 4th Congress Int Soc Rock Mech, Montreux, Switzerland, Vol 2, pp 41-48,
Balkema: Rotterdam, 1979.
DUNCAN, J M. Factors of safety and reliability in geotechnical engineering, J.
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 2000, 126(4):307-316.
HOEK, E. Strength of rock and rock masses, ISRM NewsJ., 1994, 2(2):4-16.
HOEK, E. Reliability of Hoek-brown estimates of rock mass properties and their impact
on design, Technical Note, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., 1998, 35(1): 63-68.
HOEK, E, CARRANZA-TORRES, C & CORKUN, B. Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion 2002 Edition, Mining and Tunnelling Innovation and Opportunity, Proc. 5th North Am
Rock Mech Symp & 17th Tunn Assn Can Conf, Toronto (eds R Hammah, W Bawden, J
Curran and M Telesnicki), Vol 1, pp 267-273. University of Toronto Press: Toronto,
2002.
HOEK, E & KARZULOVIC, A. Rock-mass properties for surface mines, Slope
Stability in Surface Mining (eds W A Hustrulid, M K McCarter and D J A Van Zyl), pp
59-67. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2002.
MORGENSTERN, N R & PRICE, V E. The analysis of the stability of general slop
surfaces, Geotechnique, 1965, 15(1):77-93.
PECK, R B. Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil
mechanics, Ninth Rankine Lecture, Geotechnique, 19(2):171-187, 1969.
Page 469
Page 470