Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
by
in
(Mining Engineering)
July 2013
The objective of this research is to determine how ground freezing affects weak rockmass
behaviour with application to the Cigar Lake mine. Cigar Lake mine is a prospective high grade
uranium property in northern Saskatchewan where artificial ground freezing will be implemented
to support the weak rock associated with the orebody and minimize the potential for a significant
water inflow while mining the ore. The deposit comprises a mixture of massive pitchblende, clay
and sand and is overlain by thick zones of sandy clay, unconsolidated sand, and altered
sandstone. Above and below the orebody, the rockmass shows variations in porosity and
permeability due to fracturing and alteration.
Artificial ground freezing can be an effective approach to successfully manage and control
underground excavations in weak rock mass conditions. Numerous mining and civil projects use
artificial freezing worldwide; however, uncertainties remain with respect to understanding and
predicting the behavior of frozen rock mass. Previous studies of frozen ground have largely
focussed on the behaviour of soil, or in the few studies involving rock, the rock matrix. Of
particular interest here is the behaviour of frozen discontinuities present in the weak rock mass
and its influence in combination with the matrix on the overall frozen rock mass strength. A
comparison of the Cigar Lake mine rockmass and mining operations with that of the McArthur
River mine, an unconformity uranium deposit in northern Saskatchewan also utilizing artificial
ground freezing will provide the basis for the increase in rockmass quality from unfrozen to
frozen conditions.
Improving in situ and laboratory characterization methods and developing a better understanding
of rock behaviour at sub-zero temperatures is the key focus of this research. A material testing
program including unconfined compressive strength, direct shear, and four-point beam
experiments was completed using frozen Cigar Lake rock samples. These results are then
discussed with respect to the behaviour of the frozen material encompassing the mined out
cavities in order to ensure cavity stability during mining. The influence of freezing on the
rockmass quality is found to be significant for very weak rocks and decreases exponentially with
increasing rockmass strength.
ii
Preface
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Preface............................................................................................................................................ iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Glossary ....................................................................................................................................... xiv
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... xv
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Thesis Outline .................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Research Objective ........................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Location and Background ................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Cigar Lake Mining Method .............................................................................................. 7
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Properties of Frozen Ground .......................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Artificial Ground Freezing Background ................................................................. 10
2.1.2 Ice Mechanical Properties ....................................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Frozen Soil Mechanical Properties ......................................................................... 14
2.1.4 Frozen Intact Rock Properties................................................................................. 26
2.1.5 Creep Behaviour in Weak Rock ............................................................................. 34
2.2 Thermal Properties ......................................................................................................... 37
2.3 Frozen/Unfrozen Interface Behaviour ............................................................................ 38
2.4 Mining in Permafrost ..................................................................................................... 39
2.4.1 Case Studies in Frozen Underground Mines .......................................................... 40
2.4.2 Case Studies in Frozen Soil and Ice Deposits......................................................... 43
2.4.3 Ground Control of Frozen Placer Deposits............................................................. 44
2.5 Weak Rock Mass Behaviour .......................................................................................... 46
2.5.1 Rock Mass Classification Systems ......................................................................... 47
2.5.2 Modification of Rock Mass Classification Systems for Frozen Ground ................ 53
iv
2.5.3 Rock Mass Strength ................................................................................................ 54
2.6 Failure Mechanisms in Frozen Stratified Ground .......................................................... 57
2.6.1 Beam Theory ........................................................................................................... 58
2.6.2 Voussoir Analogue.................................................................................................. 60
2.7 Span Design of Underground Excavations .................................................................... 60
2.7.1 Critical Span Empirical Chart ................................................................................. 61
2.8 Applicability of Hoek-Brown Parameters to Frozen Ground ........................................ 63
3. Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 65
3.1 Assessment of Existing Information .............................................................................. 65
3.2 Conceptual Model of Failure Mechanisms .................................................................... 66
3.3 Material Properties Sampling Program .......................................................................... 67
3.3.1 Sample Collection ................................................................................................... 67
3.3.2 Sample Integrity During Drilling ............................................................................ 68
3.4 Classification Systems in Frozen Weak Rock................................................................ 69
3.5 Laboratory Testing to Establish Influence of Freezing .................................................. 70
3.5.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength Testing ............................................................ 72
3.5.2 Four Point Beam Testing ........................................................................................ 72
3.5.3 Direct Shear Testing ............................................................................................... 73
4. Cigar Lake Geology, Hydrogeology, and Historical Geotechnical Data .............................. 74
4.1 Regional Geology ........................................................................................................... 74
4.2 Formation of the Cigar Lake Deposit and Mineralization ............................................. 74
4.3 Local Geology ................................................................................................................ 75
4.3.1 Alteration ................................................................................................................ 75
4.3.2 Faulting and Structures ........................................................................................... 77
4.4 Geotechnical Site Investigations .................................................................................... 79
4.5 Geotechnical Zones ........................................................................................................ 80
4.5.1 Mineralization/Ore .................................................................................................. 82
4.5.2 Clay Altered Sandstone........................................................................................... 83
4.5.3 Sand/Highly Friable Sandstone and Fractured Sandstone ...................................... 85
4.5.4 Altered Basement .................................................................................................... 87
v
4.6 In-Situ Stress Measurements .......................................................................................... 90
5. Back-Analysis of Historical Data .......................................................................................... 91
5.1 Comparison of Cigar Lake and McArthur River Mines ................................................ 91
5.2 Cigar Lake Mine, Jet Boring Trial in 2000 .................................................................... 93
5.2.1 Geology ................................................................................................................... 94
5.2.2 Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 96
5.2.3 Influence of Freezing on Weak Altered Rockmass ................................................ 96
5.3 Rock Mass Classification Comparison of Frozen to Unfrozen Conditions at the
McArthur River Mine.............................................................................................................. 103
6. Cigar Lake Geotechnical Material Properties Based on 2009 Drilling ............................... 109
6.1 Cigar Lake Geotechnical Domains .............................................................................. 109
6.2 Historical Geotechnical Drilling .................................................................................. 112
6.3 2009 Material Properties Drilling Program .................................................................. 112
6.4 Geotechnical Logging .................................................................................................. 114
6.4.1 Rock Quality Designation ..................................................................................... 114
6.4.2 Rock Strength........................................................................................................ 116
6.4.3 Joint Condition ...................................................................................................... 116
6.5 Interpretation of the Lithology and Rock Mass Characterization ................................ 117
6.6 Summary of 2009 Surface Freeze Drill Holes for Laboratory Testing Samples ......... 119
7. Frozen Laboratory Testing .................................................................................................. 125
7.1 Unconfined Compressive Strength Testing.................................................................. 125
7.1.1 Sample Collection ................................................................................................. 125
7.1.2 Sample Preparation and Setup .............................................................................. 126
7.1.3 Equipment ............................................................................................................. 126
7.1.4 Discussion of Results ............................................................................................ 130
7.1.5 Results ................................................................................................................... 152
7.2 Four-Point Beam Testing ............................................................................................. 153
7.2.1 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................... 156
7.2.2 Frozen Beam Testing Cement Mixture Samples .................................................. 157
7.2.3 Frozen Beam Testing Cigar Lake Drill Core Samples ......................................... 159
vi
7.2.4 Results ................................................................................................................... 160
7.3 Frozen Direct Shear Testing ......................................................................................... 164
7.3.1 Sample Preparation ............................................................................................... 164
7.3.2 Test Procedures ..................................................................................................... 165
7.3.3 Results ................................................................................................................... 165
8. Influence of Freezing on a Weak Rock Mass ...................................................................... 167
8.1 Rock Mass Classification Schemes .............................................................................. 167
8.1.1 Intact Rock Strength ............................................................................................. 167
8.1.2 Joint Condition Ratings......................................................................................... 172
8.1.3 Water ..................................................................................................................... 175
8.2 Case Studies ................................................................................................................. 176
8.3 Comparison of Unfrozen to Frozen 2009 Surface Freeze Drilling Rock Mass
Classification ........................................................................................................................... 181
8.3.1 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 182
9. Failure Mechanism of Frozen Weak Rock Masses ............................................................. 186
9.1 Mohr-Coulomb Criterion ............................................................................................. 187
9.2 Hoek-Brown ................................................................................................................. 190
9.3 Frozen Material Properties ........................................................................................... 191
10. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 193
10.1 Cigar Lake Rock Mass Highly Variable ...................................................................... 193
10.2 Frozen Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................... 193
10.3 Intact Rock Strength and Rock Mass Quality .............................................................. 194
11. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 196
11.1 General ......................................................................................................................... 196
11.2 Laboratory Testing ....................................................................................................... 196
11.3 In Situ Testing .............................................................................................................. 197
11.4 Developing Empirical Relationship Unfrozen to Frozen Rock Mass .......................... 198
11.5 Numerical Modelling ................................................................................................... 198
References ................................................................................................................................... 199
Appendix A: X-Ray Diffraction Testing .................................................................................... 210
vii
Appendix B: 2009 Unconfined Compressive Strength Testing .................................................. 211
Appendix C: Four Point Beam Testing ....................................................................................... 212
C1 - Concrete .......................................................................................................................... 213
C2 - Cigar Lake Drill Core ...................................................................................................... 214
Appendix D: Direct Shear Testing .............................................................................................. 215
viii
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Values of Parameters in Primary Creep Law Equations, from Andersland and
Ladanyi (2004) .............................................................................................................................. 34
Table 2.2: Summary of Creep Testing, after EBA (1990) and Golder (1986)......................... 35
Table 2.3: Cigar Lake Creep Parameters from Historical Testing ........................................... 36
Table 2.4: Summary of Relevant Mines in Permafrost ............................................................ 40
Table 2.5: Soviet Classification of Frozen Intermediate Roof Materials Up to 15 m Thick and
Stable Spans after Extraction, after Emelanov et al. (1982) ......................................................... 45
Table 2.6: 1976 Rock Mass Rating Classification Scheme, from Bieniawski (1976) ............. 49
Table 2.7: Q Rating Parameters, from Barton et al. (1974) ..................................................... 51
Table 4.1: Results of Quantitative Phase Analysis (wt.%) ...................................................... 77
Table 4.2: Mineralization/Ore Unfrozen Material Properties (Golder, 2002) ......................... 82
Table 4.3: Mineralization/Ore Frozen Material Properties (Golder, 2002) ............................. 83
Table 4.4: Clay Unfrozen Material Properties ......................................................................... 84
Table 4.5: Clay Frozen Material Properties ............................................................................. 85
Table 4.6: Altered Sandstone Unfrozen Material Properties ................................................... 87
Table 4.7: Altered Basement Unfrozen Material Properties .................................................... 88
Table 4.8: Summary of Metapelite Basement Strength (Itasca, 2008) .................................... 89
Table 4.9: Altered Basement Frozen Material Properties ........................................................ 90
Table 5.1: Comparison of McArthur River and Cigar Lake Mine........................................... 91
Table 5.2: Cigar Lake Jet Boring Trial Dimensions ................................................................ 97
Table 5.3: Cigar Lake Jet Boring Trial Span Compared to Rock Strength.............................. 98
Table 5.4: Average Increase Between Frozen Face Mapping and Unfrozen Core Logging
(Mawson, 2012) .......................................................................................................................... 108
Table 6.1: Summary of Rock Formations and Rock Descriptions Used for the 2009
Geotechnical Logging of Samples .............................................................................................. 110
Table 6.2: Summary of 2009 Surface Freeze Holes for Geotechnical Sampling .................. 113
Table 6.3: Field Strength of Geotechnically Logged 2009 Drillholes ................................... 116
Table 6.4: Joint Roughness of Geotechnically Logged 2009 Drillholes ............................... 117
Table 6.5: Joint Alteration of Geotechnically Logged 2009 Drillholes ................................. 117
Table 6.6: Unfrozen RMR76 and Q' of Geotechnically Logged 2009 Drillholes ................... 118
Table 6.7: Summary of Surface Freeze Borehole Field Strength, RQD, and RMR .............. 119
Table 7.1: Summary of Frozen UCS Testing on Bleached Sandstone .................................. 132
Table 7.2: Summary of Frozen UCS Testing on Hematized Sandstone/Clay ....................... 134
Table 7.3: Summary of Frozen UCS Testing on Graphitic Metapelite Basement ................. 136
Table 7.4: ISRM Field Strength Estimates, after Brown (1981)............................................ 138
Table 7.5: Summary of Unfrozen Bulk Densities .................................................................. 148
Table 7.6: Summary of Cement Mixture Samples for Four-Point Beam Testing ................. 158
ix
Table 7.7: Summary of Drill Core Samples for Frozen Four-Point Beam Testing ............... 159
Table 7.8: Summary of Frozen Direct Shear Testing Results on Drill Core ......................... 165
Table 8.1: RMR Classification for Intact Rock Strength (Bieniawski, 1976) ....................... 167
Table 8.2: Descriptions of Rock Strength and Approximate UCS (ISRM, 1981) ................. 168
Table 8.3: RMR Classification for RQD (Bieniawski, 1976) ................................................ 170
Table 8.4: RMR Classification for Joint Spacing (Bieniawski, 1976) ................................... 170
Table 8.5: Jn Number for the Q Rock Mass Classification (Barton et al., 1974) .................. 171
Table 8.6: RMR Classification for Joint Condition (Bieniawski, 1976)................................ 173
Table 8.7: Q System Classification for Joint Roughness (Jr) (Hoek, 1980) .......................... 174
Table 8.8: Q System Classification for Joint Alteration (Ja) (Hoek, 1980) ........................... 175
Table 8.9: RMR Classification for Water (Bieniawski, 1976)............................................... 176
Table 8.10: Average Increase Between Frozen Face Mapping and Unfrozen Core Logging . 179
Table 8.11: Case History Summary of Frozen Rock Mass Conditions and Span.................... 180
Table 9.1: Summary of UCS Failure Angles ......................................................................... 189
Table 9.2: Frozen Material Properties .................................................................................... 192
x
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Location of the Cigar Lake Uranium Deposit, after Fayek et al. (2002) .................. 5
Figure 1.2: Cross-Section of Cigar Lake Orebody and Underground Development .................. 6
Figure 2.1: Schematic Stress-strain Curves for Low (10-7 s-1), Intermediate, and High Strain
(10-3 s-1) Rates, after Schulson (1999) .......................................................................................... 12
Figure 2.2: Tensile and Compressive Strengths of Equiaxed and Randomly Oriented Fresh
Water Ice of About 1 mm Grain Size vs. Strain Rate, after Schulson (1999) .............................. 13
Figure 2.3: Typical Ductile Stress-Strain Curve for Polycrystalline Ice Under a Constant Strain
Rate ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 2.4: Shear Stresses and Strain Curves for Frozen and Unfrozen Sands, after Youssef
and Hanna (1988) .......................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.5: Variation of Angle of Friction and Cohesion for Frozen Sand with Low Ice
Content, after Harris (1995) .......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2.6: Frozen Soil Strength vs. Temperature, after Schultz and Hass (2005) ................... 19
Figure 2.7: Effect of Moisture Content on the Unconfined Compressive Strength of Frozen
Sand at -12oC and a Strain Rate of 2.2 x 10-6 s-1, after Andersland and Ladanyi (2004) ............. 20
Figure 2.8: Idealized Creep Curve............................................................................................. 22
Figure 2.9: Frozen Soil Frost Heave Behaviour, after Shultz and Hass (2005) ........................ 26
Figure 2.10: Strength of Granite, Limestone, and Sandstone in Uniaxial Compression, after
Mellor (1971) ................................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 2.11: Summary of Uniaxial Test Results for Unfrozen and Frozen Sandstone, after
Yamabe and Neaupane (2001) ...................................................................................................... 29
Figure 2.12: Axial Stress vs. Axial Strain for Unfrozen and Frozen Sandstone, after Yamabe
and Neaupane (2001) ................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.13: Strength of Granite, Limestone, and Sandstone in Uniaxial Tension, after Mellor
(1971) ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 2.14: Scale Effects, Intact Rock to Jointed Rock Mass, after Wyllie and Mah (2007) 54
Figure 2.15: GSI Values for Blocky Rock Masses, after Marinos and Hoek (2000) .............. 56
Figure 2.16: Four Point Beam Bending Load Test .................................................................. 60
Figure 2.17: Critical Span Curve, after Lang (1994) ............................................................... 62
Figure 2.18: Weak Rock Mass Critical Span Curve, after Ouchi et al. (2004) ....................... 62
Figure 2.19: McArthur River Stability Graph with Ground Support, after Pakalnis (2012) ... 63
Figure 4.1: Athabasca Basin and Cameco Corporation Active Mining Projects ...................... 74
Figure 4.2: Cigar Lake Deposit and Alteration Limits, after Jefferson et al. (2007) ................ 76
Figure 4.3: Stereonet Plots of Structural Data from 1999 Underground Drilling, from
Baudemont (2000) Data ................................................................................................................ 79
Figure 4.4: Cigar Lake Geotechnical Zones .............................................................................. 81
Figure 5.1: Jet Boring Cavity Geology and Schematic of Surveyed Trial Cavities, after
xi
Cameco (2000) .............................................................................................................................. 95
Figure 5.2: Cavity 1, Jet Boring Survey of Ore Cavity, UCS Based on Ore Grade .................. 99
Figure 5.3: Cavity 2, Jet Boring Survey of Ore Cavity, UCS Based on Ore Grade .................. 99
Figure 5.4: Cavity 3a, Jet Boring Survey of Ore Cavity, UCS Based on Ore Grade .............. 100
Figure 5.5: Cavity 4, Jet Boring Survey of Ore Cavity, UCS Based on Ore Grade ................ 100
Figure 5.6: Jet Boring Cavity Span on the McArthur River Critical Span Curve with Ground
Support, after Pakalnis (2012) .................................................................................................... 101
Figure 5.7: 510L RMR Values and Diamond Drill Hole Trajectories .................................... 104
Figure 5.8: Combined Results of Core RMR vs. Drift RMR .................................................. 105
Figure 5.9: 510-8240 Drift RMR Compared to Rock Core RMR........................................... 106
Figure 5.10: 8220N Drift RMR Compared to Rock Core RMR ........................................... 107
Figure 6.1: Geological Variability of Material at the Cigar Lake Mine, after MDH (2008) .. 109
Figure 6.2: Borehole ST791-05, from 433.45 to 442.4 m ....................................................... 111
Figure 6.3: Rock Quality Designation Plots of Geotechnically Logged 2009 Drillholes ....... 115
Figure 6.4: 2009 Surface Freeze Holes for Laboratory Testing .............................................. 120
Figure 6.5: Cross Section North 10,032, Through Surface Freeze Holes, Unfrozen RMR76 . 121
Figure 6.6: Cross Section East 10,800 Through Surface Freeze Holes, Unfrozen RMR76 ..... 122
Figure 6.7: Cross Section East 10,790 Through Surface Freeze Holes, Unfrozen RMR76 ..... 123
Figure 6.8: Cross Section East 10,796 Through Surface Freeze Holes, Unfrozen RMR76 ..... 124
Figure 7.1: Inside Cold Room, Triaxial Cell Setup. Left Triaxial Cell is a Sample Freezing
Waiting to be Tested. Right Triaxial Cell is a Sample Undergoing Testing. ............................. 127
Figure 7.2: Triaxial Cell Filled with Mineral Oil, Sitting on Load Cell. Displacement LVDT
Sensor Seen to Top Right of Cell. Load is Applied by the Top Load Conducting Rod ............. 127
Figure 7.3: Syringe Pump Controlling Loading Rate and Measuring Load............................ 128
Figure 7.4: Glycol Transfer Unit Circulating Glycol in Copper Coils Outside of Triaxial Cell.
Glycol Circulating at Half a Degree Celsius Below Ambient Room Temperature. ................... 128
Figure 7.5: Cross Section of Frozen High Moisture Content Hematized Sandstone Showing
Little to No Ice Lensing Present after 24 hours Freezing at -10oC ............................................. 130
Figure 7.6: Frozen UCS vs. Total Strain of Bleached Sandstone Samples ............................. 133
Figure 7.7: Frozen UCS vs. Total Strain of Hematized Sandstone/Clay ................................ 135
Figure 7.8: Frozen UCS vs. Total Strain of Graphitic Metapelite Basement .......................... 137
Figure 7.9: Frozen UCS vs. Unfrozen ISRM Rock Strength, All Data................................... 139
Figure 7.10: Frozen UCS vs. Unfrozen ISRM Rock Strength, Good Data, Samples That
Failed Through Joints or Bedding Removed .............................................................................. 140
Figure 7.11: Plot of All Samples, Frozen UCS vs. Applied Strain Rate, T=-10oC ............... 141
Figure 7.12: Plot of All Samples, Frozen UCS vs. Applied Strain Rate, T=-20oC ............... 142
Figure 7.13: Frozen UCS vs. Strain Rate of All 2009 Samples, by Failure Mode ................ 143
Figure 7.14: Influence of Freezing and Strength Gain for Weak Cigar Lake Rock .............. 145
Figure 7.15: Influence of Temperature on Frozen UCS, 2009 Data, by Failure Mode ......... 146
xii
Figure 7.16: Influence of Temperature on Frozen UCS, All Data, by Rock Type ................ 147
Figure 7.17: Frozen UCS vs. Unfrozen Bulk Density ........................................................... 149
Figure 7.18: Frozen UCS vs. Porosity, by Material Type ..................................................... 150
Figure 7.19: Frozen UCS vs. Porosity, by Failure Mode ...................................................... 151
Figure 7.20: Frozen UCS vs. Moisture Content, 2009 Data .................................................. 152
Figure 7.21: Four-Point Beam Test Apparatus ...................................................................... 154
Figure 7.22: Frozen Tensile Strength vs. Moisture Content, Cement Samples by Mixture .. 161
Figure 7.23: Frozen Tensile Strength vs. Moisture Content, Cement by Joint Presence ...... 162
Figure 7.24: Frozen Tensile Strength vs. Moisture, Drill Core Samples by Joint Presence.. 163
Figure 7.25: Plot of Direct Shear Testing Results on Drill Core ........................................... 166
Figure 8.1: Empirical Support Design, after Grimstad and Barton (1993) ............................. 178
Figure 8.2: Case Studies Frozen RMR vs. Cavity Span on the McArthur River Rock Mass
Critical Span Curve, after Pakalnis (2012) ................................................................................ 180
Figure 8.3: Comparison of an Unfrozen RMR to Frozen RMR, after Bieniawski (1976) ...... 183
Figure 8.4: GSI Values for Blocky Rock Masses with Unfrozen and Frozen RMR, after
Marinos and Hoek (2000) ........................................................................................................... 184
Figure 8.5: Cross Section North 10,032, Unfrozen and Frozen RMR76.................................. 185
Figure 9.1: Mohr-Coulomb Failure Envelope ......................................................................... 187
Figure 9.2: Example of UCS Failure Angle ............................................................................ 188
xiii
Glossary
Bulk Density: Measure of the weight of the soil or rock per unit volume. Measured
in grams/cm3 or kilograms/m3.
Cohesion: Measure of internal bonding of the material. Part of the shear strength
used to describe the strength of a material to resist deformation due to
shear stress. Measured in kPa or Pa.
Flexural Strength: Defined as the material's ability to resist deformation under load, the
highest stress that a material can experience within the material at its
moment of rupture. Also termed modulus of rupture.
Internal Friction: Internal friction is caused by contact between particles of the material.
Part of the shear strength used to describe the strength of a material to
resist deformation due to shear stress. Measured in degrees.
Hoek-Brown: Failure criterion for isotropic rock material and masses.
Modulus of Elasticity: Mathematical description of an object’s tendency to be deformed
elastically when a force is applied to it. Defined as the slope of the
stress-strain curve in the elastic deformation region.
Modulus of Rupture: Defined as the material's ability to resist deformation under load, the
highest stress that a material can experience within the material at its
moment of rupture. Also termed flexural strength.
Mohr-Coulomb: Mathematical model that relates the shear strength to the stress of a
material element, equation: τ = c +σ tan (θ). Materials behaving
according to the theory are referred to as Mohr-Coulomb material.
Poisson's Ratio: Ratio of the amount of lateral strain to axial strain.
Stress: Internal resistance offered by a unit area of a material from which a
member is made to an externally applied load. Measured in kPa, MPa
or N/m2.
Tensile Strength: Defined as the maximum tensile stress that a rock can sustain. Rocks
placed in tension (outward pulling force) will fail at a much lower
value than in compression. Units of stress are in kPa, MPa or N/m2.
UCS: Unconfined Compressive Strength. The maximum force that can be
applied to a sample without breaking it. Units of stress are in kPa,
MPa or N/m2.
Young's Modulus: Modulus of elasticity measuring the stiffness of a rock material.
Defined as the ratio, under small strains, as the change in stress with
strain. Values reported in this thesis are calculated at 50% of the UCS
value.
xiv
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge those who provided financial, technical and personal support during
the study of research program. It is with their help throughout that this project was completed.
Special thanks to Cameco Corporation and NSERC for their sponsorship of this research project;
specifically Kerry McNamara, Scott Bishop, and Ken Gullen.
I also thank Lukas Arenson, BGC Engineering, Stephen Gamble and David Sego (University of
Alberta) who assisted with the frozen laboratory testing providing invaluable comments and
usage of the cold room at the University of Alberta.
xv
1. Introduction
The uranium deposits in the Athabasca Basin in northern Saskatchewan are typically located at
the unconformity between the basement rock and an overlying porous sandstone layer. Above
and below the unconformity, the rock mass shows high variability in porosity and permeability
due to intense fracturing and alteration around the orebody. The porous nature of the sandstone
combined with a 450 meter hydrostatic head of groundwater and poor rock conditions have
resulted in large inflows and flooding of the Cigar Lake Mine, a prospective high grade uranium
property. Geotechnical challenges to mine the Cigar Lake orebody include groundwater control
and supporting the weak ground overlying and below the orebody. To mitigate the potential for
groundwater inflow, the Cigar Lake project plans to implement artificial ground freezing along
with the non-entry mining method of jet boring. Although artificial ground freezing has been
used for ground support and water control for many decades, the influence of artificial freezing
on a weakly jointed rock mass at depth is not well understood. This introduces uncertainty,
which impacts the safety and economic viability of the mines.
Natural ground freezing occurs seasonally in many areas of the world and can adversely affect
the performance of the ground and adjacent structures as the freezing of pore water to ice causes
a phase change expansion of approximately nine percent of the pore water volume. Freezing
results in a significant strength increase of the ground due to ice bonding in saturated soils and
rock masses.
Artificial ground freezing is typically a last resort excavation support alternative to cut-off walls
and grouting that involves the use of refrigeration pipes underground to convert in situ pore
water into ice. Artificial ground freezing to provide groundwater control and excavation support
is typically applied in shaft sinking and less commonly in deep underground mines. McArthur
River uranium mine, located 30 km southwest of Cigar Lake, is the only mine in Canada to
currently use ground freezing to create a permeability barrier between mine workings and
potential water inflow sources. The geological setting at Cigar Lake is similar to the McArthur
River mine in that the sandstone overlying the basement rocks of the deposit contains significant
water at high hydrostatic pressure; however, McArthur River currently does not rely upon frozen
ground for primary ground support only to control water.
1
Geotechnical boreholes to characterize the Cigar Lake orebody and surrounding area have been
completed from the mid-1980s to present. Initial samples of the weak rock overlying the orebody
have been collected to establish frozen strength parameters. A material properties data collection
program was completed by Cigar Lake mine in early 2009 to address data gaps from historical
geotechnical drilling and provide an understanding of the shear strength, time dependent
behaviour, and thermal properties of weak frozen rock under pressure. Four PQ (3”) boreholes
were cored through the orebody for material sampling as part of the surface freeze drilling test
program. Frozen laboratory testing was completed by the author on the weak rock overlying the
orebody to understand the failure mechanism and strength relationship with varying temperatures
and strain rates. The key focus of the laboratory testing is to improve in situ and laboratory
characterization methods and provide a better understanding of weak rock behaviour at sub zero
temperatures.
Chapter 2 reviews the current research in the mechanical behaviour of frozen soil and rock,
mining in frozen ground, and various methods in understanding the failure mechanisms of a
frozen jointed weak rock.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology of the research to understand the influence of freezing on a
weak and altered/fractured rock mass at depth.
Chapter 4 details the regional geology, hydrogeology regime and geomechanical properties of
the Cigar Lake mine rock types relevant to the research.
Chapter 5 details the back analysis of a jet boring trial in frozen ground at the Cigar Lake mine
and a comparison of unfrozen drill core and frozen face mapping at the McArthur River mine to
establish the influence of freezing on rock mass rating (RMR) classification values. A
2
comparison of the geotechnical parameters between Cigar Lake and McArthur River mines, both
operated by Cameco Corporation, is included in order to provide recommendations on artificial
ground freezing design. Geotechnical core logging and laboratory testing for freeze wall design
has been minimal at both the Cigar Lake and McArthur River mine sites.
Chapter 6 presents the current understanding of the geomechanical properties of the Cigar Lake
orebody, the material overlying and beneath the orebody, a strongly altered sandstone, and
altered basement metapelite, respectively. In 2009 a surface freeze drilling campaign was
completed at the Cigar Lake mine where select boreholes were sampled as part of a geotechnical
laboratory testing program for this research.
Chapter 7 discusses the frozen Unconfined Compressive Strength, frozen four point beam, and
frozen direct shear testing completed on the 2009 surface freeze drilling material to provide an
understanding of the gain in strength due to freezing of a weak rockmass, how a weak jointed
frozen rock mass fails, and to develop a model of the gained shear strength of a frozen joint
Chapter 8 presents the interpretation of case history data of mines in permafrost or artificially
frozen ground and the laboratory testing from the Cigar Lake mine to understand and predict the
behaviour of openings in frozen rock masses using the empirical approaches of the rock mass
rating (RMR) system.
Chapter 9 discusses the potential failure mechanisms in a frozen jointed weak rock mass and the
summary of geotechnical parameters as inputs for numerical modelling frozen weak rock.
The conclusions summarize the thesis findings including the gain in strength of freezing on a
weak rock mass, the behaviour of a weakly jointed rock mass under tensile stresses, and the
development of a frozen rock mass rating vs. span based on available case histories.
The orebody will be mined by jet boring, a non-entry mining method using pressurized water to
excavate cavities. In order to design the freeze wall (ice cap) and ensure stability of the jet bored
stability, a better understanding of cavity failure mechanisms in frozen weak rock is required.
The behaviour and stability of the mined out cavities once mining commences is a function of
the frozen rock mass overlying the orebody.
Potential failure mechanisms of an excavated ore cavity include the separation between unfrozen
and frozen material in the back of the cavity and severe cracking of the ice matrix. The behaviour
of frozen soil is well documented with extensive research in the mechanical and creep
relationships with varying grain sizes, moisture, and temperature. However, limited information
exists on the behaviour and failure mechanisms of frozen weak rock at great depth as the
majority of frozen ground research is based on permafrost regions in surficial soil. The influence
of freezing on a jointed weak rockmass at depth has not been cited in the literature to date.
This research will provide a better understanding of how a weak frozen jointed rock behaves in
order to assist with the freezing design for jet bored cavities at the Cigar Lake mine, such as the
thickness of frozen ground above the orebody (ice cap) and stable cavity dimensions for varying
ground conditions.
The Cigar Lake Mine (Cameco Corporation), a major sponsor of this research, will integrate the
results into the day-to-day mining and management of operations. The work will be used to
develop, evaluate and forecast safe, environmentally favorable mining strategies at depth for the
life of mine plan. Prevention of inflows is one of Cameco Corporation's greatest challenges
going forward that other companies in the industry share.
4
1.3 Location and Background
The Cigar Lake project, one of the world’s largest undeveloped uranium mines, is operated by
Cameco Corporation and located 660 km north of Saskatoon, about 40 km inside the eastern
margin of the Athabasca Basin region, as shown in Figure 1.1. The Athabasca Basin region
supplies 20% of the world’s uranium with the majority operated by Cameco Corporation. The
Cigar Lake deposit is a high grade uranium mineralization with proven and probable reserves of
more that 226.3 million pounds U308 at an average grade of 20.7% (Cameco, 2007).
Figure 1.1: Location of the Cigar Lake Uranium Deposit, after Fayek et al. (2002)
Discovered in 1981, the orebody is located at a depth of 450 m between the Athabasca sandstone
formation and the underlying Precambrian basement rocks. The deposit is approximately
1,950 m long, 20 to 100m wide, and ranges up to 12m thick, with an average thickness of about
5m (Figure 1.2).
5
Figure 1.2: Cross-Section of Cigar Lake Orebody and Underground Development
Project construction at Cigar Lake began in early 2005 and is anticipated to be completed in
2013. During test mining and mine construction, Cigar Lake project experienced several inflow
events due to poor ground conditions and high water pressures.
• In October 1999, a rock collapse lead to a water inflow of 40 m3/hr on the 465 mine level
near No. 1 Shaft. The inflow at this location was manageable, but the collapse was
believed to be approximately 3 m from the unconformity with the potential of becoming a
more significant inflow problem (MDH, 2008).
• During the sinking of Shaft 2 in April 2006, a water inflow occurred resulting in shaft
flooding; this event is believed to be a result of the reactivation of ancient fault structures
(Baudemont, 2007).
• In October 2006, a collapse in the vicinity of the 944 Drift East and the 773 Launch
Chamber on the 465 mine level caused an inflow event that flooded the mine completely.
The October 2006 inflow is located at the southern margin of the mineralized zone,
6
where sand locally comes in contact with the primary mineralized zone or clay cap
attributed to a combination of water pressures in unconsolidated material (near the
unconformity) and disturbance made to the east-west trending fault system close to the
unconformity (Baudemont, 2007).
• During mine dewatering in August 2008 a ground fall occurred at the 420L near Shaft
No. 1 during remediation from the 2006 inflow event. Water inflow associated with this
ground fall resulted in the mine flooding to ground surface.
At Cigar Lake, mining will be conducted from the 465 m production level which is located 10 m
below the uranium deposit. Artificial ground freezing will be implemented to support the weak
rock surrounding the orebody to minimize the potential for a large water inrush while mining the
ore, and stop radon migration. Two strategies are being considered to freeze the ore zone prior to
mining. The first option is bulk freezing where vertical freeze holes from the 480 m level up
through the orebody will be drilled. Installing freeze pipes from surface to the 465 m production
level is the second option. The ground freezing system consists of an ammonia refrigeration
plant on surface, a surface and underground brine piping system and in-situ freeze pipes.
Calcium chloride brine at -30oC is delivered underground through pipes from a surface
refrigeration plant.
Jet boring is the proposed plan to mine out the Cigar Lake orebody and considered a unique and
novel non-entry mining method not applied in any other mine worldwide. The jet boring system
(JBS) developed by Cameco Corporation involves the following steps:
7
• cavity backfilling with concrete.
The cutting of ore with high pressure water produces a slurry to be pumped in pipelines. Ore
extraction with rotating high pressure water jets is expected to produce cavities fairly circular in
shape measuring 4 to 5 m in diameter and heights varying with ore thickness (3 to 12 m).
Underground mining tests of the JBS were completed in 1992 providing the design basis for the
field trial in 1999 and 2000. In 2000, four cavities were excavated in frozen waste rock, just
below the ore as part of the second JBS test program. The study area was frozen through near
vertical freeze pipes installed through the orebody with calcium chloride circulating at -40C
through the freeze pipes. Several cavities were jet bored and surveyed to determined potential
cavity sizes. The cavities were noted to be stable for several days after excavation.
8
2. Literature Review
This section is a compilation of studies investigating the mechanical and thermal behaviour of
frozen soils, frozen hard rock masses, mining within naturally frozen soils and rocks, and rock
mass classification systems. This literature review is presented in its entirety as no applied
information exists on frozen ground with respect to its application on weak rock masses and their
design related to a mining environment.
The behaviour of frozen soil is well documented with extensive research in the mechanical and
creep relationships with varying grain sizes, moisture contents, and temperatures. However, the
behaviour and failure mechanisms of frozen jointed weak rock at depth (> 100 m) is not well
understood as the majority of frozen ground research is based on permafrost in surficial soil.
Limited to no research on the mechanical and thermal properties of weak frozen rock was
available at the time of preparing this thesis. Given the lack of mines operating at depth under
artificially frozen environments, research into mines operating in permafrost environments where
the ground (hard rock and soils) is frozen is reviewed here.
Key questions to address as part of this literature review include the following:
• What is the influence of freezing on joints and fractures in a rock mass?
• How does weak frozen material behave under pressure?
• How do frozen material properties compare to unfrozen geotechnical properties?
• Do we understand potential failure mechanisms such as separation between unfrozen and
frozen material, cracking of the ice matrix, or failure as a weak rock mass?
• What failure criteria for frozen, jointed, and weak rock masses have been established, if
any?
The following topics below are discussed in this literature review to address the key questions
outlined above.
• Artificial ground freezing history and uses in the mining industry;
• Mechanical and thermal properties of ice, soil, and rock;
• Behaviour of the interface between unfrozen and frozen ground;
• Excavations in frozen ground, including the performance, dimensions and behavior of the
cavity;
• Behaviour and failure mechanisms of unfrozen weak rock; and
• Rock mass classification systems and the influence of freezing on the input parameters.
9
2.1 Properties of Frozen Ground
2.1.1 Artificial Ground Freezing Background
Frozen ground is defined as soil or rock below 0oC in temperature and is independent of the
water and ice content within the soil or rock matrix (Andersland and Ladanyi, 2004). As the
temperature drops below 0oC, soil and weak rock masses become impervious to seepage and
increase in strength as ice bonds together adjacent particles providing structural support.
Artificial ground freezing (AGF) involves the use of refrigeration systems underground to
convert in situ pore water into ice. Benefits of AGF are that the ground remains undisturbed as it
is non-invasive and can be used in any soil formation regardless of structure, grain size,
permeability or groundwater flow velocity. AGF is versatile in soil and rock as long as there is
sufficient moisture for ice bonding and the regional groundwater flow is nominal.
Artificial ground freezing was first applied to support vertical openings in South Wales,
Australia in 1862 and patented by H. Poetsch in Germany in 1883 (Harris, 1995). Artificial
ground freezing is typically considered for excavation support in deep, difficult, disturbed or
sensitive ground or when complete groundwater cut-off is critical (Schmall et al., 2005). Ground
freezing has historically been used in shaft sinking through wet loose soils and recently for
temporary support or as an aid to recovery due to collapsed soils in other areas such as
underpinning, mining, deep excavations, and groundwater cut-offs. Artificial ground freezing for
deep excavation support has been applied in shaft sinking up to depths of 900 m in Saskatchewan
for difficult ground conditions and rock/soil interfaces producing large water inflows (Harris,
1995).
The primary objective of ground freezing is to remove heat from the ground until the
temperature is below the freezing point of the groundwater system. Continuous energy is
required to maintain and establish a freeze wall that is achieved through two options; a
refrigerated brine or liquid nitrogen system. The conventional freezing system is mechanical
refrigerated calcium chloride brine circulating through a closed circuit pipe system and returns to
the refrigeration plant for cooling. The chilled brine is typically circulating at -25oC to -40oC to
chill the strata to -5oC. Liquid nitrogen, the alternative, is allowed to evaporate and freeze within
tubes installed underground to cool the ground. Liquid nitrogen systems are commonly used for
10
rapid freezing as the system is more efficient than refrigerated chilled brine. Chilled brine
refrigeration plants are cost effective for long periods while liquid nitrogen as a refrigerant is
only viable for short term stabilization. Freeze wall growth and complete cut-off is typically
monitored in the ground with temperature probes. Closure of a freeze wall can be inhibited by
high groundwater velocity layers, undissolved contaminants, saline pore fluids, and dissolved
solids.
Schmall et al., (2005a), Shultz et al. (2005), and Harris (1994) summarize applications of ground
freezing projects in difficult highly sensitive ground or under high groundwater velocity.
Effective groundwater flow velocities in excess of 2 m/day is considered a threshold value on a
chilled brine freeze system as the high flow rate demands an excessive heat load (Schmall et al.,
2005). The critical groundwater velocity depends on freeze pipe spacing, coolant temperature,
soil permeability, shape and size of the design frozen mass. Remedial measures in difficult
ground include increasing freeze pipe spacing or reducing ground permeability through grouting.
Catastrophic failures of ground freezing projects have been rare, but partial failures due to an
unfrozen zone are not uncommon. Leakages in freeze walls due to higher than anticipated
groundwater velocities were fixed with additional freeze pipes and grouting around the leaking
zone (Schultz and Hass, 2005).
Material properties relevant for a ground freezing structural analysis are the strength and
deformation properties as frozen earth behaves visco-elastically and is subject to time-dependent
deformation under constant stress.
Pure ice is typically polycrystalline with random crystal orientation whose response to a
deviatoric stress can be represented by a power law creep equation. For short periods of loading
polycrystalline ice behaves elastically with little recoverable deformation at high loading rates.
Under sustained loading, micro cracking may occur under low stresses with the cracks
dominating at high loading rates. When ice is loaded at small strain rates the maximum stress
11
remains the same initially and then decreases with an increase in confining pressure.
Ice failure modes are mainly dependent on the applied strain rate. The ductile-brittle transition in
ice occurs at lower strain rates under tension as the applied stress opens the cracks directly.
Under compression, the required tensile stress is generated locally through crack sliding.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the typical ice response to loading regimes under low (I), intermediate (II),
and high (III) strain rates (Schulson, 1999).
Figure 2.1: Schematic Stress-strain Curves for Low (10-7 s-1), Intermediate, and High
Strain (10-3 s-1) Rates, after Schulson (1999)
Note:
I – low stress loading regime, allows for creep and a sustained load
II – intermediate loading regime, the ice will fail at a higher tensile and compressive strength than under a low stress
environment, but in a brittle manner
III – high strain rate loading regime, the ice will fail in a brittle, with a higher compressive strength, though no
change in tensile strength
Figure 2.2 plots the results of several tests of ice under tensile and compressive loading
conditions. With increasing axial strain rate, samples in compression will gain strength.
However, the tensile strength of ice remains constant under varying strain rates. At low strain
rates, there is little to no compressive strength of ice. At higher strain rates, ice has a high
12
compressive strength.
Change in Compressive
Strength with Strain
Rate
Figure 2.2: Tensile and Compressive Strengths of Equiaxed and Randomly Oriented
Fresh Water Ice of About 1 mm Grain Size vs. Strain Rate, after Schulson (1999)
Typically, the tensile strength of ice varies from 0.7 to 3.1 MPa and the compressive strength
varies from 5 to 25 MPa over the temperature range -10 to -20°C. The ice compressive strength
increases with decreasing temperature and increasing strain rate, but ice tensile strength is
relatively insensitive to these variables (Petrovic, 2003). The implications of this are relevant to
the Kupol mine, discussed in Section 2.4.1, where the mine operates at just above freezing (1oC)
and is still able to confine the dead weight of the frozen back relying on cohesive strength. Ice
samples in uniaxial compression show a small volume increase during testing. When subjected to
13
shear stresses at low hydrostatic pressures, polycrystalline ice showed ductile yielding at low
strain rates. The strength of ice is dependent on the load path experienced by the ice, as
illustrated in Figure 2.3. The yielding and failure of polycrystalline ice under a triaxial state with
high hydrostatic pressures causes weakening and eventual melting. Ice generally behaves in a
ductile manner up to a strain rate of 10-4 above which ice goes through a transition to completely
brittle failure above a strain rate of 10-2 (Michel, 1978).
σ Peak Strength
To residual
strength
1%
ε (%)
Failure Strain,
εt
Figure 2.3: Typical Ductile Stress-Strain Curve for Polycrystalline Ice Under a Constant
Strain Rate
The initial freezing temperature for cohesionless soils is close to 0oC and for fine grained soils
the temperature depression can be up to 5oC as the pore water does not freeze uniformly at the
same temperature. The rate at which soil freezes is dependent upon its thermal properties,
moisture content, and temperature. Generally sands and quartz rich soils will convert all water to
ice several degrees below 0oC; however, clay rich material will keep unfrozen water in the
matrix well below 0oC.
A significant amount of unfrozen water can still exist in fine grained soils below the initial
freezing temperature as thin liquid like layers on the particle surfaces. The unfrozen water
content will affect the thermal and mechanical properties of the frozen soil. Strength and
stiffness decrease with increasing unfrozen water content. Unfrozen water content is influenced
by mineralogy, temperature, and salinity of the pore water. Tice et al. (1976) developed
experimental unfrozen water content parameters for various soil types.
Determining the freezing temperature of the four phase solid, water, ice and gas mixture for soils
was studied by Miller (1980) who highlighted the influence of the unfrozen water content on the
freezing temperature.
The short term strength of frozen soil represents the instantaneous strength and is significantly
higher than the long term strength due to the brittle to viscoelastic response of ice under varying
load times. The short term strength of frozen soil is measured as the total stress at a constant
rapid deformation rate. Long term strength of frozen soil is a measure of its time dependent creep
behaviour and is determined using uniaxial creep tests at constant deformation rate and various
percentages of loading stress. The long term strength is typically 1.5 to 2.0 less than the short
term compressive strength (Andersland and Ladanyi, 2004).
Stress-strain behaviour of a frozen soil depends on soil type, mineralogical composition, ice
content, temperature, and strain rate. Strain rate and temperature have less influence on the
friction angle of a frozen sample, than on the cohesion (Andersland and Ladanyi, 2004;
Jessberger et al. 2003). Typically the friction angle will decrease with sub zero temperatures and
the cohesion will increase significantly, especially in non cohesive soils and very weak rock
masses where the ice is bonding together the particles.
Youssef and Hanna (1988) compared the stress-strain behaviour of unfrozen and frozen sands.
Frozen sands have higher shear strengths than unfrozen sands due to the interlocking nature of
the water in the matrix converted to ice. Figure 2.4 shows that at a temperature of -5oC, freezing
results in a shear strength increase by a factor of 2.5. At higher strain levels the friction angle
approaches that of unfrozen sand while cohesion approaches zero.
16
Frozen – exhibits first
peak, near that of ice
Figure 2.4: Shear Stresses and Strain Curves for Frozen and Unfrozen Sands, after
Youssef and Hanna (1988)
Nater et al. (2008) developed a correlation of the effective angle of internal friction (φ’) and
cohesion (c) with temperature dependent parameters, for example defining the volumetric ice
content (wi), where the strength of frozen soils depends on the temperature. Nater et al. (2008)
observed that the effective angle of internal friction decreases with the volumetric ice content,
whereas the cohesion increases with increasing ice content. The correlations are based on
laboratory tests carried out on undisturbed samples of alpine permafrost soils. Figure 2.5 depicts
the change in friction angle and cohesion with decreasing temperature after Harris (1995).
17
Cohesion
Friction
Figure 2.5: Variation of Angle of Friction and Cohesion for Frozen Sand with Low Ice
Content, after Harris (1995)
Note:
1. Fine Sand
2. Silty Sand
3. Medium Sand
4. Clay
5. Pure Ice
6. Pure Ice
Figure 2.6: Frozen Soil Strength vs. Temperature, after Schultz and Hass (2005)
20
2.1.3.2 Uniaxial Tension
The amount of data on tensile testing of frozen soils is more limited than that on compression
testing. However, in general, the behaviour of frozen soil in uniaxial tension is more brittle
compared to uniaxial compression tests under similar conditions, but tensile strength is less
sensitive to temperature and strain rate (Haynes et al., 1985; Bragg and Andersland, 1982). The
failure strain in tension of the ice rich silt was approximately one order of magnitude lower than
that in compression (Zhu and Carbee, 1984; 1987). For frozen ice rich silt, the tensile strengths
remain constant up to the plastic-brittle transition, beyond which the tensile strengths decreased.
Sayles (1991) defined a peak tensile strength with a power law based on the uniaxial
compression values for a sandy silt, fine sand, and gravelly sand at temperatures of -1.1 to -6.7oC
and strain rates between 10-1 and 10-5 h-1. Yuanlin and Carbee (1985) studied the strain rate
effect on the tensile strength of silt and concluded that for ductile behaviour both the tensile and
compressive strength were substantially influenced by the strength of the ice matrix which was
similar in both tension and compression under the same testing conditions.
The significance of creep behaviour to the study of frozen ground at the Cigar Lake mine is that
the opening for a jet bored cavity or for a tunnel development through frozen ground could
squeeze beyond the allowable limit for deformation. Understanding the creep behaviour of the
ground in addition to its shear strength behaviour is important.
21
The basic creep curve (see Figure 2.8) comprises three stages, (1) primary (strain-hardening),
where the creep rate is decreasing, (2) secondary (linear), where the creep rate is constant, and
(3) tertiary (strain-softening), where the creep rate is increasing. Initially, the creep rate decreases
with time, thereafter the strain rate increases with time. Eventually, cracks develop in the ice
matrix and specimen fails. An increase in axial stress and decrease in temperature cause a
decrease in time to failure. The total strain a specimen undergoes consists of the initial and
delayed elastic strains and irrecoverable creep strain.
Sufficient laboratory testing has established the creep behaviour of frozen soils. The non-linear
stress-strain behaviour of frozen soil has been described by Vyalov (1965), Ladanyi (1962),
Klein (1978), and Sayles and Haines (1974). Modelling creep behaviour can be done either
theoretically based on the quantified physical processes or empirically based on curve fitting.
Laboratory testing to monitor creep behaviour has well defined boundary conditions with
reasonably uniform stress and strain fields applied to the samples. However, strain rates applied
during in situ testing are often higher than those applied in the field or laboratory. In situ testing
methods such as pressuremeter testing minimize the effect of sample stress relief and quantify
the material properties on a larger scale. The pressuremeter test involves placing an inflatable
22
packer at depth and measuring the volumetric strain and applied pressure to estimate the
deformation modulus of the material. The pressuremeter provides an in situ estimate of the shear
modulus (G), short term and long term stress-strain relationships, and shear strength parameters.
Ladanyi and Johnston (1973) performed pressuremeter testing of frozen ice rich silty soils to
establish long term strength parameters.
Dusseault and Fordham (1993) note that creep is not typically associated with competent
unfrozen sandstone though high porosity poorly cemented sandstones which are the expected
rock overlying/comprising the Cigar Lake orebody, may undergo creep due to loading induced
grain packing. The transient creep observed in these poor quality sandstones weakens the bonds
causing structural collapse.
Dusseault and Fordham (1993) comment that there is no widely accepted method of
interpretation and analysis for hard and soft rock creep data as the mechanisms and processes
equations of the transient state are not clear. Rocks that are most likely to creep are softer, more
sensitive, soluble rocks and are often difficult to sample and prepare for laboratory testing.
The presence of groundwater and in situ stresses will exert hydrostatic pressure on the frozen
ground overlying the orebody, resulting in a combined mechanical and thermodynamic effect.
The isothermal compression governs the stress and the thermodynamic effect leads to pressure-
melting phenomena. Pressure-melting depresses the freezing point of ice that results in water
migration toward lower stress regions. When a hydrostatic confining pressure is applied to a
frozen granular mass, pressure melting will occur locally at grain-to-grain contacts. A pressure of
approximately 13.5 MPa is required to depress the freezing point by 1oC according to the
equation, dT/dp = -0.743 K/MPa (Andersland and Ladanyi, 2004). To summarize, a system will
require to be lowered by one degree beyond the design temperature to account for 1 atm
23
pressure.
Under low confining pressures the stress strain behaviour is brittle in tension and strain softening
in compression. The addition of confining pressure in frozen soils suppresses dilation and ice
cracking with a noticeable increase in soil strength and decrease in strain softening (Andersland
and Ladanyi, 2004). At high confining pressures a second yield occurs. For the second yield, the
failure envelope shows a friction angle close to that of unfrozen soil suggesting that the first
yield is related to the ice matrix strength and the second yield represents the frictional resistance
and residual strength. For clays, the effect of confining pressure on frozen specimens has been
noted to be less significant.
Sayles (1973) completed triaxial compression tests on saturated Ottawa sand to evaluate the
influence of confining pressure under a constant rate of strain and the rate of loading on strength
deformation under a constant load. Triaxial tests completed at a constant strain rate of 0.03%/min
showed two peaks representing the strength of ice and the second as the internal granular
friction. Cohesion and friction were found to be independent of each other after a strain of
0.02%.
Chamberlain et al. (1972) found that dilatancy was suppressed at confining pressures higher than
50 MPa on frozen sand mixtures. Chamberlain completed high pressure triaxial compression
tests at confining pressures ranging between 3.5 to 280 MPa. Samples were fully saturated and
frozen rapidly to -10oC and tested at a strain rate of 6%/min. Three distinct stress regions were
observed; a low pressure region of constant or increasing shear stress a mid-pressure region of
decreasing shear stress and a high pressure region of slightly increasing shear stress. At
confining pressures greater than 52.5 MPa, dilation is completely suppressed indicating crushing
of individual soil particles. Pressure melting is suggested to become critical at these confining
stresses given the suppression of dilation.
Ma et al. (1998) and Wang et al. (2008) describes the strength loss of frozen soil under
increasing confining pressure due to pressure melting of pore ice, particle crushing and
microcrack growth. The strength of a frozen soil increases to a maximum value with increasing
confining pressure as Chamberlain et al. (1972) described above, but decreases beyond confining
pressures of approximately 15-45 MPa.
24
Golder (2001) states that ice lens formation is not expected above a confining stress of 1 MPa.
Heaving pressures also vary and depend mainly on the type of soil and its moisture content. In
general, coarse sands and clean gravels do not heave, while fine sand and silts are very
susceptible to heaving. Clays also are very susceptible to heaving although they normally heave
slowly but often with tremendous pressures. Silts show a high rate of heave but have much lower
heaving pressures than clays. High freezing rates in sands allow excess pressures to build; high
freezing rates in silts develops suction and ice lensing parallel to the freezing front; low freezing
rates in clay can have reticulate ice lenses which are preferential flow pathways.
The highest frost heave (as seen in Figure 2.9) occurs in soil with a permeability of 1x10-6 to
1x10-7 m/s, values typical for silt or silty clay (Shultz and Hass, 2005). The highest frost pressure
can occur in clayey soils. The hydraulic conductivity for water in frozen soils is small but not
zero and follows Darcy’s law (Burt and Williams, 1976; Lunardini et al., 1982; and Arteau,
1984).
25
Figure 2.9: Frozen Soil Frost Heave Behaviour, after Shultz and Hass (2005)
Rockmass properties vary with rock temperature and are related to the proportion of ice and
unfrozen water. As the temperature drops, mineral grains shrink and the formation of ice in pore
spaces contributes directly to the strength of the material.
The porosity of a rockmass is considerably lower than a typical soil specimen, and therefore the
26
water content has a reduced influence on the gain in compressive strength with freezing.
However, for a weaker, jointed rock mass, such as the Cigar Lake orebody and surrounding host
rock, there are more voids and open conduits for water to fill, yielding greater opportunity for
strength increase with freezing.
Strength values for frozen rock mostly focus on massive, good quality rock, with little jointing or
alteration. These studies were performed to support the design and construction of liquid
nitrogen storage caverns (i.e. for temperatures below -200oC). It must be emphasized that the
strengths involved (> 30 MPa) are not representative of the Cigar Lake material tested as part of
this research; unfrozen weak rock typically has zero tensile strength and a compressive strength
less than 25 MPa. This research is intended to build on the current knowledge of the influence of
freezing on a weakly jointed rock.
Initial work by Mellor (1971, 1973) measured the uniaxial compressive and tensile strengths of
water saturated and air dry granite, limestone, and sandstone rock core from temperatures of 25
to -195oC. Mellor observed that the compressive strengths increase with decreasing temperature.
Freezing was noted to increase rock strength by a factor of 4 in porous rock and by a factor of
1.8 in crystalline rock. Figure 2.10 shows compressive strength results, where the gain in
strength with decreasing temperature is evident up to -50oC, beyond which little gain in strength
is noted. Strength variation can be related to pore-size distribution and freezing characteristics.
27
Figure 2.10: Strength of Granite, Limestone, and Sandstone in Uniaxial Compression, after
Mellor (1971)
Further research by Kumar (1968), and Yamabe and Neaupane (2001) indicate a significant
strength increase in several rock types with sub-zero temperature. Young’s modulus increases
with a decrease in temperature; however, a further decrease in temperature from -10 to -20 C has
no effects at all on the Young’s modulus (Yamabe and Neaupane, 2001).
28
Figure 2.11: Summary of Uniaxial Test Results for Unfrozen and Frozen Sandstone, after
Yamabe and Neaupane (2001)
Unfrozen UCS tests are typically undertaken at strain rates of 10-5 to 10-4 s-1 according to ISRM
standards (Brady and Brown, 2006). Very fast or very slow strain rates will influence the peak
29
strength of rock in the same manner as ice, the mode of failure will be brittle under fast loading
and ductile under slow loading (<10-8 s-1).
Figure 2.12 illustrates the influence of freezing and strain rate on saturated sandstone. With
increasing axial strain rates, the gain in strength of frozen sandstone is substantially higher than
lower axial strain rates.
Frozen
Unfrozen
Figure 2.12: Axial Stress vs. Axial Strain for Unfrozen and Frozen Sandstone, after
Yamabe and Neaupane (2001)
A large change in the tangential Young’s modulus with temperature is not seen in the dry
specimens; however, for saturated specimens, Young’s modulus increases significantly with
decreasing sub-zero temperatures.
Sammis and Biegel (2004) comment on Mellor (1971, 1973) testing data and explain the failure
behaviour using a damage mechanics model. In compression, the saturated samples show a
stronger increase in strength than the air dry samples. Both air-dry and saturated granite samples
strengthen at approximately the same rate.
The micromechanical damage model (Ashby and Sammis, 1990) can be used to explain the
strength increase difference between porous and crystalline rocks as the rock undergoes freezing.
Failure occurs on the sliding of pre-existing cracks in rocks which induces fracture damage and
ultimate failure. The damage mechanics explanation of this behaviour is that for saturated
samples the frozen water inhibits sliding on fractures and strengthens the sample. The flow
strength of ice increases as the temperature falls below the freezing point thus increasing the
apparent coefficient of friction and strengthening the samples. For air dry limestone and
sandstone samples there is not enough adsorbed water in the pores to provide significant
strengthening. For granite, a non-porous crystalline rock, the pre-existing microcracks are
narrower therefore there is little difference between air-dry and saturated specimens.
31
and andesite samples show more strengthening at low temperatures than air-dry samples. Figure
2.13 shows tensile strength results by Mellor (1973) where the gain in tensile strength from
unfrozen to frozen conditions is significant, but little change in tensile strength with decreasing
temperatures beyond -10oC is evident.
Figure 2.13: Strength of Granite, Limestone, and Sandstone in Uniaxial Tension, after
Mellor (1971)
Dutta and Kim (1993) focussed on testing of tensile failure in their study of limestone and
granite samples. Brazilian tensile specimens under quasi-static and dynamic loading were tested
between 24 and -40oC. The tensile strength was found to be more sensitive to loading rate than
temperature. The samples showed a slightly higher average tensile strength in the frozen
specimen compared to that at room temperature. The average tensile strength of the rock samples
32
increased by 0.1% per drop in degree Celsius.
Also, the frozen tensile strength of wet specimens increased more than dry specimens at below
freezing temperatures. Inada and Kinoshita (2003) explained this noting that for granite, the
tensile strength fails along the largest crack which is too large to be saturated compared to the
smaller micro-cracks responsible for compressive failure.
As noted in Figure 2.11, the compressive strength increases with decreasing temperature,
substantially from unfrozen to -50oC, after which the gain in strength is minimal.
Chislov (1991) studied the effect of low temperatures on the strength of tuffaceous shales in a
highly fractured orebody and concluded that by increasing the ambient temperature from -2 to
above 0oC, the rock strength decreased by 20%.
Walder and Hallet (1985) present a mathematical model for the breakdown of porous granite and
marble by the growth of ice in cracks. The model predicts crack growth rates indicating that
sustained freezing is most effective in producing crack growth from temperatures between -4 to -
15oC. At higher temperatures, thermodynamic limitations prevent ice pressure from building up
significantly and at lower temperatures the migration of water for sustaining crack growth is
inhibited.
Glamheden and Lindblom (2002) measured frozen rock mass properties and completed
numerical modelling for an unlined hard rock cavern measuring 7m diameter and 15 m high in
Gothenburg, Sweden. The chamber is located approximately 70 m below ground surface and 30
m below the water table. The rock mass is a medium to fine grained, strong to very strong, non-
weathered, gneissic granodiorite. The Q-value is approximately 15, the RMR89 is approximately
75, and the GSI is 67 to 69. After lowering the cavern temperature to -40oC, laboratory testing
showed that the tensile strength increases with decreasing temperature and Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio marginally increase at decreasing temperature.
33
2.1.5 Creep Behaviour in Weak Rock
Creep parameters are determined through loading the sample and testing at specified percentages
of the uniaxial short-term compressive strength. The generalized creep equation defines the total
strain, ε, composed of the instantaneous strain, εo, and creep strain ε(c).
The time dependent frozen compressive strength is calculated following the power law
approximations of Hult (1966) and Ladanyi (1972).
For the portion of the creep curve at and beyond the inflection point but before tertiary creep, the
total strain is defined as,
ε = ε(i) + ε (c)mint
Where:
ε(i) = lumped primary creep of defined by the intersection on the strain axis and is
expressed by the power law, εk(σ/σkθ)κ (σkθ is a temperature dependant total
deformation modulus)
ε min is the rate of steady state creep with time and is defined by the power law,
(c)
The primary creep law, Andrade's empirical creep law, defines the creep strain as
𝜀 (�) = 𝐴𝜎 � 𝑡 �
Where n, b, and 𝜎�� are three experimentally determined coefficients from creep testing.
Based on similar material creep testing results in Andersland and Ladanyi (2004), typical values
of n and b for clay and sand are listed below in Table 2.1
Table 2.1: Values of Parameters in Primary Creep Law Equations, from Andersland
and Ladanyi (2004)
Frozen Soil e, void
Type Source b n 𝝈𝒄𝜽 (MPa) LL, PL Gs Ratio
Bat-Baioss Vyalov,
0.45 2.50 0.18 51, 24 2.73 1.045
Clay 1962
34
Frozen Soil e, void
Type Source b n 𝝈𝒄𝜽 (MPa) LL, PL Gs Ratio
Ottawa Sand Sayles, 1968 0.45 1.28 1.05 - 2.65 0.587
Two samples of intermediate clay from Golder (1986) laboratory testing program were taken for
constant stress creep tests. Each test involved the determination of the steady state strain rate
developed when applying two different stresses under unconfined conditions. Testing was
conducted at -5oC. Golder (1986) noted that the samples at the highest stress level (1000 kPa)
exhibited classical creep behaviour. EBA (1990) completed four frozen creep tests on
intermediate clay from boreholes U-8 and U-221 at a temperature of -20oC. Two of the samples
from borehole U-8 failed before steady state creep was measured.
Table 2.2presents the interpreted steady state creep rate achieved under the applied stress levels;
though, EBA (1990) commented that none of the samples achieved a true steady state creep.
Table 2.2: Summary of Creep Testing, after EBA (1990) and Golder (1986)
Time to
Failure
Bulk Steady (hours)
Moisture Unit Test Applied State Creep Steady State Onset of
Content Weight Temp. Stress Rate Creep Rate Tertiary
Sample No. (%) (kg/m3) (oC) (kPa) (%/min) (min-1) Creep
Golder,
18.0 2,142 -5 500 3.56x10-5 3.56x10-7 >120
G8-2
Golder,
18.0 2,142 -5 1000 6.40x10-5 6.40x10-7 67
G8-2
Golder,
23.6 2,023 -5 500 2.52x10-5 2.52x10-7 >167
G-41
Golder,
23.6 2,023 -5 1000 2.99x10-4 2.99x10-6 67
G-41
EBA,
Hole 221,
23.6 1,993 -20 2500 2.24x10-5 2.24x10-7 >72
Depth 454.7
m
EBA, Hole
221, Depth 23.6 1,993 -20 3000 1.42x10-5 1.42x10-7 >170
454.7 m
Mellor and Cole (1981) suggest that the peak stress from a constant strain rate experiment
35
corresponds to the point at which the minimum strain rate occurs on a typical constant stress
(creep) strain-time curve. The point on the creep curve and constant strain rate curve, therefore,
measures the material (behaviour) under a similar condition although the path to achieve this
condition differs. Analyzing EBA (1990) and Golder (1986) frozen test creeping data can be
compared to evaluate the flow law of frozen soils.
𝜀 � = 𝐵𝜎 �
Where
𝜀 � = strain rate
σ = applied stress
B = temperature dependent coefficient
n = exponent (temperature dependent)
The calculated values of B and n from Golder (1986) and EBA (1990) testing at temperatures of
-5oC and -20oC are summarized below.
Though there are only two sets of creep testing completed to date on Cigar Lake material, the
results show the effect of temperature on deformation properties. The colder temperature (-20oC)
significantly reduces the deformation rate by several orders of magnitude compared to the
warmer temperature (-5oC). For example, an applied stress of 3MPa, would lead to a deformation
of 1 x 10-6 min-1 at -20°C while the same stress applied to materials at -5°C would yield a
deformation rate of 5 x 10-2 min-1.
Given the lack of creep testing on Cigar Lake material at the design freezing temperature of -
12oC, the author recommends undertaking creep testing and a test jet boring trial similar to that
in 2000; however at the planned design frozen ground temperature of -12oC.
36
2.2 Thermal Properties
The thermal characteristics of the ground are important for thermal analysis to verify the freeze
hole layout and ensure an adequately thick freeze wall forms. A ground freezing thermal analysis
requires input data referring to geometry, thermal boundary conditions, and material
characteristics. The response of a soil to temperature changes is influenced by its thermal
properties: thermal conductivity, heat capacity, thermal diffusivity, latent heat, and thermal
expansion (Andersland and Ladanyi, 2004). Thermal properties vary depending on the water
content. The specific heat, defined as, the amount of heat required to change the temperature of a
substance by a given amount, depends on mineral composition and is defined as the ratio of its
heat capacity to that of water. Thermal conductivity, defined as a material's ability to conduct
heat, depends upon porosity, dry density, degree of saturation, and temperature.
Cooling a rock mass shrinks the mineral matrix and induces changes in thermal rock parameters,
(Glamheden and Lindblom, 2002). Lindblom (1977) and Aoki et al. (1989) evaluated the
decreasing linear thermal expansion coefficient with decreasing temperature. Mellor (1973)
evaluated the mean linear expansion coefficient of rock specimens between -10oC and -100oC
and -90oC and -160oC to 4.13 x10-6/oC and 3.52 x10-6/oC, respectively. This correlates well with
tests done by Kuriyagawa (1980). Lindblom’s test was performed under varying load conditions,
but the Mellor and Aoki testing was not. Differences in the results may be due to different test
procedures, as Mellor used dilatometers and Lindblom used a strain gauge glued to the rock
samples to measure thermal strain.
Kuriyagawa et al. (1980) and Aoki et al. (1989) reported that the thermal conductivity at -100oC
is up to 10 to 20% greater than at 20oC, with no major difference between dry and wet
specimens.
Park et al. (2004) completed laboratory tests on dry granite and sandstone from -160 to 40oC.
DSC (Differential Scanning Calorimeter) for specific heat, a transient hot-wire method for
thermal conductivity, and the strain gauge method for thermal expansion coefficient. Results
show thermal conductivity changed little with decreasing temperature. Specific heat and thermal
expansion coefficient decreased with decreasing temperature.
37
Frost propagation in a saturated material occurs with a phase change of water to ice and heat
transfer due to conduction. In frozen soil, the amount of heat transferred by conduction increases
with increasing dry density and degree of saturation. The long term behaviour of frozen ground
will be influenced by a thermal gradient from the freeze pipe to the excavation face.
As of 2009, all of the previous thermal modelling for Cigar Lake used material properties based
on calibrated values obtained from modelling at McArthur River in similar ground types.
Measured data from actual rock samples was available from previous McArthur River testing
and was used to verify that the trends developed in the dataset were reasonable (Stead and
Szczepanik, 1996). Assumptions were made regarding the degree of similarity of ground and
amount of water stored within the rock in these ground types. Newman (2007) carried out
thermal analyses of the actively freezing production ore zone at Cigar Lake in an attempt to
calibrate thermal properties and water contents at different elevations below the ore, within the
ore, and just above the ore.
Direct shear testing of the unfrozen and frozen boundary of frozen soils has been completed by
Goto et al. (1988) and Thomson and Lobacz (1973). The shear strength at the frozen/unfrozen
interface was found to be greater than the shear strength of completely unfrozen soil. The
weakest zone lies in the unfrozen zone adjacent to the frozen/unfrozen boundary as it is free from
38
the influence of the suction force at freezing front.
39
Table 2.4: Summary of Relevant Mines in Permafrost
Mine Location Mining Ore In Situ Comments Source
Method Temperature
Asbestos Hill Quebec, Open pit asbestos -4.5 to -7oC Within an increasing Young’s Udd and
Canada modulus and compression and Betournay
shear wave velocities a decrease (1999)
in fragmentation after blasting
was noted
Black Angel Greenland Room and Zinc -12oC Giegerich
pillar (1992)
Jericho NWT, Canada Open pit Diamond - No published data on ground
conditions
Julietta Russia Longhole Gold and - See increase in RMR by 18% Wardrop
silver due to permafrost (2005)
Kupol Russia Open pit and Golder and - See increase in RMR due to Pakalnis
silver permafrost (2012)
Spitsbergen Norway Room and Coal -4oC Rock strength properties not Myrvang,
Store Norske pillar significantly influenced by (1988) and
permafrost Wandinger
At thawing bounding water (1999)
inflow and instability major
issue
Pakalnis (2012) visited the Kupol mine and commented the following:
• Areas visited including the 455 level noticed significant improvement from the unfrozen
RMR76 of less than 25 observed in the drill core compared to the frozen face RMR76 of
60. Spans excavated were typically 6 m.
• The freezing assists the overall stability in the operation and should be considered as
augmenting the ground support in place, but not replacing the support.
The following summarizes the improvement in rock mass quality due to freezing at several
Russian underground mines in permafrost. Caution should be used when comparing the data
from case studies, as the improvement in RMR from unfrozen to frozen conditions assessed by
Wardrop (2005) assumed that the increased span opened in frozen conditions is relatable to a
frozen RMR by the Grimstad and Barton (1993) chart. Better practice is to assess the frozen
RMR conditions in the field with face mapping and to compare the unfrozen RMR conditions
using geotechnical core logging.
Note that the Russian case studies presented in Wardrop (2005), did not observe the unfrozen
RMR conditions at the exposed face.
• The average hanging wall conditions without benefit of permafrost are classified as good
rock mass quality according to Barton’s Q’ and Bieniawski's RMR, where Q’ = 17.8 and
RMR = 70.
• Based on the empirical support design chart (Grimstad and Barton, 1993), relating Q and
excavation span and to recommended support requirements, with an ESR value of 5 for
temporary mine openings, the resulting maximum span is 35 m. However, the mine has
50 x 50 m shrinkage stope panels that are stable. The exceeded maximum span predicted
by empirical methods is attributed to permafrost.
41
• A back analysis of the minimum rock mass condition required to support a 50 m stable
span relates to a minimum increase in rock mass quality of 13% from the unfrozen RMR
value.
• The ground conditions without benefit of permafrost are classified as poor rock mass
quality according to Barton’s Q’ and Bieniawski's RMR, where Q’ = 3.4 and RMR = 55.
• Based on the empirical support design chart (Grimstad and Barton, 1993), relating Q and
excavation span and to recommended support requirements, with an ESR value of 1.6 for
permanent mine openings, the resulting maximum span is 5.6 m. However, the mine had
8m stable spans on the 745m and 850m levels. The exceeded maximum span predicted
by empirical methods is attributed to permafrost.
• A back analysis of the minimum rock mass condition required to support a 8 m stable
span relates to a minimum increase in rock mass quality of 18% from the unfrozen RMR
value.
• KW 1475 Stope - the ground conditions without benefit of permafrost are classified as
poor rock mass quality according to Barton’s Q’ and Bieniawski's RMR, where Q’ = 1.5
and RMR = 47. The excavation was stable in frozen conditions up to a span of 50 m. A
back analysis of the minimum rock mass conditions required to support a 50 m stable
span relates to a minimum increase in rock mass quality by 70-80%.
• C 1460 L Cut - the ground conditions without benefit of permafrost are classified as fair
to good rock mass quality according to Barton’s Q’ and Bieniawski's RMR, where Q =
10 and RMR = 65. The excavation was stable in frozen conditions up to a span of 40 m.
A back analysis of the minimum rock mass conditions required to support a 40 m stable
span relates to a minimum increase in rock mass quality by 13-18%.
• Q 1350 Cut - the ground conditions without benefit of permafrost are classified as fair
rock mass quality according to Barton’s Q’ and Bieniawski's RMR, where Q = 7.5 and
RMR = 62. The excavation was stable in frozen conditions up to a span of 35 m. A back
analysis of the minimum rock mass conditions required to support a 35 m stable span
relates to a minimum increase in rock mass quality by 13%.
• The estimated difference between the frozen and unfrozen rock quality is a factor of 15 or
more.
42
• Permafrost provides a greater percentage of improvement for weaker ground conditions
than for stronger ground conditions. This relationship decreases exponentially with
improving ground conditions
Weerdernburg and Morgenstern (1984) analysed the in situ deformation behaviour of the Fox
Tunnel in Alaska showing that the flow law for polycrystalline ice does not yield an upper bound
to the observed room closure measurements. The tunnel closure is believed to be from creep and
plastic yielding.
2.4.2.3 Greenland
The U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) monitored three
excavations in glacial ice in the Greenland Ice Cap to assess the feasibility of tunnels and rooms
in ice for storage (Abel, 1961; Russel, 1961). The second tunnel excavation closed due to
unpredicted excessive deformations of the openings attributed to warming of the ice.
Implications of the classification system for the maximum span of excavations in frozen soil to
the Cigar Lake mine is to provide a basis for maximum spans given the lack of available data for
mining in frozen weak rock.
45
2.5 Weak Rock Mass Behaviour
The Cigar Lake orebody is located at an unconformity between sandstone and basement
metapelite rock comprising very weak rock to soil like material. Above and below the
unconformity, the rock mass shows variability for tens of meters in porosity and permeability
due to fracturing and alteration processes. Rock mass classification and geotechnical domains of
the ground conditions at the Cigar Lake mine were completed previously by the mine and their
consultants though are lacking detail on the properties of the weakest material, typically the ore
and overlying clay altered sandstone. Understanding the behaviour of unfrozen weak ground is in
itself a challenge, and therefore this section focuses on the behaviour of weak rock and
establishing failure criteria, and modifying these classification systems for frozen weak rock.
The process for designing excavations in hard rock masses is well established in geotechnical
literature. Excavation through weak rock masses requires a more thorough design as squeezing
and/or instability are common. Weak rock masses result from processes such as alteration and
faulting creating low strength, sheared, and crushed material with a loss of any interlocking
structure which may have existed. Weak rocks are often overstressed at low stress levels as a
result of their low strength and high deformability. These characteristics can lead to yielding,
slabbing, spalling, ravelling, and squeezing conditions.
Several different authors have defined conditions under which they would consider a rock mass
to be weak:
• Hoek (1999) defines weak rock as that where the in-situ uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS) is less than about one third of the in situ stress acting upon the rock mass.
• The ISRM (1981) defines a rock mass with a UCS between 0.25 to 25 MPa as being
weak to extremely weak.
• Robertson (1988) defines a weak rock as any rock mass where the Mohr-Coulomb
effective shear strength parameters are less than c’=0.2 MPa and φ’=30o, which is
equivalent to a UCS strength of less than 0.7 MPa.
• Pakalnis (2008) defines a weak rock mass as that with a rock mass classification value
(RMR76) less than 45.
46
The material providing support of a jet bored cavity above the Cigar Lake orebody is considered
a weak rock mass ranging from a dense/indurated clay to weak and altered sandstone. The
following sections outline rock mass classification schemes and their application to weak rock
masses.
Weak rock masses are complex and have highly variable properties in stiffness, strength, and
failure modes that lead to difficulties in applying classification systems. Classifications such as
RMR and Q were created for jointed rock masses whose behaviour is controlled by
discontinuities and do not specifically address unique characteristics of weak rocks such as
overstressing or deterioration. In poor rock conditions, even though the rock masses have similar
rock mass classification values, the failure modes, and rock support requirements were very
different due different degrees of interaction between the intact rock and discontinuities (Mathis
and Page, 1995).
Comparing the RMR and Q-system, both methods incorporate geological, geometric and
design/engineering parameters in arriving at a quantitative value of their rock mass quality
(Hoek, 2007). Rock mass classification values are dependent on input parameters such as the
intact rock strength, rock quality designation (RQD), joint spacing, joint alteration, and
47
groundwater condition. Both RMR and Q can be adjusted to account for the relative gain in
strength from unfrozen to frozen weak rock for subsequent use in design for an ice cap overlying
a mined out cavity.
Table 2.6 lists the parameters and their assigned rating values for Bieniawski's 1976 version. The
biggest difference between RMR76 and RMR89 is in the joint condition description and ratings,
but there are also slight changes to the UCS and joint spacing values and ratings.
48
Table 2.6: 1976 Rock Mass Rating Classification Scheme, from Bieniawski (1976)
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
2 Drill core quality RQD 90-100% 75-90% 50-75% 25-50% < 25%
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
Spacing of Joints > 3m 1-3 m 0.3-1 m 50-300 mm < 50 mm
3
Rating 30 25 20 10 5
Slickenside
very rough slightly Slightly
d surfaces
surfaces rough rough
or Gouge <
hard joint surfaces surfaces Soft gouge > 5 mm
5 mm thick
wall rock hard joint separation or
Condition of Joints or Joints
4 not wall rock < 1mm Joints open > 5 mm
open 1-5
continuous separation soft joint Continuous joints
mm
no < 1 mm wall rock
Continuous
separation
Joints
Rating 25 20 12 6 0
Inflow per
10 m 25-125
None < 25 l/min > 125 l/min
tunnel l/min
length
Groundwater
5 Ratio 0 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.5 > 0.5
General Water under
Moist Severe Water
Condition Completely Dry moderate
only Problems
s pressure
Rating 10 7 4 0
49
The rock mass conditions can be classified follows: Class I – Very Good Rock (RMR > 80);
Class II – Good Rock (60 < RMR < 80); Class III – Fair Rock (40 < RMR < 60); Class IV –
Poor Rock (20< RMR < 40); and Class V – Very Poor Rock (RMR < 20).
Table 2.7 lists the input parameters for Jn (number of joint sets), Jr (joint roughness parameter),
and Ja (joint alteration).
50
Table 2.7: Q Rating Parameters, from Barton et al. (1974)
Description Jn Description Jr
0.5 to
Massive, no or few joints 1.0 Discontinuous joints 4
One joint set 2 Rough and irregular, undulating 3
One joint set plus random 3 Smooth, undulating 2
Two joint sets 4 Slickensided, undulating 1.5
Two joint sets plus random 6 Rough or irregular, planar 1.5
Three joint sets 9 Smooth, planar 1
Three joint sets plus random 12 Slickensided, planar 0.5
Four or more joint sets, random, heavily 15 Zones containing clay minerals thick enough to prevent wall
1
jointed, "sugar coated" contact
Crushed rock, earth-like 20 Sandy, gravelly, or crushed zone thick enough to prevent wall
1
contact
Infill
Description Ja
Thickness
none
Slightly altered joint walls, non-softening mineral coatings, sandy particles, clay-free disintegrated rock
3
Silty or sandy clay coatings, small clay fraction (non-softening)
< 2mm
Softening or low friction clay mineral coatings, I.e. kaolinite, mica, chlorite, talc, gypsum, graphite, and
4
small discontinuities of swelling clay (discontinuous coatings, 1-2mm or less in thickness)
6
Strongly overconsolidated, non-softening clay mineral fillings (continuous <5mm thick)
8
Medium or low over consolidated, softening clay mineral fillings (continuous <5mm thick)
8-
Swelling clay fillings (continuous > 5mm thick) Values of Ja depend upon percent of swelling clay-sized 12
particles, and access to water.
Zones or bands of disintegrated or crushed rock and clay
* Strongly over consolidated, non-softening clay 6
* Medium / low over consolidation, softening clay 8
8-
* Swelling clay (i.e. montmorillonite) 12
5
≥ 5mm
Zones or bands of silty clay or sandy clay, small clay fraction, non-softening.
Thick continuous zones or bands of clay
10 -
*Strongly over-consolidated, non-softening clay 13
6-
*Medium / low over-consolidation, softening clay. 24
6-
*Swelling clay (i.e. montmorillonite) 24
The classification ratings for the Q’ values are as follows: Class I – Very Good Rock (40 < Q’ <
100); Class II – Good Rock (10 < Q’ < 40); Class III – Fair Rock (4 < Q’ < 10); Class IV – Poor
Rock (1 < Q’ < 4); and Class V – Very Poor Rock (Q’ <1).
51
2.5.1.4 External Factors and RMR’ and Q’ Calculations
RMR’ and Q’ are modified versions of the RMR and Q that assumed dry conditions and exclude
the SRF term (RMR does not have a stress parameter). This is done for the purpose of assessing
the rock mass ratings in the absence of external factors, where these may be accounted for in
separate calculations. For example, groundwater and in situ stresses are sometimes better
accounted for using numerical modelling methods, but RMR and Q may still be required to
estimate the rock mass properties to provide model input; pore pressures and in suit stresses are
not properties of the rock mass.
RMR76’ is calculated using the first four terms; the rock mass is treated as if it were completely
dry and a groundwater rating of 10 is assigned. Very favourable joint orientations should be
assumed and the Adjustment for Joint Orientation value should be 0.
The Q’ value was defined according to the following formula, without any correction for
external influences such as stress or water conditions (i.e. Jw = 1 and SRF = 1).
RQD Jr
Q' = ×
Jn Ja
Again, RMR’ and Q’ should only be used where the design procedure specify their use. Where
water pressures or high in situ stresses are present, these should be accounted for either
empirically or numerically.
2.5.1.5 Discussion
Milne (2007) discusses issues with rock mass classification systems that arise when the same
rock mass can yield different classification values depending on subjectivity in assessing the
joint orientation, stress conditions, drift orientation, depth, and excavation history. The Q-system
can differentiate between more than 60 conditions of joint surfaces making repeatability an issue.
As previously noted, typically groundwater and stress factors are omitted to obtain rockmass
properties for the purpose of numerical modelling and analysis. These are accounted for
explicitly in the design calculations.
Both the Q-system and RMR system were not developed to specifically address weak rock
conditions, though both have been modified over the years to account for a wider range of rock
52
mass conditions. This was one of the objectives of Marinos and Hoek (2002) in their
development of the Geological Strength Index (GSI) system to visually classify rock masses.
The Q-value is related to Bieniawski’s RMR value using one of the following equations:
RMR = 9 ln(Q) + 44
RMR − 44
or, Q = 10 21
The two main rock mass classification systems RMR and Q were developed for unfrozen rock
masses. Both systems have similar input parameters for rock strength, RQD, joint
condition/alteration, joint spacing, and water. When a rock mass undergoes freezing, some of
these parameters will be influenced by freezing and others will not. Specifically, the influence of
water freezing in joints and whether this can be treated as a healing of a joint is an obvious
starting point. Building on this, the time span the excavation is expected to remain open, long
term (months) or short term (days), will influence whether a frozen joint should be counted for as
increasing in the rock mass quality.
The development of a frozen rock mass rating system and its application as an empirical
approach for ground control in frozen ground is discussed in detail in Section 8.
53
2.5.3 Rock Mass Strength
The strength of an intact rock sample compared to that of a jointed rock mass varies considerably
due to scale effects. The intact rock is the strength of a point sample measured by Unconfined
Compressive Strength (UCS) testing, a sample typically measuring 2” in diameter by 6” in
length. Compared to the rock mass strength, which encompasses the discontinuities, and is
influenced by spacing, infilling, and the compressive strength of the rock. Figure 2.14 (after
Wyllie and Mah, 2007) depicts the transition due to scale effects from intact rock to the rock
mass strength with increasing sample size and influence of jointing.
Figure 2.14: Scale Effects, Intact Rock to Jointed Rock Mass, after Wyllie and Mah (2007)
Hoek and Brown (1980) developed a shear strength criterion for the rock mass based on a back-
analysis of fractured rock masses for the design of underground excavations in hard rock. The
criterion was initially based on the properties of the intact rock, and then included the properties
and characteristics of the joints in the rock mass. The generalized Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion
(Hoek, 2006) for jointed rock masses is defined by:
�
𝜎��
𝜎�� = 𝜎�� + 𝜎�� �𝑚� + 𝑠�
𝜎��
54
Where 𝜎�� = Maximum effective principal stress at failure
𝜎�� = Minimum effective principal stress at failure
𝑚� = Value of the Hoek-Brown constant m for the rock mass
s and a = Constants which depend on the rock mass
𝜎�� = Uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock pieces
Estimating the strength of the rock mass, an interlocking matrix of discrete blocks, with
laboratory testing has been found to not be practical, and needing to rely on visual observations
(Hoek, 2006). Marinos and Hoek (2000) developed the Geological Strength Index (GSI), a visual
assessment tool for jointed rock masses to estimate the rock mass strength (Figure 2.15).
55
Figure 2.15: GSI Values for Blocky Rock Masses, after Marinos and Hoek (2000)
The GSI provides a system for estimating the reduction in rock mass strength for varying
geological conditions (Hoek, 2006). The GSI value is related to the degree of fracturing and the
condition of the fractures. Higher GSI values represent very good quality rock masses where low
GSI values represent very poor quality rock mass conditions.
56
The influence of freezing on jointed weak rock mass will be investigated in this thesis with
frozen UCS, direct shear, and four-point beam testing. However, the overall gain in strength due
to freezing is believed to have a greater impact on the rock mass, which can be estimated using
the GSI chart and Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system.
The Cigar Lake orebody is hosted in sandstone with joints parallel to bedding and random
subvertical fractures due to cross-jointing and faults. Jet bored cavities will be excavated in
frozen, medium strong, pitchblende rock overlain by several meters of frozen very weak, jointed,
sandstone to dense clay. Potential failure mechanisms of an excavated cavity include the
separation between unfrozen and frozen material in the back of the cavity and cracking of the ice
matrix due to the larger stresses on the roof beam. Ice-filled rock joints are a potential plane of
weakness in the frozen rockmass depending on the aperture and infilling of the joint prior to
freezing. Parallel laminations and stratifications can be a dominant factor controlling stability of
roofs in large excavations. In stratified ground the only load acting on the detached strata is the
beams own weight. Underground openings in bedded rocks can expect to develop an arch
structure in the back of the opening and at a small scale the immediate roof deflects downward as
a beam.
57
2.6.1 Beam Theory
The traditional approach to understand stability in stratified ground is to model the immediate
roof as if it were a beam. Beam theory assumes that the immediate roof can be represented by a
series of equal width beams, with a length equal to the room span. The stable roof span is
designed for the allowable tensile stress of the roof strata. A beam is capable of carrying loads in
bending as it applies loads transverse to its longest dimension. Beam bending induces failure by
flexure as the rock mass can separate at bedding planes due to deflection.
Simple beam testing is commonly used to determine the first crack strength and flexural strength
of concrete or fibre reinforced concrete. Two loading methods are practiced on beams supported
on two outer points, i) third-point loading, termed center point loading by the ASTM, and ii)
four-point loading, termed third-point bending by the ASTM. In third-point beam bending the
entire load is applied at the center of the span and the maximum stress concentrates in the center
part of the beam. Four-point beam bending applies two concentrated loads on top of the beam
with the maximum stress located at each point load.
Four-point loading calculates the flexural strength assuming that the fracture initiates at the
center of the beam. If fracture occurs outside the maximum moment region greater than 5% of
the span length the strength results are considered to be invalid. Under third point or center point
loading the location of the fracture is not an issue as fracture at a location other than mid-span
corresponds to a lower extreme fibre stress than exists at mid-span as the bending moment varies
linearly from zero at the support to maximum at mid-span. Four-point beam bending is
recommended for testing frozen weak rock behaviour because Goodman (1988) states that four-
point testing yields better reproducibility of results than three-point loading.
A beam section is expected to crack for the first time when the stress reaches the value of the
modulus of rupture. Mechanical properties of the beam can be characterized by peak load, first
crack load associated with crack deflection and residual flexural load. The flexural strength also
termed ‘modulus of rupture’ is the maximum tensile stress on the bottom of the specimen
corresponding to peak load and is calculated using simple elastic beam theory. Typically the
flexural strength is two to three times the rock specimen’s tensile strength under four-point
loading (Goodman, 1989). If the material is homogeneous, tensile strength and flexural strength
would be equivalent.
58
No ASTM or ISRM standard exists on beam testing of cylindrical rock core. Related standards
included ASTM standards for concrete and fibre reinforced concrete and an ISRM standard on
notched rock core specimens under four-point loading to estimate the fracture toughness.
• ASTM C 78-02 - Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple
Beam with Third-Point Loading).
• ASTM C 293-08 - Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using
Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading).
• ASTM D 1635 - Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Soil-Cement Using
Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading.
• ASTM C 1018-97 - Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness and First-Crack
Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading).
Concrete beam testing methods for the purpose of establishing the beams ability to resist slab
failure under bending follow ASTM C 78 or ASTM C 293-08 which determines the flexural
strength of concrete using a simple beam with third point loading. Modification of standard
concrete beam testing is part of the first phase of frozen beam laboratory testing to gain an
understanding on a controlled frozen sample prior to testing the rock collected from Cigar Lake.
The rock core sampled from the 2009 diamond drilling of surface freeze holes at Cigar Lake will
be tested with a four point beam apparatus to determine the failure mechanisms of frozen jointed
weak rock mass.
The failure of a rock beam through four-point loading allows for a simple and repeatable flexural
test. Four-point flexural loading on a rock beam with the bottom of the core supported on points
near the ends and the top of the core loaded from above yields better reproducibility of results
than three-point loading (Goodman, 1989). The tests setup is illustrated in Figure 2.16. The
modulus of rupture for four-point loading of cylindrical rock specimen with loads applied at L/3
from each end and reactions at the ends is defined as TMR = 16PmaxL / 3πd3 (Goodman, 1989).
59
Figure 2.16: Four Point Beam Bending Load Test
Voussoir beam theory states that in a confined situation the ultimate strength of a beam is larger
than its elastic strength. A beam will develop a compressive arch carrying its own weight and
transmitting it to the abutments with an assumed linearly varying load distribution, resulting in a
stronger beam assuming Voussoir conditions exist.
1) Stable Excavations
a. No uncontrolled falls of ground
b. No observed movement in the back
c. No extraordinary support measures implemented
2) Potentially Unstable Excavations
a. Extra ground support has been installed to prevent potential falls of ground
b. Movement in the back of 1mm or more in 24 hours has been observed (Pakalnis, 2002)
c. Increase in the frequency of popping and cracking indicating ground movement
3) Unstable Excavations
a. Area has collapsed
b. Support was not effective in maintaining stability
61
Figure 2.17: Critical Span Curve, after Lang (1994)
Figure 2.17 is a simple and useful tool that aids in the design of underground man-entry openings
later updated by Wang (1999). The updated span design curve chart has uncertainties below
RMR76 values of 50 and above RMR76 values of 80 due to the lack of data in the very poor
quality and good to excellent quality rock masses.
Ouchi (2005) updated the critical span curve after Wang (1999) to include additional data points
in weak rock, specifically for RMR76 less than 50. These are shown at the lower RMR76 range,
marked by “green lines” in Figure 2.18, where points in the previously defined unstable one were
shown in mining operations remain stable with only local support.
Figure 2.18: Weak Rock Mass Critical Span Curve, after Ouchi et al. (2004)
Pakalnis (2012) with the support of Cameco’s McArthur River mine, updated the Critical Span
Curve based on McArthur River mine openings with ground support in unfrozen ground. Figure
2.19 shows the updated potentially unstable zone (solid black lines) compared to the original
potentially unstable zones (dashed red lines) based on the data sets from Ouchi (2005), and
Wang (1999).
62
The McArthur River mine updated span curve was developed based on observations of the rock
mass quality and span in supported ground excavations including failures such as the Bay 12
failure. The stability graph shifted the potentially unstable zone to the left to match the span and
area. Observations of the influence of freezing on the RMR will be plotted on the same
McArthur River stability graph as McArthur River has similar rock mass conditions as Cigar
Lake. Although the potentially unstable zone at McArthur River is based on empirical
observations with ground support, the frozen unstable/stable curve will be developed from a
different approach.
Figure 2.19: McArthur River Stability Graph with Ground Support, after Pakalnis (2012)
63
stresses, the strength relationship with confining pressure exhibited a non linear relationship.
Based on experimental testing Yang et al. (2012) found the strength of frozen soil increased with
confining pressure up to a limit; however, the strength decreased with further increase of
confining pressure beyond this limit. At high confining pressures, the non linear strength of
frozen soils is attributed to pressure melting and crushing of the ice crystals. Frozen soils
therefore tested in the low stress range can be expected to have higher friction values than those
at high confining pressures.
In order for Yang et al. (2012) to describe the non-linear strength characteristic of frozen soil
better, the Hoek-Brown criterion (Hoek et al., 2002) was modified by incorporating a new
parameter to account for the effect of pressure melting and crushing phenomena.
𝜎� − 𝐴𝜎� 𝜎� �
= �𝑚 + 1�
𝜎� 𝜎�
incorporating a new parameter to account for the nonlinear strength characteristic of frozen soil
where m, n and A are constants for materials determined by the Levenberg-Marquardt fitting
method.
The laboratory data for the testing range of confining pressures was not included in this research
and therefore quantifying what high stress environment was applied to this testing is difficult to
compare with the conditions at the Cigar Lake mine.
64
3. Methodology
This section outlines the process followed to understand the influence of freezing on a weak and
altered/fractured rock mass at depth.
The Cigar Lake orebody is located at the unconformity between metamorphic basement rocks
and sandstone at a depth of approximately 430 m. Regional faulting and alteration processes in
northern Saskatchewan have created a series of uranium deposits in the Athabasca basin along
this unconformity. The alteration surrounding the orebody during uranium mineralization created
a highly heterogeneous and permeable zone of poor ground comprising soft to moderately
indurated sandy clay, unconsolidated sand and altered rock (sandstone above the orebody and
metapelite basement below).
Cigar Lake mine construction commenced in 2005; however, the underground levels were
flooded from 2006 to 2010 due to several water inflow events due to loss of ground. The
geotechnical data collection program carried out for this research was initially planned to sample
material from both surface and underground drilling. However, the underground levels were
inaccessible after the last inflow event in the summer of 2008 limiting material sampling to
surface diamond drilling. The author believes that sampling the Cigar Lake material underground
in an unfrozen and frozen state, combined with underground in-situ testing is essential for
understanding the behaviour of frozen weak rock.
Laboratory testing of rock core in a sub-zero environment that was sampled in an unfrozen state
from both the Cigar Lake project and McArthur River mine has been completed on a small scale
over the past 20 years. However, the previous research did not address or adequately give insight
into the failure mechanisms and behaviour of a cavity in frozen weak rock.
65
Existing geotechnical site investigations, hydrogeological reports, geological mapping, and
diamond drill hole information, can be reviewed in order to:
Developing a database of frozen strength, creep, and thermal parameters from geotechnically
similar materials is ongoing to complement the current Cigar Lake laboratory database. The clay
cap and clay ore zone would be compared to ice poor materials of similar plasticity and grain
size gradation. For loosely unconsolidated zones of material such as altered sandstone/sand,
assuming known creep parameters of ice rich sand will be conservative.
A material data collection and laboratory testing program was undertaken here focusing on the
influence of ice in increasing the strength of weak rock and the influence of freezing on rock
joints with and without infilling. Frozen unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and frozen
66
beam testing is explored in a series of laboratory tests to determine the failure mechanism of a
typical frozen weak rock overlying the Cigar Lake orebody. Only after gaining an understanding
of frozen rock mass behaviour, the stability and stand up time of a jet bored cavity can be
assessed. Verification of the conceptual model of frozen weak rock masses will be compared
with current mining practices in frozen ground at the McArthur River mine and historical field
trials at the Cigar Lake mine.
Ground freezing is expected to be from the base of the orebody to a minimum of 20 m above the
orebody. To characterize the behaviour of the frozen material, the target sampling and testing
zone is approximately 30 m above the orebody to 15 m below the orebody. The top elevation of
the orebody was estimated on a hole by hole basis from the current site geological model to
establish the target depth to commence core retrieval. While coring through the orebody, the
overlying clay cap or known zone of soil like material, a clay face injection bit was used to cut
back water flow and reduce the risk of washing away the sample. Metal liners or ‘splits’ are
standard for triple tube coring and are sufficient for drilling and sampling competent sandstone.
However, instead of metal splits, acrylic tubing was placed inside the core barrel when drilling
67
within friable sandstone to soil like material to limit core removal handling and disturbance. The
1.5 m long acrylic tubes were sealed on either end at the drill rig and stored inside the Cigar Lake
core logging warehouse prior to shipment for laboratory testing.
The direction of coring also influences the stress path of the sample during unloading. For
anisotropic strata, the effect of coring horizontally compared to vertically introduces the need to
consider the directionality of stress path unloading. The surface freeze pipe drillholes with
sampling for geotechnical testing will be drilled vertically through horizontally bedded
sandstone. Core samples in the lab will therefore be loaded perpendicular to bedding for strength
testing. There is the possibility of drilling through a titled fault block that should be detected if
the bedding angle observed is steeper than the regional bedding.
Sample disturbance during handling will underestimate the pre-consolidation pressure and initial
void ratio. Tube sampling strains on soft clays can damage the microstructure, reduce the mean
effective stress and cause water content redistribution. Actions that were taken to minimize
sample disturbance at the drill rig during the surface freeze sampling program by Cigar Lake
mine include the following:
• When drilling though soils or friable rock, the use of an acrylic liner instead of metal
splits will limit sample expansion during core retrieval and remove the need for
unnecessary sample handling from the core barrel.
68
• Cutting back on water flow while sampling soil like material will minimize the potential
to wash away loose or soft zones, when using a face injection bit.
• Ensuring all samples are consistently handled, preserved, and tested according to the
same procedures will limit the issue of testing samples not at in situ stress after
undergoing stress relaxation.
The Cigar Lake orebody and surrounding material is a heterogeneous mixture of fractured and
altered rock that has weakened to clay and sand. The influence of freezing on the rock mass
rating (RMR) specifically the unfrozen to frozen correlation between rock mass rating (RMR)
and span for weak rock in underground mines is based on the work of Ouchi et al. (2004),
Pakalnis (2002), and Lang (1994). When a groundmass freezes, the rock mass strength will
increase due to pore water converting to ice. This increase in strength can be attributed to an
increase in the UCS and the freezing of the joint walls if there is infilling present. The degree to
which freezing influences the RMR input parameters is expected to vary under different
temperatures, moisture content, clay content and initial rock mass strength.
Unconfined compressive strength and triaxial tests on unfrozen and frozen drill core samples will
be able to assess the influence of freezing on the rock hardness parameter. Four point beam
testing and shear strength testing are planned to determine the influence of freezing on the joint
condition parameter and cohesion.
However, an important parameter that is not addressed in unfrozen rock mass classification is
creep or the decrease in rock mass strength over time due to steady state loading. The creep of
frozen rock masses over a long period of time may result in strength loss, similar to that seen for
a block of ice under an instantaneous load or a constant load applied over a long period of time.
69
3.5 Laboratory Testing to Establish Influence of Freezing
Structural and thermal calculations are required for the design of a ground freezing project.
Strength and deformation properties of the unfrozen and frozen soil, which are time and
temperature dependent, are necessary for the structural design of a soil or rock mass support
structure. Thermal characteristics are also important for thermal analysis to verify the freeze hole
layout and ensure an adequate frozen ground thickness. Thermal analyses are not within the
scope of this research.
The most important input parameters for the analysis of frozen material overlying an excavated
cavity are the unfrozen and frozen elastic modulus and shear strength (cohesion and friction)
parameters. A better geotechnical understanding of the material surrounding the ore body, the
clay cap and altered basement frozen strength and creep behaviour is required as these materials
control the stability of an excavated cavity. Limited geomechanical information is published on
the shear strength, time dependent behaviour, and thermal properties of frozen rock or soil at
great depths.
Laboratory testing of the samples collected in unfrozen conditions from the 2009 Surface Freeze
Drilling program (for the purpose of installing freeze pipes), was completed on the weak rock
overlying and beneath the orebody within a controlled cold temperature room environment. The
key focus of the laboratory testing is to improve in situ and laboratory characterization methods
and provide a better understanding of weak rock behaviour at sub zero conditions with varying
temperatures and strain rates. Any rock core retrieved containing greater than 2% U3O8 by the
mine geologists was deemed unsafe to handle by laboratory personnel. Therefore no laboratory
testing was completed on any samples from the orebody.
Unconfined compressive strength (UCS), four point beam testing, direct shear testing, X-Ray
diffraction, and moisture content testing was completed on samples from the altered sandstone
(clay cap) overlying the orebody and altered metapelite basement rock below the orebody.
Thermal properties of the rock core were not part of the scope of this research.
The University of Alberta’s geotechnical laboratory is equipped with several cold rooms that can
accommodate triaxial cells for UCS and triaxial testing in a sub zero environment. Frozen UCS
70
testing was undertaken at the University of Alberta cold room and all remaining testing was
completed at the University of British Columbia geomechanics laboratory.
To determine the shear strength of frozen soil, triaxial compression tests must be completed. The
triaxial test is suitable for all types of soil and rock, and has the following key advantages; i)
drainage conditions can be controlled, ii) pore water pressure measurements can be made, and
iii) the two loading directions can be controlled independently. However, triaxial testing of the
collected rock core was not feasible at the University of Alberta cold room due to the lack of drill
core samples for testing and the triaxial cell available for testing could not accommodate axial
loads greater than 20 MPa.
There are limitations to reproducing in situ freezing conditions in the lab environment, as the
Cigar Lake orebody is located at approximately 430 m depth. How the samples freeze, the rate of
freezing and ice lens growth will influence the frozen strength, though to what degree is an
uncertainty. Applying a high confining pressure on the samples as it freezes similar to that
experienced underground was not an option during testing. The samples for UCS testing were
frozen rapidly to the desired testing temperatures with no confining pressure to prevent ice lens
growth. Rock specimens for testing were cut in half to examine the ice lens growth in the
laboratory freezing environment.
The main parameter that will affect the freezing rate and ice lens formation is the water content
in the ore region, as this region has the potential to have both low conductivity and high water
content. McArthur River established the in situ moisture content through a back analysis
spanning several years of measured ground temperature vs. time profile and thermal properties.
At Cigar Lake, as the layer of frozen altered sandstone overlying the orebody will be subjected to
hydrostatic pressure (in situ stresses and water in the sandstone), shear stresses (shear zone
caused by fracturing and squeezing ground around ore zone) and a creep regime (presence of ice
and squeezing environment). In order to optimize the design of the frozen material over the
orebody and rock mass frozen strength, the creep behaviour and shear strength is required to
predict the stability of the proposed jet bored cavities. For the purpose of design, the increase in
strength due to freezing to needs to be addressed under both short term (several hours to days)
and long term (several days to weeks) loading. The loss in strength due to creep behaviour
71
however, is not part of this research.
Four point beam testing was completed on cement and sand mixtures having strengths similar to
those for the altered sandstone overlying the orebody; the cement mixture samples were prepared
to contain a single smooth, planar joint with no infilling in the center of the beam. Testing
various cement mixture samples with joints provides the basis for understanding how a frozen
beam fails under tension using a controllable sample material.
In an unfrozen state the degree of jointing and infilling material in a rock mass will control the
failure. No research or data was located by the author on how a frozen jointed weak rock mass
72
fails. Failing a rock specimen in tension, produces a crack at the midpoint of the beam. If the
frozen joint is weaker than the intact rock, ideally the beam will fail along the joint. If the frozen
joint is stronger than the intact rock, the beam will fail through the solid beam material at the
midpoint of the beam. The increased cohesion of a joint undergoing freezing will be influenced
by the type and thickness of infilling and the degree of moisture on the joint surface. A smooth
and planar joint with no infilling and no moisture will not have sufficient cohesion to bond the
joint surfaces together.
The Cigar Lake orebody is hosted in a flat lying sedimentary basin in an area of historical
faulting. Predominant joint sets are parallel to the main faults and along bedding planes. Away
from the ore body the joint sets are typically rough, planar, and with trace amounts to little
infilling. However, the intense alteration surrounding the orebody has degraded the sound rock
mass infilling the joints with thick seams of clay and sand.
The freezing of a rockmass is believed to have a significant influence on the shear strength
behaviour, specifically the cohesion. Direct shear testing on natural joint surfaces and intact rock
specimens was completed to develop a model of shear strength gained along a frozen joint.
Testing of intact rock specimens was carried out to determine the intact shear strength of
recognizable shear planes/planes of weakness; testing of shearing resistance along the
jointed/fractured specimens was carried out to determine the lower bound residual strength.
73
4. Cigar Lake Geology, Hydrogeology, and Historical Geotechnical Data
This section summarizes the regional geology, hydrogeology and geomechanical properties of
the Cigar Lake mine rock types.
Cigar Lake
Figure 4.1: Athabasca Basin and Cameco Corporation Active Mining Projects
The Cigar Lake orebody is located at an unconformable contact between the overlying Manitou
Falls Formation of the Athabasca Group sandstones and the metamorphic basement rocks of the
Pre-Cambrian shield. Above the unconformity, sediments consist of a basal conglomerate
overlain by sandstone of the Manitou Falls Formation a 450 m thick quartz arenite with local
conglomerate layers. At the unconformity, sand is interpreted to form a continuous sub-
horizontal layer along the southern margin of the deposit establishing a hydraulic connection.
The presence of sand above the unconformity is due to dissolution/desilification of the sandstone
at the time of deposit formation. Dissolution has created a depressed zone on top of the deposit
with bedding dipping shallowly at 5 to 15 degrees (Baudemont, 2000). Sand rich zones are
characterized by high porosity, high permeability, and very poor rock strength.
Above and below the unconformity, the rock mass shows variations in porosity and permeability
due to fracturing and alteration. Zones of intense faulting and alteration pose geotechnical
challenges during mining including control of groundwater and ground support of weak rock.
4.3.1 Alteration
Several alteration events have created intense fracturing, massive quartz dissolution in the
sandstone and extensive clay alteration around the Cigar Lake orebody. Alteration zones are
characterized by well developed concentric zones in the sandstone and basement rocks
surrounding the ore deposit. This alteration halo in the sandstone is centered on the deposit and
reaches up to 300 m in width and height. In the basement rocks, this zone extends in the range of
200 m in width and as much as 100 m in depth below the deposit. Alteration is associated with
75
the loss of cohesion in the sandstone and the enrichment in clay content (Hoeve and Quirt, 1984).
Percival et al. (1993) subdivided the alteration zones from the outermost to innermost with
increasing alteration towards the orebody, listed below (refer to Figure 4.2).
• Underlain by a clay rich alteration halo around the deposit characterized by 10-30 % by
weight clay and averaging 1 to 5 m thick with a maximum thickness 10 m.
• The clay cap directly over the orebody (illite with some kaolinite and sudoite) is known
for its high relative portions of clayey material commonly mixed with sand, silt or clay-
rich sandstone. Encapsulating the orebody is a hematite-rich clay zone (Bruneton, 1997).
Figure 4.2: Cigar Lake Deposit and Alteration Limits, after Jefferson et al. (2007)
The degree of alteration of the sandstone or metapelite can be related to the clay mineralogy. X-
76
ray diffraction (XRD) testing was completed by the University of British Columbia Department
of Earth and Ocean Sciences lab on two samples from the 2009 surface freezing drilling program
of altered sandstone; bleached sandstone and hematized clay from boreholes ST786-07 and
ST801-04, respectively. Details of the XRD testing are provided in Appendix A and summarized
below in Table 4.1.
Sample 18 Sample 19
Bleached Sandstone Hematized Clay
ST786-07 ST801-04
Mineral Ideal Formula 427.3 m 434.7 m
Both the bleached sandstone and hematized clay samples are predominantly illite, though the
bleached sandstone contains trace amount of kaolinite which is not present in the hematized clay
sample. The influence of clay minerals on the frozen behavior and freezing rate has not been
directly assessed though the salinity, unfrozen water content, and plastic limit of the clay
material will have a greater influence on the freezing rate. The two samples submitted for XRD
testing were non plastic.
Faulting through the Athabasca sandstone has mechanically disintegrated and fractured the
sandstone to sand. Sections affected by faulting are marked by strong bleaching, hydrothermal
silification and perched mineralization. In the basement, clay-alteration appears to be strictly
fault-controlled producing local squeezing clay and high-pressure water. These weak
sand/alteration zones are responsible for the ground falls and subsequent inflows at Cigar Lake.
Baudemont (2000) interpreted a limited number of oriented drillholes identifying the vertical
evolution of the regional fracture and fault system and characterizing the post-Athabasca fault
structures. Nine geotechnical holes with core orientation were logged in sub-horizontal and
inclined geotechnical drillholes from the 210, 420, and 480 level in 1999 (Baudemont, 2000).
The recorded data is presented in the stereoplot in Figure 4.3.
Although the data only covers a 200 by 300 m wide section of the Cigar Lake mine, the
following can be concluded with respect to the local structures:
• Two conjugate sets of steeply dipping faults are predominantly oriented striking to 85
and 285 degrees, and are characterized by a conjugate set of normal to strike slip faults
• 200 m and more above the orebody, evidence of faulting is scarce and fracture frequency
low
• The orebody located in an east-west trending high is interpreted as an uplift horst (100-
130 m wide and 20-30 m high) bounded by a system of normal faults.
• Intense graphite and pyrite enrichment is associated with the Cigar Lake shear
development.
78
Figure 4.3: Stereonet Plots of Structural Data from 1999 Underground Drilling, from
Baudemont (2000) Data
Geotechnical boreholes drilled to characterize the geomechanical and thermal properties of the
orebody and surrounding area completed from the mid-1980s to present, are outlined below.
• Boreholes drilled in 1983 and 1984 were drilled to characterize ground formations near
the orebody and obtain test samples for uniaxial compression, triaxial compression, slake
durability, porosity, water and clay content, Atterberg limits, and permeability testing.
79
• Samples were collected in 1985 and 1986 boreholes for unfrozen and frozen UCS testing
and unfrozen triaxial testing (Golder Associates).
• In 1996, insitu temperature profiles were logged from surface to the orebody in several
boreholes (Golder Associates).
• From the 1990 drilling program, frozen samples were collected for creep and UCS testing
(EBA).
• Unfrozen graphitic metapelite was collected in 1994 for UCS, triaxial, and creep tests.
• In 1999, underground drilling for core orientation was completed on the 210, 420, and
480 level (Baudemont, 2000).
• UCS and porosity testing was completed on unfrozen rock in 2000 (U of Saskatchewan).
• The 2007 drill program assisted the development of a site geological and hydrogeological
model (MDH).
• 2009 surface drill program with sampling for testing frozen UCS, direct shear, and four-
point beam (by the author).
Rock mechanics data for underground deposits are initially collected from drill core, a point
sample of the rock mass. In weaker rock, the sample is often disturbed with the amount of
disturbance a function of the rock mass quality, drilling, and sample handling. Golder (2002)
reviewed all collected geotechnical drillholes information commenting on a lack of consistency
between various data sets in the Cigar Lake rock types. The majority of boreholes drilled in the
beginning of the exploration program were also not specifically for geotechnical purposes and
therefore lacking completeness of the geotechnical database.
Unfrozen and frozen Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) testing was completed on a suite
of samples in the 1980s and the relevant samples for this research are included in the discussion
section of the UCS testing.
Massive High
Grade Ore Unconformity
Alteration Basement Rock
Graphitic Metapelite
The orebody geotechnical properties are thought to be relatively consistent across the orebody;
however, above the orebody, ground conditions are highly variable ranging from extremely weak
and altered sandstone to a hard indurated clay. Golder (2001) has noted a significant variability
in the mechanical properties that exists within the east-west trending altered shear zones. The
following geological interpretations are based on geotechnical site investigation reports by
Golder Associates (1986, 2002), JD Smith Engineering (1983), and MDH (2008).
The following unfrozen material properties are summarized from multiple interpretations of UCS
and triaxial testing. Frozen material properties consist of laboratory work completed by Golder
(1986) and EBA (1991). Frozen unconfined compressive strength and triaxial testing was
completed on clay cap and orebody samples at temperatures ranging from -2 to -20oC. Note that
moisture content data is limited and highly variable therefore influencing reliability of the
mechanical and thermal properties.
81
4.5.1 Mineralization/Ore
The ore deposit is located at approximately 430 to 450 m depth, is approximately 2000 m long,
250 m wide and up to 16 m thick with an average thickness of 5.5 m. The orebody is crescent
shaped in cross section and follows the paleo-topography of the unconformity. The massive
high-grade ore is formed by metal oxides, arsenides and sulphides in a matrix of generally well
indurated greenish clay, or claystone. The orebody consists of a mixture of massive pitchblende,
pitchblende-rich clay, pitchblende-impregnated sandstone, clay, silt, and sand. It is capped by a
layer of similarly indurated clay that is variably 1-5 m thick.
Based on several reports, Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 list the unfrozen and frozen geotechnical
properties of the mineralization/ore.
82
Table 4.3: Mineralization/Ore Frozen Material Properties (Golder, 2002)
Unit Elastic Test
Friction Cohesion, c Poisson’s Calculated
Material Weight, Modulus, Temperature,
Angle, φ (MPa) ratio UCS, (MPa)
(kN/m3) E (MPa) (oC)
Ore
(Indurated 26.2 30 0.87 1000 - 10 -5
Clay)
Ore
(Intermediate 20.5 - - - - 2 -5
Clay)
Above this cap there is a highly heterogeneous, highly permeable zone from 20 to 50 m thick
consisting of soft to moderately indurated sandy clay, unconsolidated sand and variably altered
sandstone.
The clays are divided into three types based on the degree of hydrothermal alteration in the
sandstone. After Kennard (1998), the clays are defined as:
Soft clay: occur as layers along bedding planes above the massive clay zone and as veins in
steeply dipping faults. These clays are mostly comprised of illite.
Indurated clay: hard clays located in the massive clay cap and are composed of various forms
of iron and magnesium rich illite and chlorite.
Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 summarize the unfrozen and frozen properties of the clay based on
testing by Golder (1986) on several boreholes intersecting the clay, EBA (1990), Kennard
(1998), and Golder's data reinterpretation for numerical modelling (2002).
84
Table 4.5: Clay Frozen Material Properties
Test Avg. Frozen Elastic
Temperature, Unit Weight, Modulus, E Average UCS,
Material (oC) (kN/m3) (GPa) (MPa)
Source
Golder (2002) Golder (2002)
-10 22.68 11.34
26.24
Indurated Clay
-5 10.19
-2 22.55 6.0
-20 - 4.4
-10 19.4 0.15 1.5
Intermediate Clay
-5 19.8 2.3
-2 17.0 0.6
Soft Clay -5 18 1.3
• Competent sandstone
• Fracture sandstone
• Sand/Highly friable sandstone
Directly overlying the orebody, the highly friable sandstone zone comprises unconsolidated sand
or zones of no core recovery, and is representative of the unconsolidated material above the
sandstone bedrock. Sand often comes in contact with the clay cap along the south margin of the
deposit. The highly friable sandstone is unaltered or weakly to strongly clay altered sandstone
zone with an RQD less than 70%. This zone extends southward and northward from the primary
mineralized zone for up to 75 to 100 m along the unconformity (not systematically present).
No geotechnical data or site specific laboratory testing is provided due to the poor to no recovery
of material in this zone. Geotechnical properties of the frozen sand will behave similarly to that
tested by Sayles (1968) and discussed in the literature review.
Sandstone above the orebody has been subjected to various degrees of hydrothermal alteration
from less altered (at a distance above the orebody) to extremely altered (immediately adjacent to
85
the orebody). The fractured sandstone forms a halo around the highly friable sandstone, typically
extending up to approximately 50 to 75 m above the unconformity and may extend upward along
select faults for more than 200 m. This material is comprised of a varying mixture of fractured
and densely fractured sandstone with an RQD between 70% and 90%.
Increasing clay content and a decrease in the cementation of the sandstone causes a gradational
strength decrease with proximity to the orebody. It has been a concern of previous consultants
and the mine that the geological complexities of the deposit and the lack of proper description in
the uniaxial compression test data sheets prevents a qualitative analysis of the tests between
altered and unaltered units.
Cigar Lake Mine has classified the sandstone into three geotechnical categories
RM1 – Consists of a mix of R0 (extremely weak) to R1 (very weak rock), UCS ranging from 0
to 5 MPa. Comprises sand to highly fractured (RQD <25%) sandstone
RM2 – consists of weak rock (R2) with an estimated intact rock strength between 10 and 30
MPa, and an RQD average of about 30-70% Joint surfaces are typically planar, often slightly
moist, smooth to rough, often graphitic. The surfaces are moderately altered, with smears of clay
and mud and frequently slickensided.
RM3 – is poor to fair quality rock with an average strength of 25 to 50 MPa (R3, medium
strong)
No historical test data dividing the rock mass properties of the altered sandstone as per the
divisions above were completed. However, Table 4.6 below summarizes the historical altered
sandstone testing.
86
Table 4.6: Altered Sandstone Unfrozen Material Properties
Moisture Elastic Calculated
Friction Cohesion, c Poisson’s
Source Description Content Modulus, UCS,
Angle, φ (MPa) ratio, v
(%) E (GPa) (MPa)
mean, - -
5.3 ± 1.3 14.5 ± 7.7 0.17 ± 0.07 36.3 ± 19.3
stnd. dev
CLMC,
range 2.9 - 9.6 - - 0.07 - 31 0.05 - 0.37 1.4 - 83.7
1989
number of - -
89 71 71 71
tests
Golder,
mean - 35 2.0 5.0 0.25 7.7
2001
Geosciences, mean,
All tests - 41 ± 2 1.32 ± 0.67 - - 5.8
1988 stnd. dev
Low
confining
Kennard,
stress (high mean - 26 0.4 - - 1.3
1998
clay
content)
High
confining
Kennard,
stress (low mean - 45 5.4 - - 26.1
1995
clay
content)
Kennard,
All tests - 36 3.6 - - 14.1
1995
Basement rock mass conditions vary considerably within short distance from good to extremely
poor. In general, basement alteration does not show a strong correlation spatially with that of
altered sandstone above the unconformity. The lower and upper basement varies from east to
west with three lithostratigraphic units identified by geology and alteration. The upper basement
geology shows significantly more clay alteration, especially along the margins of the graphitic
units. The main basement unit comprise pelites, with many interlayered units of various
composition and tends to be less altered than the others. Graphitic metapelites are associated
with mineralization and are moderately to strongly gneissic and banded. Clay alteration peaks in
this unit, especially along fault zones. Gneissic layering dips steeply 60 to 90 degrees to the
87
south. Arkoses are restricted to the southern margin of the primary mineralization zone.
The Cigar Lake Mine classified the altered basement into three geotechnical categories as it can
range from very weak and deformable to competent rock:
RM1 – Highly altered metapelite, predominantly within shear zones, that can be described as a
graphitic silty sand, occasionally with a low clay content and displaying slight to low plasticity.
RM1 rock contains ISRM strength grades R0 and R1. Zones of RM1 rock are subject to
squeezing and creep based on previous excavations. Shear zones containing the weak RM1
material may be up to 10-15 m wide in the north-south direction (Golder, 2001)
RM2 – Fractured and moderately to strongly altered metapelite containing some clayey silt,
estimated intact rock strength between 10 and 30 MPa, and an RQD average of about 30-70%.
Joint surfaces are typically planar, often slightly moist, smooth to rough, often graphitic. The
surfaces are moderately altered, with smears of clay and mud and frequently slickensided
RM3 – Weakly to moderately altered strong metapelite with a rock strength ranging from 25 to
50 MPa (corresponding to R3, moderately strong).
Table 4.7 summarizes the unfrozen altered basement properties after Golder (2001) and CLMC
(1989).
88
Itasca Consultants (2008) sampled metapelite basement material from geotechnical boreholes
274 and 276 in 2008. A total of 3 UCS and 36 triaxial tests were conducted, along with bulk
density, moisture content for index testing. Table 4.8 summarizes the unfrozen testing completed
on the metapelite basement.
Golder (2001) noted that RM1 altered basement rock samples tested at -15oC with confining
stresses of up to 5 MPa exhibited a higher cohesion but a significantly reduced friction angle by
ten degrees compared to unfrozen rock. The strength of the rock was noted to be dependent on
the effective stress state at the time of freezing. Table 4.9 summarizes the frozen testing data
completed on altered basement rock from Golder (2001).
Segregation potential tests on frozen altered basement material (Golder, 2001) demonstrated that
RM1 altered basement rocks tend to form ice lenses at low stress in the laboratory; however,
they believe there is little potential for ice lens formation above 1 MPa stresses.
89
Table 4.9: Altered Basement Frozen Material Properties
Moisture Elastic Intact Test
Content, Friction Cohesion, Modulus, UCS Temperature
Material Density (%) Angle, φ c (MPa) E (GPa) (MPa) (oC)
Basement
2100 15 7.5 0.5 1 1.1 -15
RM1
Basement
- 9 40 0.4 2 1.7 -15
RM2
90
5. Back-Analysis of Historical Data
This section discusses the mining experience in frozen ground at Cigar Lake mine and McArthur
River, both owned and operated by Cameco Corporation.
McArthur River differs from Cigar Lake mine in terms of geology, extraction methods, support
and freeze pipe configuration. Table 5.1 presents a comparison of the McArthur River and Cigar
Lake min with regards to the mine design, geology, hydrogeology, and ground freezing design.
91
McArthur River Mine Cigar Lake Mine
level to create the freeze wall and for set up of of frozen ground above the ore zone will be
the production raisebore and a lower level for at least 10 meters.
retrieval of raisebore cuttings.
• The freeze wall for the production area is
positioned in a U-shape with the crest of the
freeze wall primarily in the water saturated
sandstone and two walls extending into the
basement metapelite.
Geology • The orebody is located 550 m to 620 m below • The Cigar Lake orebody is a flat lying
surface where the groundwater pressure is structure with a crescent shaped profile.
approximately 5.5 MPa. • The orebody is located at an approximate
• The ore zone can be divided into a high grade depth of 430 - 450 m at the unconformity
pelite/pitchblende matrix and a low grade clay between the Athabasca sandstone formation
and sand rich quartzite matrix below the high and the underlying basement rocks.
grade zone. • The deposit is approximately 1,950 m long,
• The properties of the rock mass vary 20 to 100m wide, and ranges up to 12m thick,
considerably, particularly with increasing with an average thickness of about 5m.
levels of alteration. Although extensive testing • Above and below the unconformity, the rock
has been conducted to determine rock mass shows variability in porosity and
strengths, limited testing has been performed permeability due to fracturing and alteration
to determine the other mechanical properties processes
of the rock.
• The hanging wall and the lower footwall of
the P2 fault zone are composed of basement
rocks. The hanging wall contains primarily a
pelitic gneiss sequence, whereas the lower
footwall basement rock is dominated by
quartzites.
Ground • At McArthur River, only thermal parameters • At Cigar Lake, mining will be conducted
Freezing of unfrozen and frozen materials have been from the 465 m production level which is
Design directly measured to date. located 10 m below the deposit.
• Frozen compressive strength, triaxial creep • Artificial ground freezing will be
testing has been completed on indurated clay implemented to support the weak rock
and altered sandstone material from three associated with the orebody, minimize the
boreholes at Cigar Lake. potential for a large water inrush and stop
radon migration.
• Jet boring is the proposed plan to mine out
the Cigar Lake orebody.
• The cutting of the ore with high pressure
water is expected to produce cavities fairly
circular in shape measuring 4 to 5 m in
diameter.
The study area was frozen from the production level (480 level) below the ore through near
vertical freeze pipes installed up into the orebody (~430 level) with calcium chloride circulating
at -40oC. The area was allowed to freeze to -20oC prior to mining. An intermediary level (460
level) above the freeze level was mined for the trial study to drill the pilot holes up into the ore
body and develop the test cavities. After the pilot hole for the test cavity was lined with casing, a
drill string with a nozzle was inserted in the casing and while rotating from the top of the planned
cavity down, pressurized water jet opened the cavity. The upper part of the cavity was noted to
grow laterally while jetting occurred lower down, though no uncontrolled sloughing was
observed. The ore slurry left the cavity by gravity and was pumped away from the mining area,
resulting in fairly circular cavities 2 m in diameter and up to 5 m in height. The cavities were left
open for several days before backfilling with concrete.
5.2.1 Geology
The geology in the test mine area comprises three rock types, the basement (altered metapelite),
ore zone and clay cap, and directly above is the altered sandstone. Figure 5.1 shows the typical
geology encountered in the jet boring trial study and the cavity dimensions.
94
Figure 5.1: Jet Boring Cavity Geology and Schematic of Surveyed Trial Cavities, after
Cameco (2000)
The basement rock in the test trial comprised moderately to extremely clay altered graphitic
metapelite. Immediately below the orebody, the first 1 to 5 m of the basement is defined as a
medium strong clay.
The orebody, overlying the basement, varied from 4 to 6.5 m in thickness in the test zone and
was located at the unconformity. The orebody comprised three distinct zones varying in hardness
and mineralization. Including:
• Massive high grade mineralization (less than 10% by volume of the orebody), a very
hard, heavy rock with an average UCS of 50 MPa.
• Altered and friable sandstone (less than 20% by volume of the orebody), a very weak to
weak rock with a UCS ranging from 1 to 25 MPa.
• Clay/Claystone (approximately 70% by volume of the orebody) is an intermediate to
indurated sandy clay to claystone with a UCS ranging from 5 to 15 MPa.
The strength of the ore zone tested in the jet bored cavities was estimated based on the ore grade,
measured by gamma probing. The ore strength generally increases with the grade based on past
95
experience at the Cigar Lake project by Cameco (2000). The percent ore grade:
The test zone cross-cut at the orebody level has an average UCS of 10 MPa (ranging from 0.25
to 35 MPa). Overlying the orebody is the sandstone typically altered in the first few meters to a
sandy indurated clay. The altered sandstone encountered is fractured and extremely altered,
typical of this rock type at the site.
5.2.2 Instrumentation
Temperature probes were installed within the row of freeze pipes at the top and midpoint of the
orebody. When test mining commenced in September 2000, the rock mass temperature of the ore
zone was measured to be -20oC. The area reached -10oC within the first four months of freezing,
typical of the freezing times experienced at the McArthur River mine. The base of the orebody
was observed to be approximately 6oC warmer (-14oC) than the midpoint of the ore and
underlying and overlying rock masses. Cameco (2000) attributes this temperature fluctuation due
to a higher pore water content and clay content at the unconformity, (the base of the orebody)
overlying the basement. Ground freezing of the test mine area was assumed to be complete as no
water was observed during jet boring or the drilling of temperature monitoring probes.
Geotechnical instruments to measure the rock mass behaviour and ground support response to
the jet boring of frozen ground included pressure cells to monitor ground loading on the cross cut
support, a tape extensometer to measure convergence of the 713 cross cut, instrumentation on
drill holes in the 480 level, and caliper surveys to measure convergence of the cased test holes.
Cameco (2000) included several cross-sections of the caliper surveys in each ore cavity. The
cavities (1, 2, 3A, and 4) were surveyed with a laser range finder after mining completion at
300 mm vertical increments. The ore grade plotted along the vertical scale of each cavity was
estimated over 50 cm intervals from the cavity gamma survey. Based on the relationship
discussed earlier relating ore grade to rock strength, the rock strength has been estimated and
drawn on each cavity included in Figure 5.2 to Figure 5.5.
Table 5.3 summarizes the span compared to the estimated rock strength for each cavity.
97
Table 5.3: Cigar Lake Jet Boring Trial Span Compared to Rock Strength
Surveyed Elevation (m) Average Excavated Span by Estimated Rock Strength
Cavity Top to Bottom Jet Boring (m) (MPa)
24.0 - 22.2 5.0 (back of cavity) < 15
22.2 - 21.2 4.4 15 - 40
1 21.2 - 19.6 3.2 > 40
19.6 - 19.5 3.2 15 - 40
19.5 - 19.2 3.0 (base of cavity) < 15
2 24.2 - 21.6 2.4 - 3.8 < 15
22.5 - 22.3 4.4 (back of cavity) < 15
3A 22.3 - 21.6 4.4 15 - 40
21.6 - 17.7 5.0 (base of cavity) < 15
23.8 - 22.3 3.0 (back of cavity) < 15
22.3 - 21.5 4.0 15 - 40
4 21.5 - 20.5 3.6 > 40
20.5 - 19.9 4.0 15 - 40
19.9 - 18.6 4.0 (base of cavity) < 15
Figure 5.2 to Figure 5.5 are after cross-sections drawn in the report “2000 Jet Boring Systems
Test – Final Report” by the Cigar Lake Mining Corporation (CLMC, 2000).
98
Figure 5.2: Cavity 1, Jet Boring Survey of Ore Cavity, UCS Based on Ore Grade
Figure 5.3: Cavity 2, Jet Boring Survey of Ore Cavity, UCS Based on Ore Grade
99
Figure 5.4: Cavity 3a, Jet Boring Survey of Ore Cavity, UCS Based on Ore Grade
Figure 5.5: Cavity 4, Jet Boring Survey of Ore Cavity, UCS Based on Ore Grade
100
5.2.3.1 Increase in Strength and Rock Mass Rating With Freezing
Based on the empirical relationship between span and RMR for weak rock masses (Section 2.6),
the stable span for unsupported ground given an RMR less than 35 is no greater than 3 m (Figure
2.18 after Ouchi, 2008). However, the average cavity diameter of the four cavities jet bored in
the frozen ore measured 4 to 6 m in width (refer to Table 5.2). The four cavities were left open
for several days with no deterioration or ground instabilities noted before backfilling with a
cement concrete. Figure 5.6 plots the unfrozen to estimated frozen RMR on the McArthur River
developed critical span rock mass curve to show the gain in strength with freezing during the jet
boring trial. Note the McArthur River span rock mass curve is for excavations with ground
support.
Figure 5.6: Jet Boring Cavity Span on the McArthur River Critical Span Curve with
Ground Support, after Pakalnis (2012)
The influence of freezing on weak rock is clearly shown to increase the rock mass conditions
from an estimated unfrozen RMR of less than 35 of the jet bored cavities to approximately 50
(based on the stable unsupported line for a 5 m span). This increase in the frozen rock mass
strength is attributed to the increase in cohesion and UCS of the weak rock as the pore water
101
freezes.
A detailed discussion of the frozen lab testing in Sections 7 presents the observed influence of
freezing on a weak rock mass based on unconfined compressive strength and four-point beam
testing. This is corroborated by the Wardrop (2005) report on the increase of span opening in
frozen ground of several Russian underground mines for similar rock in unfrozen ground.
Cavity 3a exhibited creep in the lower grade ore, attributed to the slightly higher ground
temperature and higher pore water content of this clay rich zone (Cameco, 2000). The
convergence measured from a borehole calliper survey, occurred within the first four hours after
drilling the pilot hole. This creep behaviour was expected in the clay rich weak rock and frozen
ground, and is consistent with previous experience by Cigar Lake mine. The total convergence in
this section of Cavity 3a is up to 8 cm, 21% of the hole diameter after 10.5 hours and is within
the lowest grade of the ore zone, interpreted to be the highest clay rich portion. The test hole was
drilled vertically upward from the cross cut intersecting the unconformity at a height of 17.5 to
18 m above the cross cut. The orebody extended to 23.5m along the hole, a thickness of 6 to
6.5 m. Convergence readings taken at 30 second intervals measured inward displacement only
within the lower half of the ore zone from 16 to 21 m above the cross cut.
A second borehole, No. 2 drilled in the 1991 test mining also displayed convergence in the pilot
hole measuring up to 11% displacement equal to a closure of 38 mm. This borehole was drilled
as part of the initial test mining trials of boxhole boring and jet boring studies.
102
Results from both boreholes (No. 2 in 1991 and Cavity 3a in 2000) showed that convergence
occurred after the first four hours of drilling and none after that time. Given that the creep rate
accelerated for the first four hours and then remained constant before backfilling the cavity, the
convergence occurred through the primary strain hardening and secondary linear portion of the
creep curve.
Creep testing of the collected rock core from the Cigar Lake mine in 2009 was not completed as
part of the frozen lab testing program. Typical creep rates for dense clay to sandy clay should be
established with unfrozen and frozen creep testing. The rock mass is very poor and weak and
will squeeze/creep under unfrozen conditions due to the weak rock mass and under frozen
conditions due to the flow of ice over time. When frozen soil deforms its structure changes
continuously with varying influence by density, ice content, temperature, and confining pressure.
103
Figure 5.7: 510L RMR Values and Diamond Drill Hole Trajectories
The 510L is considered high risk mining because it is located in close vicinity to the water
bearing unconformity and in some cases actually passes through the unconformity on this level.
The ground in the vicinity of the unconformity was frozen prior to development to ensure that
any water bearing features would be sealed off. Heading 8225N was the first drift which was
mined through the unconformity, though no face mapping with RMR76 calculations were done in
this drift. The next heading mined in frozen conditions was the 8240N, and RMR76 calculations
were done with the face mapping for the length of the drift. Following this, the 8220N slash was
104
developed off of 8225N, again with RMR76 values being recorded for the length of the drift.
The results of face mapping data were compared to corresponding unfrozen core logging data. In
general unfrozen face mapping data showed a slight increase in RMR76 parameters from the core
logging data; this can be attributed to scale, orientation and differences in mapping techniques as
opposed to core logging techniques. Within the sample set which was analyzed, the RMR76
parameter which was most greatly affected by ground freezing was the joint condition parameter.
The average increase from unfrozen core to frozen mapping was over 10 points but was as much
as 15 points.
Figure 5.8, Figure 5.9, and Figure 5.10 plot the unfrozen to frozen RMR values along the 510-
8240N and 510-8220N drifts. Ground improvement due to freezing appears to increase with
decreased ground competency.
105
Figure 5.9: 510-8240 Drift RMR Compared to Rock Core RMR
106
Figure 5.10: 8220N Drift RMR Compared to Rock Core RMR
Pakalnis and Mawson (Mawson 2012a, and Mawson 2012b) showed that the RMR76 increases
by an average of 38, for rock mass with RMR unfrozen of approximately 40 or less. Table 10
summarizes the average increase for each of the five parameters in the RMR system.
107
Table 5.4: Average Increase Between Frozen Face Mapping and Unfrozen Core
Logging (Mawson, 2012)
Parameter Average increase in
RMR76 value
(unfrozen to frozen)
Rock Strength ±8
RQD ±7
Joint spacing ±11
Joint condition ±11
Water 0
TOTAL average ±38
RMR76 increase
The sample size is small; however this study is a good basis for future studies. These studies
should use data from both unfrozen drill core and frozen excavated faces. Comparing the
influence of freezing from unfrozen to frozen conditions is recommended to be with frozen face
mapping and unfrozen drill core rather than comparing the frozen span and frozen rock mass
conditions in the previous Wardrop (2005) studies.
108
6. Cigar Lake Geotechnical Material Properties Based on 2009 Drilling
This section discusses the geotechnical domains that will be used to assist in designing the jet
bored cavities based on the geotechnical drilling and material properties from the previous
section including the 2009 surface freeze drilling campaign boreholes.
A (South) A’ B (South) B’
Cross-Section A Cross-Section B
A’ B’
A B
Figure 6.1: Geological Variability of Material at the Cigar Lake Mine, after MDH (2008)
109
For the 2009 surface freeze drill program, the rock descriptions applied in this research were
modified from previous nomenclature. The samples were logged by alteration not by stiffness as
the soft, intermediate and indurated clays are not located with consistent spatial order from the
orebody. Understanding the rock mass quality with vertical distance away from the orebody will
be the focus for defining the geotechnical zones over grouping by lithology. The alteration and
fracturing of the rock overlying the orebody is highly variable and inconsistent between
boreholes. Golder (2002) noted that there does not appear to be any trend relating rockmass
conditions above the ore nor was there any general pattern in the drillholes indicating the
location of intermediate or indurated clay over the orebody.
Based on the 2009 boreholes, it was noted that the rock types generally followed the following
lithology sequence.
• Competent good quality sandstone of the Athabasca Formation overlying the orebody.
With decreasing rock mass quality from approximately 30 to 40 m above the ore.
• Increasing fracturing and alteration of the sandstone occurs to within 10 to 20 m of the
orebody.
• The outer 10 to 20 m of the orebody comprises a highly altered (bleached sandstone)
where the rock mass is very poor quality, white, sandy clay to friable sandstone.
• Directly overlying the orebody, lays the "clay cap", though as mentioned previously is
not a massive continuous clay cap over the orebody. Instead the material overlying the
orebody is termed hematized sandstone, referring to the iron oxidation alteration process.
The hematized sandstone is typically extremely to very weak sandstone or a dense sandy
clay. The hematized sandstone is stiffer and contains more of the sandstone rock fabric
than the bleached sandstone. The hematized sandstone is not present or a continuous
layer over the orebody, in some areas the bleached sandstone directly overlies the
orebody.
Table 6.1 presents the rock descriptions applied in this research to the Cigar Lake material.
Table 6.1: Summary of Rock Formations and Rock Descriptions Used for the 2009
Geotechnical Logging of Samples
Rock Type Origin / Formation Description Average
Thickness
Sandstone Manitou Falls White to pinkish grey, fine grained, medium strong, fresh 400 m
Sandstone to slightly weathered, RQD 60-100%.
Altered Manitou Falls White to pinkish grey, fine grained, medium strong, 25 m
110
Rock Type Origin / Formation Description Average
Thickness
Sandstone Sandstone slightly weathered, increasing fracturing RQD 40-70%.
Bleached Manitou Falls White, hydrothermal bleaching, massive clay to mixed 5 - 10 m
Sandstone / Sandstone sandstone and clay, soft clay to extremely weak rock,
Clay moderately to highly weathered. Zones of core loss
Hematized Manitou Falls Red to greyish red, close proximity to ore, 5m
Sandstone / Sandstone intermediate/indurated clay to weak rock, structural fabric
Clay and jointing still present
Ore Faulting / Greyish green, very weak to medium strong, slightly to 3 - 10 m
Hydrothermal moderately weathered, clay banding, increasing rock
Alteration hardness with ore content,
Altered Pre-Cambrian Graphitic metapelite, green, extremely weak to very weak, 5m
Basement clay and pebble (gritty) mixture, moderately weathered.
RQD 70-90%
Basement Pre-Cambrian Graphitic metapelite, green, strong, fresh to slightly -
weathered. RQD 80-100%
Bleached Sandstone
Hematized Sandstone
Ore
The clay cap from here on will be represented by the hematized sandstone and bleached
sandstone, the material intersected in all 2009 surface freeze drillholes both overlying the
orebody. Caution should be exercised on relying in this material to be entirely overlying the
orebody as Itasca (2009) commented on the discontinuous and heterogeneous nature of the "clay
cap" comprising very weak sandstone to stiff/very stiff clay.
111
6.2 Historical Geotechnical Drilling
The purpose of this section is to compare previous geotechnical summaries of the material
overlying the orebody with the data collected from the drilling program. Prior to the 2009
drilling program there was insufficient geotechnical data to characterize the hematite-rich “clay
cap” material overlying the orebody. The material directly overlying the orebody has commonly
been described as a massive clay rich zone averaging 1 to 5 m thick with a maximum thickness
10 m. However, discontinuous zones of intermediate clay, indurated clay and very weak to weak
sandstone are present.
The historical geomechanical database provided by Cigar Lake Mine contains the geotechnical
parameters (recovery, RQD, strength, weathering, and lithology) of 48 boreholes drilled in the
1980's and 1990's. Joint condition and joint alteration were not routinely logged and therefore the
historical boreholes are not appropriate for calculating Rock Mass Rating (RMR) parameters, to
establish the degree of alteration and fracturing around the ore body.
RQD data was the only parameter routinely collected. However, this data is extremely suspect as
high RQD values were given to intervals of very weak rock (S6 to R1); as previously noted, core
with a UCS of less than 1 MPa (less than R1) are not supposed to be included in the RQD and
should have been assigned a RQD of zero. NQ boreholes (48 mm core diameter) were drilled
and logged by Cameco's geologists or technicians. It was noted by the author that the level of
accuracy of the geotechnical parameters especially RQD percentages did not reflect the rock
strength or recovered core length for the same drill interval. Drill runs with a strength of less than
R1 (soil like) were often recorded as 100 % RQD. Using RQD % alone from the historical
drilling may imply the ground over the orebody is stronger than it actually is.
Reviewing all collected geotechnical drillhole information there is a lack of consistency between
various data sets as the majority of boreholes drilled in the beginning of the exploration program
were not specifically logged for geotechnical purposes and therefore lack completeness.
Table 6.2 lists the boreholes drilled and used for frozen laboratory testing part of this research.
Table 6.2: Summary of 2009 Surface Freeze Holes for Geotechnical Sampling
Borehole Easting Northing Borehole Lithology Intersections
ID Dip/Dip Bleached Hematized Orebody Basement Uncon-
Direction Sandstone Sandstone formity
Top Thick. Top Thick. Top Thick. Top Thick. Depth
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
SF791- 10791.0 10027.5 90/NA 407 24 431 0.3 431.3 12 443.3 - 435.3
06
SF791- 10791.0 10032.5 90/NA 400 30 430 3.2 433.2 2.6 435.8 - 436.5
07
SF801- 10801.0 10027.5 90/NA - - 432 5.1 437.1 3.3 440.4 - 438.4
04
SF801- 10801.0 10032.5 90/NA 400 29 429 5 434 4.8 438.8 - 437.3
05
ST786- 10786.0 10020.0 90/NA 410 21.6 - 0 431.6 8.7 440.3 - 439.3
07
ST791- 10791.0 10022.5 90/NA 422 12 434 1.15 435.15 8.35 443.5 - 439.25
05
ST796- 10796.0 10030.0 90/NA 410 20.5 430.5 2.3 432.8 6 438.8 - 437.9
05
ST801- 10801.0 10022.5 90/NA 422 12 434 3.2 437.2 4.5 441.7 - 440.2
03
Three predominant material types overly the orebody: (1) intermediate clay, (2) indurated clay /
very weak sandstone, (3) weak sandstone. The weakest material is intermediate clay locally up to
several meters thick. From the surface freeze drillholes, the orebody ranges from 3 to 15 m thick
with an average of 6 m. The hematized sandstone (clay altered sandstone) typically directly over
the orebody ranges from 2 to 5 m thick. The material (hematized and bleached sandstone)
overlying the orebody is clay rich comprising discontinuous zones of very weak sandstone to
stiff/very stiff clay. The highly altered zone above the orebody averages 10 m and extends up to
113
15 m thick. The extremely altered zone commonly thought as massive clay several meters above
the orebody is not consistent between drillholes.
The purpose of the material properties data collection program was to address data gaps from
historical geotechnical drilling and provide an understanding of the shear strength and time
dependent behaviour of weak frozen rock under pressure. From the eight boreholes drilled,
samples were collected from four boreholes. Acrylic liners were placed inside the core barrel
instead of metal splits to minimize sample handling and disturbance on surface. The 1.5 m long
acrylic tubes were sealed on either end at the drill rig and stored inside the Cigar Lake core
warehouse prior to shipment for laboratory testing.
The following sections discuss some of the input parameters (RQD and strength) logged for the
rock mass classification in order to develop cross-sections from the surface freeze drilling
campaign to illustrate the benefit of ground freezing to increasing the rock mass quality
discussed in Section 6.5.
114
Figure 6.3: Rock Quality Designation Plots of Geotechnically Logged 2009 Drillholes
115
6.4.2 Rock Strength
Intact rock strength is defined as the load per unit area at which a UCS sample fails and can be
estimated by using standard field identification methods such as a knife or hammer, point load
testing apparatus, or directly in the laboratory with a UCS load frame.
Table 6.3 summarizes the unfrozen field strength of the holes that were geotechnically logged
from the 2009 surface freeze drilling program. The field strength of the rock core in 2009 was
measured by the geologist with a knife or hammer. No point load testing was completed on the
rock core.
116
Table 6.4: Joint Roughness of Geotechnically Logged 2009 Drillholes
Joint Roughness (Jr)
Lithology Average Minimum Maximum
Sandstone 2.6 0 3
Altered Sandstone 2.5 1 3
(Bleached)
Altered Sandstone 2.0 1 3
(Hematized)
Ore 1.8 0 3
Altered Basement 2.5 1 3
Basement 2.4 0 4
For both RMR calculations, a groundwater rating for dry conditions has been assumed for the
purpose of assessing the geomechanical characteristics of the rock mass in the absence of
117
external factors. For certain design applications, it may be necessary to adjust the rock mass
quality to account for the expected water conditions.
The Cigar Lake rock mass around the orebody is generally medium strong to strong, blocky with
preferential joints along bedding, and fair to good quality. Poor rock zones (shown in red in
Figure 6.5 to Figure 6.8) are generally very weak to weak and associated with faulted areas and
high degrees of alteration. Faults encountered to date can be described as poor to good quality,
depending on the relative intensity of fracturing and infilling within the fractures.
Table 6.6 summarizes the measured rock mass classification values for main lithologies observed
in the 2009 surface freeze drilling program.
Table 6.6: Unfrozen RMR76 and Q' of Geotechnically Logged 2009 Drillholes
Rock Mass Rating (RMR76)
Lithology Average Minimum Maximum
Sandstone (below 400 m elev.) 29 9 50
Altered Sandstone (Bleached) 27 10 42
Altered Sandstone (Hematized) 25 13 41
Ore 30 3 39
Altered Basement 29 11 41
Basement (to end of hole) 37 18 58
Q'
Lithology Average Minimum Maximum
Sandstone (below 400 m elev.) 2.4 0.06 45.0
Altered Sandstone (Bleached) 1.8 0.01 25.4
Altered Sandstone (Hematized) 0.4 0.01 3.0
Ore 1.8 0.01 4.0
Altered Basement 1.6 0.01 3.5
Basement (to end of hole) 6.6 0.01 50.0
118
6.6 Summary of 2009 Surface Freeze Drill Holes for Laboratory Testing Samples
Samples for laboratory testing were collected from the following boreholes listed below in Table 6.7. This table lists the recorded field
strength, rock quality designation and rock mass rating for the ore and material overlying the orebody in each borehole.
Table 6.7: Summary of Surface Freeze Borehole Field Strength, RQD, and RMR
AVERAGE 10 9 10 13 71 62 51 52 30 25 23 28
NOTE: Boreholes ST786-07, ST796-05, and SF801-04 have not been logged in clay cap as core in acrylic tubes.
119
• From approximately 400 m below ground surface to the top of the orebody, the rock mass
quality decreases from an approximate RMR76 of 50 to an average RMR76 of 30 along
with an observed strength decrease in field hardness from R2.5 (37.5 MPa ) to R1 (1 to 5
MPa).
• There are no clear rock mass quality transition zones between boreholes or with depth as
anomalous zones of very poor or medium strong rockmass are present.
• Comparing the Rock Mass Rating (RMR), field strength, and Rock Quality Designation
(RQD) transitioning upwards from the orebody with the decrease in alteration away from
the orebody is not very helpful to establish trends in the geotechnical properties given the
scatter of data.
• The transition of alteration from the orebody may not be a vertical gradient with distance
away from the orebody, but rather a mixture of materials controlled by faulting.
Figure 6.4 shows the cross-section locations and boreholes selected for laboratory testing. Figure
6.5 to Figure 6.8 plot cross-sections of the calculated unfrozen rock mass rating (RMR76) in the
2009 surface freeze drillholes and nearby historical drillholes. The purpose of these sections is to
apply the relationship between the unfrozen and frozen RMR, developed in Section 8 and
illustrate the gain in strength that is possible due to freezing conditions.
N 10,032
E 10,800
Borehole for
Geotechnical Logging and
Laboratory Testing
Moderately/Highly
Altered RMR76 < 20
RMR76 20 – 35
RMR76 35 - 45
Extremely
Altered
ore
unconformity
Figure 6.5: Cross Section North 10,032, Through Surface Freeze Holes, Unfrozen RMR76
121
ST801-03 ST801-04 ST801-05
Moderately/Highly
Altered
Extremely
RMR76 < 20
Altered
RMR76 20 – 35
RMR76 35 - 45
unconformity
ore
Figure 6.6: Cross Section East 10,800 Through Surface Freeze Holes, Unfrozen RMR76
122
ST791-05 SF791-06 SF791-07
Moderately/Highly
Altered
RMR76 < 20
Extremely RMR76 20 – 35
Altered RMR76 35 - 45
ore unconformity
Figure 6.7: Cross Section East 10,790 Through Surface Freeze Holes, Unfrozen RMR76
123
130 SF796-05 109
RMR76 < 20
RMR76 20 – 35
RMR76 35 - 45
ore
unconformity
Figure 6.8: Cross Section East 10,796 Through Surface Freeze Holes, Unfrozen RMR76
124
7. Frozen Laboratory Testing
This section discusses the frozen Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS), frozen four-point
beam, and frozen direct shear testing on the core collected from the 2009 surface freezing
drilling program.
The unfrozen UCS is also a parameter in Bieniawski's Rock Mass Rating system (Bieniawski,
1976 and 1989) (refer to Section 2.5.1). Establishing unfrozen and frozen UCS values for the
various Cigar Lake material types will be used to understand the influence of freezing on the
empirical data of rock mass rating values vs. opening span for underground cavities.
The target sampling zone from the material properties drill program were the materials above
and below the orebody to be influenced by the bulk freezing. As described in Section 4, altered
Athabasca sandstone unconformably overlies altered metapelite basement. The orebody is a
highly altered uranium rich heterogeneous mixture of pitchblende, pitchblende-rich clay,
125
pitchblende-impregnated sandstone, clay, silt, and sand. The University of Alberta laboratory
was not equipped to handle and test samples greater than 2% U3O8, therefore only the altered
sandstone and metapelite basement material was tested.
7.1.3 Equipment
Samples were trimmed with a knife to measure approximately 75 mm in diameter by 150 mm in
length to maintain a length to diameter ratio of 2:1 and placed inside a rubber membrane inside
the triaxial cell. The triaxial cell was then filled with mineral oil around the sample. The
temperature of the mineral oil was controlled with glycol circulating in copper rings. Outside the
triaxial cell are rings of copper with glycol circulating at half a degree lower than ambient
temperature. The load cell sits underneath the triaxial cell with a maximum capacity of 5000 lb.
A displacement transducer is attached to the top of the load conducting rod to measure axial
displacement. A LC-5000 single syringe pump was used to apply the required load to the sample
up to a maximum load of 20 MPa. Load and displacement data is recorded at user specific time
intervals, typically 15s.
Figure 7.1 to Figure 7.4 shows the setup and equipment for frozen UCS testing at the University
of Alberta cold room.
126
Figure 7.1: Inside Cold Room, Triaxial Cell Setup. Left Triaxial Cell is a Sample
Freezing Waiting to be Tested. Right Triaxial Cell is a Sample Undergoing Testing.
Figure 7.2: Triaxial Cell Filled with Mineral Oil, Sitting on Load Cell. Displacement
LVDT Sensor Seen to Top Right of Cell. Load is Applied by the Top Load Conducting Rod
127
Figure 7.3: Syringe Pump Controlling Loading Rate and Measuring Load
Figure 7.4: Glycol Transfer Unit Circulating Glycol in Copper Coils Outside of Triaxial
Cell. Glycol Circulating at Half a Degree Celsius Below Ambient Room Temperature.
128
7.1.3.1 Temperature and Strain Rate for UCS Testing
The target design freeze temperature prior to mining the Cigar Lake orebody is -12oC (personnel
communication with Cigar Lake mine). Previous UCS testing was undertaken by Golder (1986)
and EBA (1990) of the clay cap and orebody material. The historical UCS testing was conducted
at temperatures of -2, -5 and -20oC. Results of the previous data are summarized with the current
data in Figure 7.16. EBA (1990) suggested additional frozen UCS testing be completed of the
soft and intermediate clays at -5, -10, and -20oC to establish the relationship between frozen
strength with temperature.
Two sets of UCS testing at -10oC and -20oC were completed at three strain rates (varying from
0.01%/min to 0.1%/min) on the three main rock types drilled: hematized sandstone/clay (more
altered), bleached sandstone (less altered), and altered metapelite basement. Samples were
loaded to failure or approximately 10% axial strain if the load remained constant during the test.
Samples were also tested at strain rates varying from 0.01%/min to 0.1%/min to understand the
effect of applied strain rate on the frozen material. Strain rates above 1%/minute will induce
brittle behaviour resulting in higher strength data than that expected in the field. Strain rates
below 0.01%/minute can possibly exhibit creep behaviour due to the long loading time on the
sample (several days).
129
Figure 7.5: Cross Section of Frozen High Moisture Content Hematized Sandstone
Showing Little to No Ice Lensing Present after 24 hours Freezing at -10oC
Weaker rock samples (unfrozen strength less than 2 MPa) with low moisture content failed on
obvious shear plans, such as bedding or pre-existing joints. Samples tested with unfrozen
moisture contents greater than 30% did not fail on pre-existing shear planes but rather on the
friction plane.
Samples were loaded to failure, or approximately ten percent total strain. After the sample is
loaded past 15-20% strain the results are not considered reliable due to the breakdown and
cracking of the ice bonding. Three strain rates (0.1%/min, 0.06%/min, and 0.03%/min) were
130
applied to each rock type set (graphitic metapelite basement, bleached sandstone, and hematized
sandstone/clay) for temperatures at -10oC and -20oC. The strain rate was controlled by the rate of
the applied load; however, the measurements were collected manually with an LVDT (Load
Value Displacement Transducer) attached to a screwdriver on the top of the loading plate. There
are inconsistencies and missing data with the measured strain rate over time using the
screwdriver with LVDT. The jumps or missed data are averaged over these portions.
When a frozen specimen is subjected to a load it will respond in instantaneous deformation and a
time-dependent deformation. Creep of a jet bored cavity is a concern as the stand-up time and
time-deformation properties of this material is not fully defined. The conditions under which
creep would be expected were not present during the UCS testing.
Graphs of the UCS testing for each rock type and testing method are presented in the following
sections. Individual data files for each test completed are included in Appendix B.
Note the rock strength index term of R0.5 is applied in this research to define the unfrozen rock
strength of the UCS samples. This term applies to rock that did not fit either the ISRM R0
(indented by thumbnail) or R1 (crumbles under firm blows with point of geological hammer)
term, as the matrix of these very weak rock masses was still present many samples could not be
indented by a thumbnail but be sliced with a knife with ease.
131
Table 7.1: Summary of Frozen UCS Testing on Bleached Sandstone
Avg.
Sample Unfrozen Test Strain Moisture Bulk
ID ID Depth Strength Temp Rate Content S.G. Density Porosity UCS E
(m) (MP) (1) (oC) (%/min) (by Wt) (g/cm3) (MPa) (MPa)
ST786-
6 427.55 0.5 -10 0.14 35.6 2.71 1.36 0.50 2.12 922
07
ST786-
7 427.73 2 -10 0.01 38.1 2.68 1.34 0.50 1.57 1158
07
ST786-
8 424.9 3 -20 0.11 34.2 2.70 1.48 0.45 1.35 2346
07
Did not
fail
9 SF801-04 428.76 20 -10 0.47 10.0 2.70 2.19 0.19 5946
(>20
MPa)
ST786-
16 426.9 3 -20 0.10 33.2 2.71 1.58 0.42 4.48 1325
07
ST786-
17 427.1 3 -20 0.06 30.0 2.71 1.54 0.43 5.03 1872
07
ST786-
18 427.3 0.5 -20 0.01 43.0 2.68 1.31 0.51 3.67 3322
07
22 SF801-04 432.35 2 -10 0.5 30.7 2.64 1.50 0.43 2.25 1195
23 SF801-04 432.55 2 -10 0.04 30.9 2.70 1.54 0.43 2.38 968
Note:
1. The unfrozen strength was assessed with a pocket knife
132
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
T=-20oC
T=-10oC
Figure 7.6: Frozen UCS vs. Total Strain of Bleached Sandstone Samples
Note:
(1). R0 and R0.5 refer to the field strength (R0 to R6) assessed while trimming the samples
133
7.1.4.2 Hematized Sandstone UCS Results
Table 7.2 and Figure 7.7 present the UCS testing data and UCS strain plots for the hematized
sandstone/clay. This material directly overlies the orebody in the majority of the 2009 surface
freeze drilling boreholes and is typically 2 m thick (ranging from 0.5 to 5 m). The alteration
processes of the orebody have created a hematite rich dark red, dense clay to highly altered
sandstone. The sandstone fabric and jointing are still present in this material though the strength
of this sandstone borders on soil like, easily indented with a thumb or sliced with a knife.
Avg.
Sample Unfrozen Test Strain Moisture Bulk
ID ID Depth Strength Temp. Rate Content S.G Density Porosity UCS E
(m) (MP) (1) (oC) (%/min) (by Wt) (g/cm3) (MPa) (MPa)
ST791-
1 432.25 2 -10 0.06 23.2 2.81 1.94 0.31 4.81 1352
06
SF801-
3 435.15 0.5 -10 0.15 20.6 2.85 1.91 0.33 2.08 3540
04
SF801-
4 435.25 0.5 -10 0.01 20.7 3.01 1.93 0.36 1.33 1198
04
SF801-
5 435.5 2 -10 0.05 15.9 3.09 2.14 0.31 6.54 2685
04
SF801-
19 434.7 0.5 -20 0.15 22.8 3.01 1.83 0.39 3.39 2055
04
SF801-
20 435 2 -20 0.03 20.9 3.01 1.87 0.38 4.16 1830
04
SF801-
24 432.75 2 -20 0.14 28.2 2.70 1.63 0.40 5.71 1845
04
Note:
1. The unfrozen strength was assessed with a pocket knife
134
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
T=-20oC
T=-10oC
135
7.1.4.3 Graphitic Metapelite Basement UCS Results
Table 7.3 and Figure 7.8 present the UCS testing data and UCS strain plots for the altered
graphitic metapelite basement. The basement rock present below the orebody (starting ~ 440 m
level) is highly altered due to the formation of the orebody, though alteration in the basement
does not correspond spatially with alteration of the overlying sandstone. Within the first few
meters of the orebody, the basement rock comprises soft clay in a pebbly matrix to slightly
weathered, medium strong metapelite. The rock from the 2009 surface freezing drilling core
samples was highly fractured leaving a limited number of samples that were competent for
testing. From approximately 10 m away from the orebody, the basement rock samples were too
strong for frozen UCS testing at the University of Alberta cold room given the 20 MPa load limit
of the testing apparatus.
Avg.
Sample Unfrozen Test Strain Moisture Bulk
ID ID Depth Strength Temp. Rate Content S.G Density Porosity UCS E
(m) (MP) (1) (oC) (%/min) (by Wt) (g/cm3) (MPa) (MPa)
SF801-
11 441.28 3 -10 0.13 22.0 2.67 1.69 0.37 2.80 240
04
SF801-
12 441.47 3 -10 0.04 26.1 2.67 1.65 0.38 3.38 433
04
SF801-
13 441.9 10 -10 0.56 15.8 2.64 1.81 0.31 7.96 5346
04
SF801-
26 442.85 2 -20 0.15 25.0 2.64 1.69 0.36 6.60 3217
04
SF801-
27 443.05 3 -20 0.05 25.0 2.60 1.61 0.38 3.10 3862
04
SF801-
28 443.2 3 -20 0.02 25.0 2.60 1.61 0.38 4.07 1332
04
Note:
1. The unfrozen strength was assessed with a pocket knife
136
T=-20oC
T=-10oC
Figure 7.8: Frozen UCS vs. Total Strain of Graphitic Metapelite Basement
137
Table 7.4: ISRM Field Strength Estimates, after Brown (1981)
Approx. Range of Uniaxial
Compressive Strength
Grade Description Field Identification MPa
Extremely weak 0.25 – 1.0
R0 Indented by thumbnail.
rock (>2.5 on Pocket Penetrometer)
1.0 - 5.0
Crumbles under firm blows with point of geological
R1 Very weak rock (Pocket Penetrometer does not
hammer, can be peeled by a pocket knife.
indent)
Can be peeled by a pocket knife with difficulty,
R2 Weak rock shallow indentations made by firm blow with point of 5.0 – 25
geological hammer.
Cannot be scraped or peeled with a pocket knife,
Medium strong
R3 specimen can be fractured with single firm blow of 25 – 50
rock
geological hammer.
Specimen requires more than one blow of geological
R4 Strong rock 50 – 100
hammer to fracture it.
Specimen requires many blows of geological hammer
R5 Very strong rock 100 - 250
to fracture it.
Extremely Specimen can only be chipped with geological
R6 >250
strong rock hammer.
Figure 7.9 and Figure 7.10 plot the unfrozen ISRM strength vs. frozen UCS value of all samples
and of samples that failed in shear (not on pre-existing joints or bedding), respectively. The
weakest rock samples (R0 and R1) are expected to have the greatest gain in strength due to
freezing. However, given the high variability of the samples tested, no trend between the
unfrozen and frozen strengths can be established from this data set.
138
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
Figure 7.9: Frozen UCS vs. Unfrozen ISRM Rock Strength, All Data
139
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
Figure 7.10: Frozen UCS vs. Unfrozen ISRM Rock Strength, Good Data, Samples That
Failed Through Joints or Bedding Removed
Plotting the UCS of each specimens applied strain rate on a log scale should ideally show a
linear trend.
Figure 7.11 and Figure 7.12 plots the 2009 results for freezing temperatures of -10 and -20oC,
140
respectively. Figure 7.13 plots the failure mechanism of the UCS samples, combining all rock
types and frozen test temperature. No linear trend between the applied strain rate and UCS is
evident, which is attributed to the varying degrees of alteration of the same rock type, the
samples failing in different manners, and the limited data set.
A slight increase in the UCS was noticed with increasing applied strain rate, though no
correlation in the applied strain rate with the UCS or mode of UCS failure could be established
due to the small data set and highly variable nature of the samples.
No apparent trend on the types of failures in the frozen UCS samples could be established by
rock type.
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
Figure 7.11: Plot of All Samples, Frozen UCS vs. Applied Strain Rate, T=-10oC
Note:
(1). R0 and R0.5 refer to the field strength (R0 to R6) assessed while trimming the samples
141
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
Figure 7.12: Plot of All Samples, Frozen UCS vs. Applied Strain Rate, T=-20oC
Note:
(1). R0 and R0.5 refer to the field strength (R0 to R6) assessed while trimming the samples
142
Figure 7.13: Frozen UCS vs. Strain Rate of All 2009 Samples, by Failure Mode
The target design freezewall temperature of the Cigar Lake orebody prior to jet boring is -12oC
(personal communication with Cigar Lake mine staff). Historical testing by EBA (1990) and
Golder (1986) was completed at temperatures of -5oC and -20oC. Given the limited number of
143
samples available from the 2009 surface freeze drilling program, test temperatures of -10 and -
20oC were used to compare with historical testing data.
Based on the UCS testing results (Figure 7.6, Figure 7.7, and Figure 7.8), a gain in strength of
approximately 5 MPa is evident from -10oC to -20oC in all rock types. The extremely weak to
very weak (R0 to R1) rocks are expected to have the largest strength gain with freezing due to
the higher moisture content in very weak rock samples. Medium strong rocks (R3, 50 MPa) and
greater are not expected to show significant gain in strength with freezing due to the reduced
moisture content and lack of available pore water to convert to ice. The strength of ice, though a
function of strain rate and temperature, is typically on the order of 20 to 35 MPa. Very weak
rocks, with compressive strengths of 1 to 5MPa, will almost double their strength due to the
conversion of water to ice. Beyond unfrozen rock strengths of 40 MPa (R3), the upper bound
strength of ice, little to no strength gain is expected with freezing.
Based on the testing completed at temperatures of -10oC, Figure 7.14 below establishes the
relationship between the estimated unfrozen rock strength and measured frozen strength. Note
that no samples greater than 25 MPa were tested in the 2009 laboratory testing program.
144
Figure 7.14: Influence of Freezing and Strength Gain for Weak Cigar Lake Rock
From the 2009 testing (Figure 7.15), UCS samples tested at temperatures of -10oC and -20oC
exhibited brittle, elastic perfectly plastic and strain softening behaviour. Samples tested at -10oC
failed between 1 and 8 MPa with the samples failing in strain softening behaviour comprising the
weakest material tested (unfrozen strength of R0 to R0.5, equivalent to 0.5 to 1 MPa). The
samples failing in a brittle manner comprise the strongest material tested (unfrozen strength R1
to R2, equivalent to 1 to 5 MPa). Samples tested at -20oC failed between 1 and 7 MPa; however,
the majority of the specimens failed elastic perfectly plastic with only a couple exhibiting brittle
or strain softening behaviour. The change in UCS failure mode with a decrease in temperature is
attributed to polycrystalline ice behaving brittle with colder temperatures, though this was not
evident in the 2009 lab testing.
The majority of the samples tested at -20oC failed elastic perfectly plastic compared to the
145
samples tested at -10oC that failed as strain softening. This is attributed more to the samples
tested at -10oC having a lower unfrozen strength than the samples tested at -20oC, and may not
be due to a change in failure mechanism with temperature.
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
Figure 7.15: Influence of Temperature on Frozen UCS, 2009 Data, by Failure Mode
Note:
(1). R0 and R0.5 refer to the field strength (R0 to R6) assessed while trimming the samples
Figure 7.16 summarizes the effect of temperature on the UCS strength with the historical UCS
testing of Cigar Lake material along with the 2009 samples from the surface freeze drill program.
The upper and lower bound lines are drawn based on visual assessment of the data.
146
Freezewall Design Temperature
o
T=-12 C
UCS ~ 3 MPa
Unfrozen UCS
o
T=0 C
UCS ~ 0.5 to 2 MPa
Figure 7.16: Influence of Temperature on Frozen UCS, All Data, by Rock Type
147
Table 7.5: Summary of Unfrozen Bulk Densities
Bulk Density (g/m3)
Based on Figure 7.17, no trend between the bulk density of the sample and the UCS can be
established. The hematized clay/sandstone has the highest bulk density due to the iron rich
alteration of the sandstone.
148
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
The relationship between porosity and unfrozen UCS is that the UCS generally increases with
decreasing porosity. The lower the porosity the higher the specimen’s strength due to the dense
packing of particles filling the void spaces and increasing the volume change under an applied
load. Porosities higher than 0.2 are generally classified as weak rock, as comparable in the
material tested. From all the material tested, a significant decrease in the frozen UCS strength
149
from an average of 5 MPa at a porosity of 0.30 to an average of 2 MPa at a porosity of 0.50.
With decreasing porosity, there is a general increase in the frozen strength data.
Bleached sandstone has a higher porosity (ranging from .42 to 0.52) compared to the rest of the
material types tested.
Figure 7.18 and Figure 7.19 plot the measured porosity to the frozen UCS by rock type and
failure mode.
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
150
Figure 7.19: Frozen UCS vs. Porosity, by Failure Mode
151
Unfrozen Strength
R0 ~ 0.25 to 0.5 MPa
R0.5 ~ 0.5 to 1 MPa
R1 ~ 1 to 5 MPa
7.1.5 Results
In summary, the following observations were noted from the frozen UCS testing of Cigar Lake
material:
• Samples frozen to T = -10oC failed at an average UCS of 2MPa and total strain of 2-3%.
The unfrozen strength of these samples ranged from 0.5 to 1 MPa. Overall, the
approximate strength gain was 2 MPa.
• Samples frozen to T = -20oC failed at an average UCS of 5 MPa and a total strain of 4-
6%. The unfrozen strength of these samples ranged from 0.5 to 1 MPa. Overall, the
approximate strength gain was 4 MPa.
• Samples tested at T = -10oC typically exhibit strain-softening behaviour compared to
152
those frozen at T = -20oC where they exhibit elastic/plastic behaviour.
• The UCS of the material tested (altered sandstone and basement) did not appear to be
strain rate dependent.
• No creep was observed under the testing regime.
• Some samples were observed to fail in a brittle manner even though the strain plots do
not really support the failure mode.
• The strength increase in the frozen UCS was several MPa comparing the historical
samples tested by Golder (2002) and EBA (1996) at -5oC to the current samples at -10 to
-20oC.
Limitations of laboratory testing with the provided setup that were not resolved;
• Cannot freeze samples at 4.5 MPa confining pressure
• Cannot freeze samples at the same freezing rate in the lab as expected in the field.
Samples were generally frozen in 24 hrs in the cold room compared with 6 months to a
year that is expected for a full freeze front to form around the Cigar Lake orebody
• Concern of the representativeness of the samples frozen in the laboratory given the
potential for ice lenses to develop
Four-point beam testing was undertaken on a suite of premixed concrete and altered sandstone
drill core from the 2009 surface freeze drill sampling program. The four-point beam apparatus is
shown in Figure 7.21.
153
Figure 7.21: Four-Point Beam Test Apparatus
Prior to testing the core from Cigar Lake, frozen sand/cement mixtures were tested to refine the
freezing and testing procedure be used as well as to test the behaviour of a frozen joint using a
controlled material for the matrix. Measurement of the load at first crack, peak load and
deformations on the core midspan and ends were recorded.
The traditional approach to understand stability in stratified ground is to model the immediate
roof as if it were a beam. Beam theory assumes that the immediate roof can be represented by a
series of equal width beams, with a length equal to the room span. A beam is capable of carrying
loads in bending and applies loads transverse to its longest dimension. Three point and four point
154
flexural testing is typically used in the laboratory to measure the modulus of elasticity in the
bending moments of concrete, wood, steel or other materials.
Bending tests are simple and quick to complete, but are influenced by the applied strain rate and
specimen geometry. The beam will fail at its midpoint, developing a tensile crack as the beam
fails under tensile stresses that develop from its underside (relative to its flexure), before the
compressive stresses that develop on its top side approach the compressive strength. The flexural
strength is equivalent to the tensile strength assuming the beam is homogeneous without defects
or flaws. Beam theory relates flexure resulting from applied forces without considerations of
shearing forces. Assumptions of simple beam theory include: the beam is symmetrical across its
axis, and there is a fixed relationship between stress and strain as a beam behaves the same in
tension as in compression.
Flexural strength is determined by loading a beam with a span length at least three times the
depth. The flexural strength is expressed as a modulus of rupture in psi or MPa. The modulus of
rupture for four-point loading of cylindrical rock specimen with loads applied at L/3 from each
end and reactions at the ends is defined as TMR = 16PmaxL / 3πd3 (Goodman, 1989).
Where :
Pmax = maximum load
L = length between load reactions on the lower surface
d = core diameter
In an unfrozen state the degree of jointing and infilling material in a rock mass will control the
failure. No research or data was located by the author on how a frozen jointed weak rock mass
fails. Failing a rock specimen in tension, produces a crack at the midpoint of the beam. If the
frozen joint is weaker than the rock mass ideally the beam will fail along the joint. If the frozen
joint is stronger than the rock mass the beam will fail as a solid beam through the midpoint of the
beam. The increased cohesion of a joint undergoing freezing will be influenced by the type and
thickness of infilling and the degree of moisture on the joint surface. A smooth and planar joint
with no infilling and no moisture will not have sufficient cohesion to bond the joint surfaces
together.
155
The following sections outline the samples and method of preparation for the four point beam
testing. The tensile strength of each beam is based on the modulus of rupture. The modulus of
rupture is calculate for each beam at the peak force at failure and center point deflection recorded
using a Linear Variable Displacement Transducer (LVDT) on the same axis as the two outer
roller pins.
Sample Size
• The core diameter of the 2009 surface freeze holes is approximately 83 mm (3.25”)
• According to Goodman (1988), for 3” diameter core samples, the test span length should
be 9” and the beam length prepared to 12”.
Freezing
• Both the concrete beam samples and the Cigar Lake drill core samples were placed inside
a large freezer in the University of British Columbia Rock Mechanics lab.
• The freezer temperature was set to a temperature of -12oC (the design freeze temperature
of the jet bored cavities); however, the temperature inside the freezer fluctuated
considerably.
• The samples were stored inside a Styrofoam container to minimize the influence of the
freezer door opening during the samples’ 24 hr period inside the freezer.
• Both the cement mixture and drill core samples were rotated once during their freezing
period to eliminate the effect of a freezing front, where the sample will freeze faster from
the side closest to the freezer walls.
• Metal clamps were placed around the PVC containing the cement mixture and drill core
samples while in the freezer to control the 9% phase change expansion of water to ice.
• Frozen UCS testing is to be undertaken at low strain rates (0.01%-0.1%/min). The current
156
loading rate of the four-point beam testing by hand will apply a strain rate that is
significantly greater and should be addressed with future testing.
Temperature
• The test temperature was it ambient room temperature with the option to surround the test
apparatus with insulation if necessary. However, the samples were tested and failed
within 60 seconds. The option to include insulation around the beam test apparatus was
not pursued.
The prepared cement mixtures followed testing method ASTM C 78 which determines the
flexural strength of concrete using a simple beam with 3-point loading where half the load is
applied at each third of the span length and the maximum stress is present over the center 1/3 of
the beam, or ASTM C 298-08 where the entire load is applied at the center span and the
maximum stress is only present at the center part of the beam.
Batches of cement and sand mixtures were prepared at various proportions, moisture content,
and joint condition.
Forty cement mixture samples were prepared by mixing Portland cement, sand and water in a 5
gallon bucket and pouring into a 12” x 3” cylindrical PVC mold. Four types of mixtures were
prepared each with different moisture contents and without or with the presence of a joint
through the axial center plane of the cement mixture sample:
157
• 100 % cement mixed with aggregate;
• 50:50 sand:cement;
• 33:66 sand:cement; and
• 40:60 sand:cement.
The beams were allowed to cure for 3 hours prior to placing in the freezer for a period of 24
hours.
Table 7.6: Summary of Cement Mixture Samples for Four-Point Beam Testing
Freezing Moisture Peak Tensile
Test Sample Batch Joint Temp. Content Pressure Strength
No. No. No. Mix Design (y/n) (oC) (%) (kPa) (MPa) (2)
1 1 1 50/50 Sand/Cement No -12 14.7 2650 1.79
2 2 1 50/50 Sand/Cement No -12 14.7 2440 1.51
3 3 1 50/50 Sand/Cement No -12 14.7 3350 2.27
4 4 1 50/50 Sand/Cement No -12 14.7 3950 2.48
5 1 2 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -13 17.5 560 0.37
6 2 2 50/50 Sand/Cement No -13 17.5 1830 1.19
7 3 2 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -13 17.5 2800 1.86
8 4 2 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -13 17.5 990 0.66
9 1 3 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -11 18.7 490 0.31
10 2 3 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -11 18.7 n/a(1) n/a(1)
11 1 4 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -11 18.7 n/a(1) n/a(1)
12 2 4 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -11 18.7 n/a(1) n/a(1)
13 3 4 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -11 18.7 n/a(1) n/a(1)
14 1 5 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -12 12.1 1730 1.11
15 2 5 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -12 12.1 520 0.33
16 3 5 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -12 12.1 2320 1.49
17 4 5 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -12 12.1 680 0.44
18 1 6 Cement w/ Aggregate Yes -12 12.1 880 0.56
19 2 6 Cement w/ Aggregate Yes -12 12.1 n/a(1) n/a(1)
20 3 6 Cement w/ Aggregate No +20 12.1 n/a(1) n/a(1)
21 4 6 Cement w/ Aggregate No +20 12.1 n/a(1) n/a(1)
22 1 7 Cement w/ Aggregate No -12 10.8 1900 1.21
23 2 7 Cement w/ Aggregate Yes -12 10.8 800 0.49
24 3 7 Cement w/ Aggregate Yes -12 10.8 800 0.51
25 1 8 Cement w/ Aggregate Yes -12 13.9 n/a(1) n/a(1)
26 2 8 Cement w/ Aggregate Yes -12 13.9 n/a(1) n/a(1)
27 3 8 Cement w/ Aggregate no -12 13.9 1100 0.68
158
Freezing Moisture Peak Tensile
Test Sample Batch Joint Temp. Content Pressure Strength
No. No. No. Mix Design (y/n) (oC) (%) (kPa) (MPa) (2)
28 4 8 Cement w/ Aggregate Yes -12 13.9 n/a(1) n/a(1)
29 1 9 33/66 Sand/Cement Yes -11 28.8 700 0.48
30 2 9 33/66 Sand/Cement Yes -11 28.8 900 0.63
31 3 9 33/66 Sand/Cement Yes -11 28.8 n/a(1) n/a(1)
32 4 9 33/66 Sand/Cement No -11 28.8 1000 0.63
33 1 10 40/60 Sand/Cement Yes -12 18.5 800 0.58
34 2 10 40/60 Sand/Cement no -12 18.5 1300 0.78
35 3 10 40/60 Sand/Cement yes -12 18.5 1300 0.91
36 4 10 40/60 Sand/Cement Yes -12 18.5 1500 0.91
37 1 11 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -5 16.7 1900 1.34
38 2 11 50/50 Sand/Cement No -5 16.7 1600 1.08
39 3 11 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -5 16.7 1100 0.71
40 4 11 50/50 Sand/Cement Yes -5 16.7 800 0.54
Note:
1. Sample failed on handling
2. Based on an assumed Young’s Modulus of 0.5 GPa
Table 7.7: Summary of Drill Core Samples for Frozen Four-Point Beam Testing
Unfrozen Moisture Peak Tensile
Sample Joint Content Pressure Strength
Test No. Sample No. Hole ID Depth (m) Strength (y/n) (%) (kPa) (MPa) (2)
1 1 SF791-06 429.5 R 0.5 No 34.0 680 0.30
2 2 SF801-04 431.2 R2 Yes 11.9 970 0.43
3 2 SF801-04 431.2 R1 No 11.9 1090 0.49
4 3 SF801-04 433.5 R2 No 28.7 1690 0.76
5 3 SF801-04 433.5 R 1.5 Yes 28.7 n/a(1) n/a(1)
6 4 SF801-04 431.4 R 0.5 Yes 35.5 760 0.34
7 5 SF796-05 432.05 R1 Yes 17.9 n/a(1) n/a(1)
Note:
1. Sample failed on handling
2. Based on an assumed Young’s Modulus of 0.5 GPa
159
7.2.4 Results
Based on the frozen four-point beam testing the following can be concluded on the strength of
frozen joints with trace to little infill and tight aperture:
• For unfrozen rock strengths less than 2 MPa (based on field strength assessments), the
frozen joint is as strong as the frozen rock mass.
• For unfrozen rock strengths greater than 2 MPa (based on field strength assessments), the
joint was observed to be weaker than the frozen rock mass
• For cement mixture and rock drill core samples greater than 30% moisture, a frozen joint
is as strong as the frozen rock mass.
• For the cement mixture beam testing, with increasing sand content, an increase in tensile
strength was observed
• Failures along joints with varying moisture or unfrozen strengths were not repeatable in
the laboratory.
• The frozen tensile strength of the cement mixture samples (~0.5 to 2 MPa) is slightly
higher comparing to similar unfrozen materials such as paste backfill (~0.2 MPa, Hughes
(2008).
Figure 7.22, Figure 7.23, and Figure 7.24 plot the tensile strength of the beam calculated from
the modulus of rupture versus the moisture content for the cement beams and rock drill core.
160
Figure 7.22: Frozen Tensile Strength vs. Moisture Content, Cement Samples by Mixture
161
Figure 7.23: Frozen Tensile Strength vs. Moisture Content, Cement by Joint Presence
162
Figure 7.24: Frozen Tensile Strength vs. Moisture, Drill Core Samples by Joint Presence
163
7.3 Frozen Direct Shear Testing
Determining the shear strength of rock joints is significant to understanding rock mass
behaviour. The freezing of a rockmass is believed to have significant influence on the shear
strength behaviour, specifically the cohesion. Direct shear testing on natural joint surfaces and
intact rock specimens was undertaken to assisting with developing a model of the gained shear
strength of a frozen joint. Direct shear testing includes intact rock specimens to determine the
breaking strength (intact cohesion) of the rock, those with recognizable planes of weakness to
determine the shearing resistance along these planes, or jointed/fractured specimens to determine
the lower bound residual strength.
Sample Size
• The core diameter of the 2009 surface freeze holes is approximately 83 mm (3.25”)
Freezing
• After preparing the Cigar Lake drill core in the direct shear mould, the samples were
placed inside a large freezer in the University of British Columbia Rock Mechanics lab.
• The freezer temperature was set to a temperature of -12oC (the design freeze temperature
of the jet bored cavities); however, the temperature inside the freezer fluctuated
considerably.
• The samples were stored inside a Styrofoam container to minimize the influence of the
freezer door opening during the samples 24 hr period inside the freezer.
• Samples were rotated once during their freezing period to eliminate the effect of a
freezing front, where the sample will freeze faster from the side closest to the freezer
walls.
Temperature
• The test temperature was at ambient room temperature with the option to surround the
test apparatus with insulation if necessary. However, the samples were tested and failed
within 60 seconds. The option to include insulation around the beam test apparatus was
not pursued.
164
7.3.2 Test Procedures
Direct shear samples were trimmed and placed in a mould using sand and Portland cement and
tested according to ASTM D 5607-95.
Samples of the altered sandstone (hematized and bleached) overlying the orebody were selected
for testing. The unfrozen strength of the samples was approximately 1 MPa based on field
strength assessments. The moisture content of the samples ranged from 15 to 30%.
7.3.3 Results
From the 5 samples selected, only one sample contained a natural joint; the other four were intact
specimens used to obtain the breaking strength (by loading the sample to failure). Table 7.8
presents the summary of frozen direct shear testing completed on the Cigar Lake drill core.
Detailed results of each test are included in Appendix D.
Table 7.8: Summary of Frozen Direct Shear Testing Results on Drill Core
Peak Normal
Angle Failure Force Shear Normal Moisture
Sample Depth Test of Load Applied Stress Stress Content
No. Borehole (m) Description Type Joint (kPa) (kg) (kPa) (kPa) (%)
SF791- Bleached Breaking
1 429.5 - 15,320 25 1.69 0.46 34.0
06 sandstone Strength
SF801- Bleached Breaking
2 431.2 - 14,780 5 1.67 0.12 11.95
04 sandstone Strength
SF801- Hematized Joint
3 433.5 55o 6,990 5 0.75 0.12 28.74
04 Sandstone Plane
SF801- Bleached Breaking
4 431.4 - 14,950 45 1.77 0.85 35.46
04 Sandstone Strength
SF796- Hematized Breaking
5 432.05 - 14,160 25 1.56 0.46 17.93
05 sandstone Strength
Figure 7.25 plots the normal load applied and calculated shear stress of each test. The frozen
cohesion (at T=-10oC) backs out to approximately 1.6 MPa, which is considered a little high due
to the frictional component and uneven break plane of this test. However, no triaxial testing has
been completed on frozen Cigar Lake material to compare this value to. This cohesion value, is
within the expected range for frozen rock. Additional testing is recommenced, give the small
data set and lack of testing on the influence of temperature to the cohesion.
165
Estimated Cohesion ~ 1.6 MPa
Frozen at T=-10oC
166
8. Influence of Freezing on a Weak Rock Mass
This section presents the interpretation of case history data of mines in permafrost or artificially
frozen ground and the Cigar Lake mine laboratory testing to understand and predict the
behaviour of openings in frozen rock masses.
Table 8.1: RMR Classification for Intact Rock Strength (Bieniawski, 1976)
Parameter Range of Values
Strength of
intact rock
> 200 100-200 50-100 25-50 10-25 3-10 1-3
material
UCS (MPa)
RMR Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0
ISRM, R R6 R5 R4 R3 R2 R1 R0
The UCS of a rock is divided into six strength categories, and can be estimated through standard
field identification and laboratory testing methods, as shown in Table 8.2 (Barton, 2002). The
UCS can also be estimated through the use of point load testing.
167
Table 8.2: Descriptions of Rock Strength and Approximate UCS (ISRM, 1981)
Approximate Range
of Uniaxial
Grade Description
Compressive Strength
(MPa)
R0 Extremely weak rock 0.25 - 1.0
R1 Very weak rock 1.0 - 5.0
R2 Weak rock 5.0 - 25
R3 Medium strong rock 25 - 50
R4 Strong rock 50 - 100
R5 Very strong rock 100 - 250
R6 Extremely strong rock >250
The strength of intact rock is defined through the above ratings. It has been observed that
freezing increases the strength of intact rock, and therefore the RMR value, particularly for
extremely weak to weak rock (R0 to R2).
Figure 7.16 plots the UCS value for all Cigar Lake samples at the range of temperatures tested.
Note, samples at T = -2oC and T = -5oC are from historical testing at the Cigar Lake mine (EBA,
1990, and Golder, 1986). An average gain in strength of approximately 1 MPa is achieved by
reducing temperatures from -5 to -10oC, and almost 2 MPa from -10 to -20oC in all rock types.
An interesting correlation appears when the rocks are grouped based on their initial, unfrozen
strengths. The extremely weak to very weak (R0 to R1) rocks have the largest strength gain with
freezing due to the higher moisture content in very weak rock samples. Medium strong rocks
(R3, 50 MPa) and greater are not expected to show significant gain in strength with freezing due
to the reduced moisture content and lack of available pore water to convert to ice. The strength of
ice, though a function of strain rate and temperature, is typically on the order of 20 to 35 MPa
(Andersland and Ladanyi, 2004). Very weak rocks, with compressive strengths of 1 to 5 MPa,
will almost double their strength due to the conversion of water to ice. In contrast, unfrozen rock
strengths of approximately 40 MPa correspond to the upper bound strength of ice, and little to no
strength gain is therefore expected with freezing.
Figure 7.14 shows the relationship between unfrozen rock strength (shown from R0 to R4) and
168
ISRM UCS rock strength upper and lower bounds (Barton, 2002), and the UCS gained for the
corresponding unfrozen rock strength when frozen (red line). All tests were completed at -10oC.
No samples greater than 25 MPa were tested in the 2009 laboratory testing program.
The increase gained in RMR values is thus highly dependent on the unfrozen strength of the
rock. In R0 to R2 unfrozen rock, RMR may be increased by as much as 7 points when frozen.
For example, an unfrozen rock within an R0 strength would have an RMR rating of 0, if the
same rock is R4 when frozen, the RMR rating would become 7, a 7 point increase. For unfrozen
rock strengths higher than 50 MPa (R3 or greater), the RMR is not affected with respect to the
intact rock strength parameter.
This section discusses the effect of freezing on RQD, joint spacing, and joint set input
parameters to both the RMR and Q rock mass classification system.
Rocks that are not strong enough to withstand gentle hand pressure are not considered intact
rock. For example, a very weak rock that may appear to have no discontinuities (RQD=high)
169
should be assigned a RQD of zero (0) as all of the rock would break into pieces smaller than
10cm if gentle pressure were applied.
RQD is the second parameter in the RMR classification system. The ranges and ratings used in
the RMR 1976 system are shown in the following table.
Rating 20 17 13 8 3
In the Q system, RQD is the first index, entered from 0 (worst) to 100 (best).
Rating 30 25 20 10 5
170
Table 8.5: Jn Number for the Q Rock Mass Classification (Barton et al., 1974)
Number of Joint sets Jn rating
Intact rock (no joints) 0.5
1 set 1
1 set + random 2
2 set 3
2 set + random 4
3 set 6
3 set + random 9
4 set 21
4 set + random 15
Earthlike, crushed rock 20
A rock with an RQD of zero (0) could improve up to one hundred (100) through freezing, by
making very weak rock sound and intact by healing of all the joints. In the RMR system this
would result in an increase from as low as three (3) to as high as twenty (20). Similarly, a rock
with joint spacing less than fifty millimeters (<50mm) could have a spacing of >3m once frozen,
resulting in an increase in RMR from five (5) to thirty (30). The Jn in the Q system could be
improved from twenty (20) to point five (0.5), assuming the entire rock mass remains frozen.
While handling the frozen cement mixture beams, for the four-point beam testing, it was noted
that the beams with a frozen joint could not be twisted or broken along that joint with mild hand
pressure. The aperture of the joints was tight (<1 mm), and the joint surface was smooth with no
infilling. The moisture within the sample during freezing is attributed to healing of the joints and
thus it is clear that significant gains in rock mass quality can be made in the reduction of open
joints through freezing.
171
8.1.2 Joint Condition Ratings
Discontinuities are commonly described by their roughness, planarity, aperture, and infill
material. Each of these parameters controls the friction angle of a discontinuity, and in the case
of infill, the cohesion. In the rock mass characterization of a core run or tunnel face, the critical
discontinuity or discontinuity set (i.e. with lowest friction and cohesion) is described, for a
geotechnical zone. Both the RMR and Q system incorporate joint condition parameters.
This section discusses the effect of freezing on joint condition input parameters to both the RMR
and Q rock mass classification system.
172
Table 8.6: RMR Classification for Joint Condition (Bieniawski, 1976)
Condition of Joints Rating
Slickensided surfaces
or gouge < 5mm thick
or joints open 1-5mm 6
Continuous joints
Roughness can be estimated using the joint roughness coefficient (JRC) chart (Barton, 1974).
Determining separation of joints in drill core can prove to be difficult and requires experienced
judgment by the logger. Similarly, it must be considered that infill on joints may be washed away
through the drilling process.
173
Table 8.7: Q System Classification for Joint Roughness (Jr) (Hoek, 1980)
Infill & JRC Planarity Jr
Slickensided Planar 0.5
Slickensided Undulating 1.5
Slickensided Discontinuous 2.0
No infill, smooth (JRC <10) Planar 1.0
No infill, smooth (JRC <10) Undulating 2.0
No infill, smooth (JRC <10) Discontinuous 3.0
No infill, rough (JRC >10) Planar 1.5
No infill, rough (JRC >10) Undulating 3.0
No infill, rough (JRC >10) Discontinuous 4.0
Gouge-filled Planar 1.0
Gouge-filled Undulating 1.0
Gouge-filled Discontinuous 1.5
174
Table 8.8: Q System Classification for Joint Alteration (Ja) (Hoek, 1980)
Alteration Ja
Unfilled, staining only 1
Unfilled, slightly altered joint walls 2
Minor silt or sand coatings 3
Minor clay coatings 4
Sand or crushed rock filled 4
Stiff clay filling less than 5mm thick 6
Soft clay filling less than 5mm thick 8
Swelling clay filling less than 5mm thick 12
Stiff clay filling more than 5mm thick 10
Soft clay filling more than 5mm thick 15
Swelling clay filling more than 5mm thick 20
Open joints, however, may be worse in frozen state than unfrozen. Ice could reduce the cohesion
and friction below that of the original intact material.
There is no change in RMR and Q for this parameter under freezing. A joint would need
substantial strength to reduce the likelihood of a wedge failing along a frozen joint. A frozen
joint can be treated as healed if it has a strength that approaches that of the intact rock material.
8.1.3 Water
The influence of temperature on strength, is a function of the unfrozen water content, where at
temperatures just below freezing there is water that has not converted to ice in the pores therefore
the strength is lower than at sub-zero temperatures. The conversion of water to ice is a function
of temperature, material type, porosity, salinity and confining pressures. When a rock mass
175
undergoes freezing, the degree of unfrozen water decreases as water in the pores converts to ice,
creating a barrier to flowing water.
Table 8.9 describes the categories and rating for water in the 1976 RMR system. Water ratings in
the Q system (Jw) are not considered in this discussion.
Completely dry 10
Typically RMR and Q calculations do not include water as discussed earlier given that
groundwater is treated separately for the rock mass behaviour. Frozen ground is also considered
impermeable as water is assumed to be converted to ice. Thus there is no change in the water
parameter rating from unfrozen to frozen in the RMR’ and Q’ calculations for this comparison.
For certain design applications, it may be necessary to adjust the rock mass quality to account the
expected groundwater conditions.
176
The improvement in RMR from unfrozen to frozen conditions assessed by Wardrop (2005)
assumed that the increased span opened in frozen conditions is relatable to a frozen RMR by the
empirical Grimstad and Barton (1993) chart. Better practice is to assess the frozen RMR
conditions in the field is with face mapping and to compare the unfrozen RMR conditions using
geotechnical core logging.
Figure 8.1, the Grimstad and Barton (1993) chart, shows the relation of the Q system of rock
mass classification to the span and support requirements of an underground excavation, termed
the equivalent dimension of the excavation, De.
.
Where: Excavation span, diameter or height (m)
De =
Excavation Support Ratio ( ESR)
ESR = Excavation Support Ratio (ranging from 3-5 for temporary mine openings to 1.6
for permanent mine openings)
177
Figure 8.1: Empirical Support Design, after Grimstad and Barton (1993)
Increase in the RMR76 from an unfrozen to frozen state was recently assessed by Pakalnis and
Mawson at Cameco’s McArthur River Mine (Cameco, 2012). Four unfrozen core logs were
studied and compared to frozen face mapping of two drifts in the same area. Pakalnis and
Mawson showed that the RMR was increased by an average of 38.Table 8.10 summarizes the
average increase for each of the five parameters in the RMR system based on one hundred plus
observations.
178
Table 8.10: Average Increase Between Frozen Face Mapping and Unfrozen Core
Logging
Parameter Average increase
(frozen – unfrozen)
Strength 8
RQD 7
Joint spacing 11
Joint condition 11
Water n/a
TOTAL average RMR 38
increase
Freezing the rock mass has an effect of increasing rock quality through gains in strength,
reductions in joint spacing (healing of joints), increases of joint quality condition, and removal of
water. This translates into an overall RMR (and Q) increase where in some documented cases
would be up to 40 points in the RMR rating for weak porous moist rocks.
The biggest gain due to freezing of the RMR parameters is the RQD and joint spacing, compared
to the intact rock strength parameter. This leads to the idea that the influence of freezing a weak
discontinuous rock, has a significant effect on the rock mass, but less so on the intact rock, which
was initially thought to control the excavation design.
Table 8.11 and Figure 8.2 summarize the case histories of underground mine openings in
permafrost and artificially frozen ground. The gain in strength of the RMR76 ranges from 13% to
68% from the unfrozen RMR76 value. The dashed green line represents the proposed unstable-
stable line for frozen RMR vs. cavity span.
179
Table 8.11: Case History Summary of Frozen Rock Mass Conditions and Span
Unfrozen (logged
from core) Frozen Equivalent Percent
Mining Span Frozen Improvement
Mine Location Source Method Q’ RMR76 (m) RMR76 in RMR76
Shrinkage
Shkolnoye/Matrosov - Wardrop (2005) Stope 17.8 70 50 79 13
745m L and 850
Julietta Mine mL Wardrop (2005) Longhole 3.4 55 8 63 15
Raglan Mine Katinniq Ramp Wardrop (2005) 2.8 52 5 68 31
Raglan Mine KW 1475 Stope Wardrop (2005) Long hole 0.15 47 50 70 68
Raglan Mine C 1460 L Cut Wardrop (2005) Cut and Fill 10 65 40 73 13
Raglan Mine Q 1350 Cut Wardrop (2005) Cut and Fill 7.5 62 35 70 13
Kupol Mine 455 Level Pakalnis (2012) Long hole - 25 24 60 140
Kupol Mine 530 Level Pakalnis (2012) Long hole - 25 5 65 160
Cigar Lake Cavity 1 Cameco (2000) Jet Boring - 30 6 50 65
Cigar Lake Cavity 2 Cameco (2000) Jet Boring - 30 3.5 50 65
Cigar Lake Cavity 3a Cameco (2000) Jet Boring - 30 5 50 65
Cigar Lake Cavity 4 Cameco (2000) Jet Boring - 30 4.5 50 65
McArthur River 510-8240 N Cameco (2012) Roadheader - 20 7 55 35
McArthur River 510-8220 N Cameco (2012) Roadheader - 30 7 65 35
Suggested
Upper Limit
Frozen RMR76
Unfrozen RMR76
Frozen RMR76
(refer to Table 8.11)
Figure 8.2: Case Studies Frozen RMR vs. Cavity Span on the McArthur River Rock
Mass Critical Span Curve, after Pakalnis (2012)
180
Implications of quantifying the observed increase span or gain in rock mass rating value to the
Cigar Lake mine are that:
• The weaker rocks (RMR76 < 45) see substantial gain in strength, up to an additional 30
points on the RMR76 scale.
8.3 Comparison of Unfrozen to Frozen 2009 Surface Freeze Drilling Rock Mass
Classification
Applying the interpretation of case history data of mines in permafrost or artificially frozen
ground and the laboratory testing from the Cigar Lake mine to the input parameters of the rock
mass classification (RMR) system can be summarized as follows.
Strength
In R0 to R2 unfrozen rock, RMR may be increased by as much as 7 points when frozen. In
unfrozen rock strengths higher than 50 MPa, the intact rock parameter remains the same.
RQD
A rock with an RQD of zero (0) could improve up to one hundred (100) through freezing, by
making very weak rock sound and intact by healing all the joints. In the RMR system this would
result in an increase from as low as three (3) to as high as twenty (20).
Joint Spacing
A rock with joint spacing less than fifty millimeters (<50mm) could have a spacing of >3m once
frozen, resulting in an increase in RMR from five (5) to thirty (30).
Joint Condition
Freezing improves the discontinuity considerations of rock mass characterization primarily by
healing them, however, the type of infilling and surface roughness will not change when
undergoing freezing. No change in the joint condition rating is expected for tight aperture joints;
however for joints that are slightly open freezing will heal the joints. The change in RMR for this
parameter is zero.
181
Groundwater
Frozen ground is considered impermeable as all the water is converted to ice and dry conditions
are often considered in unfrozen rock mass classification calculations as groundwater is
considered separately. Typically the rockmass characterisation treats the presence of water as a
negative attribute. However in frozen ground, water acts as a bonding agent between the particles
and is the cause of strength increase under freezing conditions, thus improving ground
conditions. In freezing ground, therefore, water is a positive parameter.
The influence of the moisture content on the ground conditions (i.e. dry to saturated) was not the
focus of this research. Groundwater will be left out of frozen RMR calculations in this research
and there is no change assumed in the groundwater parameter for the frozen RMR' until further
studies address this topic. An additional moisture content parameter is proposed to be included in
the frozen RMR calculations to address the gain in strength with increasing water content from
dry to partially saturated under freezing conditions.
8.3.1 Discussion
From the 2009 geotechnical drilling program, an average RMR76 from the borehole logging
(Section 6.5) is outlined below (in red). The influence of freezing based on interpretation of case
history data and the expected increase in each RMR’ parameter is outlined in green. The
unfrozen RMR’76 value is 40 and the estimated frozen RMR’76 value is 74, an overall increase of
83 percent. Future studies should use data from both drill core and excavated faces and the
results separated to deal with any potential bias. Calculating the frozen RMR based on drillcore
without mapping the face can lead to overestimating the expected frozen ground conditions.
182
Unfrozen Frozen
Figure 8.3: Comparison of an Unfrozen RMR to Frozen RMR, after Bieniawski (1976)
In addition to the RMR system, the influence of freezing can be illustrated using the GSI system,
below in Figure 8.4. The unfrozen rock mass of the altered sandstone directly overlying the
orebody collected from the Cigar Lake 2009 drill program is described as disturbed with poor to
fair joint surface conditions, correlating to a GSI of 25 to 40. Based on the observations of the
frozen rock samples in the laboratory, the influence of freezing on the joint surface condition
does not change; however, the structure of the rock mass due to healing of the joints and increase
in rock strength under frozen conditions has the potential to modify the structure to be intact to
massive, an increase of the GSI from 60 to 80.
183
Unfrozen Frozen
Figure 8.4: GSI Values for Blocky Rock Masses with Unfrozen and Frozen RMR, after
Marinos and Hoek (2000)
Figure 8.5 visually depicts the expected gain in rock mass classification values based on Figure
8.3 and Figure 8.4 above, from the surface freeze drill hole sections as calculated in Section 6.5.
184
UNFROZEN
FROZEN
ST786-07 ST791-07 ST796-05 ST801-05
ST786-07 ST791-07 ST796-05 ST801-05
ore
unconformity
Figure 8.5: Cross Section North 10,032, Unfrozen and Frozen RMR76
185
9. Failure Mechanism of Frozen Weak Rock Masses
This section is a summary of the geotechnical inputs for numerical modelling, including the
Mohr-Coulomb parameters cohesion and friction and the Hoek Brown parameters, for the Hoek-
Brown failure criterion and how they would be influenced by freezing.
The mechanical behaviour of frozen ground differs from unfrozen behaviour due to the ice and
water composition, which varies with temperature and applied stress. The behaviour of frozen
soil is well documented with extensive research in the mechanical and creep relationships with
varying grain sizes, moisture, and temperature. Limited information exists on the behaviour of
frozen weak rock as the majority of frozen ground research is based on permafrost regions in
surficial soil. As the temperature drops in a rockmass, mineral grains shrink and the formation of
ice in pore spaces contributes directly to the strength of the material. The water that changes
phases converts to ice increasing in volume by 9%.
In the case of the Cigar Lake Project, the frozen material over a jet bored cavity will be subjected
to hydrostatic pressure (in situ stresses and water in the sandstone), shear stresses (shear zone
caused by fracturing and squeezing ground around the ore zone) and a creep regime (presence of
ice and squeezing environment). The behaviour and stability of frozen material over the mined
out cavities once mining commences is a function of the frozen rock mass.
Failure can occur due to wedge fall, slab failure, gravity driven caving, and beam failure. There
is the potential for high and uncontrolled groundwater inflow events that are mitigated through
artificial ground freezing. Assuming an ice cap thickness of 10 m above the jet bored cavity, a
hydraulic gradient (i) of 45 will be present at the back of the cavity (450 m head at 10m from the
cavity, assuming 0 m of head at the back of the cavity).
The pressure jets will thaw the cavity walls, creating unfrozen strengths. The ice cap thickness
design must keep stresses acting uniformly around the cavity, withstand hydrostatic pressure at
450 m depth, not crack, and remain stable prior to backfilling, possibly up to 3 weeks from
mining from top down.
186
9.1 Mohr-Coulomb Criterion
The Mohr-Coulomb shear strength of frozen rock or soil is defined through triaxial compression
tests on frozen samples. The Mohr-Coulomb strength criterion assumes that a failure of the rock
material occurs through the development of a shear plane. When failure occurs, the stresses
developed on the shear plane define a strength envelope.
The Mohr-Coulomb relationship suggested that the shear strength of rock is made up of two
parts, a constant cohesion (c) and a normal stress-dependent frictional component, τ = c + σn
tanφ.
Where:
c = cohesion
In a shear stress-normal stress plot, the Coulomb shear strength criterion τ = c + σn tanφ is
represented by a straight line, with an intercept c on the τ axis and an angle of φ with the
187
σn axis. This straight line forms the strength envelope.
Extrapolating the linear Mohr-Coulomb strength envelope, the unconfined compressive strength
(UCS, σc) can be derived by c and φ as:
σc = 2c cos φ / 1 - sin φ
The angle of failure of the sample, defined as Β, is related to the internal friction angle where:
Β = 45+ φ / 2
From the frozen UCS samples completed on the 2009 surface freeze drilling boreholes, discussed
in Section 7, the angle of failure ranges from 50 to 60 degrees for samples that did not fail along
bedding.
188
Table 9.1: Summary of UCS Failure Angles
Angle of
Average Failure Not Friction
Test UCS Strain Moisture Along Angle Based
Temp Sample Depth Rate Content UCS Bedding or on Failure
(oC) Material Type ID Borehole (m) (%/min) (by Wt) (MPa) Joint (Β) Angle (φ)
Hematized
-20 19 SF801-04 434.7 0.15 22.8 3.39 60 30
Sandstone
Hematized
-20 20 SF801-04 435 0.03 20.9 4.16 55 20
Sandstone
Altered
-10 11 SF801-04 441.28 0.13 22.0 2.80 50 10
Basement
Bleached
-10 6 ST786-07 427.55 0.14 35.6 2.12 60 30
Sandstone
Bleached
-10 7 ST786-07 427.73 0.01 38.1 1.57 55 20
Sandstone
Based on this relationship, the friction angle (φ) of the frozen rock samples can be back
calculated to approximately 15 degrees and does not appear to be dependent upon temperature
from the samples tested. Additional testing would confirm if there indeed is a difference in the
friction angle between -20 to -10oC. It should also be noted that the angle of failure, especially
under triaxial loading conditions where axial splitting dominates, is also significantly influence
by sample end effects.
From the samples tested as part of this research, the frozen friction angle does not appear to be
affected by temperature or applied strain rate. Very weak rock samples (unfrozen strength less
than 2 MPa) typically failed on obvious shear plans, such as bedding or pre-existing joints.
Samples tested with unfrozen moisture contents greater than 30% did not fail on pre-existing
shear planes but rather on the friction plane.
Jessberger et al. (2003) states that it is typical practice to assume in frozen soils that the angle of
internal friction is neither influenced by temperature nor loading distribution and that only
cohesion is temperature dependent. However, this assumption is not always true and the angle of
friction is based on the angle of internal friction for the average freeze wall temperature using the
allowable long term compressive stress.
189
9.2 Hoek-Brown
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion was developed to design underground excavations in hard rock
masses by Hoek and Brown (1980). Hoek and Brown linked Bieniawski's Rock Mass Rating
(RMR) and later the Geological Strength Index (GSI) a visual tool for field mapping to define
failure criteria through research of the brittle failure of intact and jointed rock. The Hoek–Brown
criterion is an empirical equation for non-linear strength material developed through curve fitting
of triaxial test data.
�
𝜎��
𝜎�� = 𝜎�� + 𝜎�� �𝑚� + 𝑠�
𝜎��
GSI-100
mb=mi exp ( )
28-14D
s and a are constants for the rock mass given by the following relationships:
𝐺𝑆𝐼 − 100
𝑠 = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 � �
9 − 3𝐷
1 1 ���� ���
𝑎= + (𝑒 �� -𝑒 � )
2 6
𝜎� = 𝜎�� ∙ 𝑠 �
The Hoek-Brown failure criterion was initially not developed for very poor quality rock masses
and included the disturbance "D" parameter to force the tensile strength to zero. D ranges from 0
for TBM tunnels to 1.0 for very poor blasting. GSI refers to the Geological Strength Index
(Marinos and Hoek, 2000) and is equivalent to RMR76 or RMR89 minus 5.
190
Using RocLab 1.0 (Rocscience, 2012), the rock mass parameters can be derived by scaling the
laboratory derived intact rock properties using the rock mass characteristics quantified using
GSI. This was done here for the frozen Cigar Lake based on the following assumptions:
The latter assumption is required for converting the rock mass Hoek-Brown values to Mohr-
Coulomb rock mass values. Because the Hoek-Brown failure envelope is non-linear, the linear
Mohr-Coulomb values are estimated by fitting a straight line to the non-linear curve at the
required minimum principal stress (determined here based on the depth of mining). The Mohr-
Coulomb friction and cohesion values derived for the above assumptions are 19o and 0.5 MPa,
respectively.
Frozen UCS test results of the same material from the 2009 surface freeze drilling program, were
highly variable within close proximity of the orebody due to the varying alteration of the rock
mass. A range of values is suggested for the orebody and clay cap given its heterogeneous
mixture of materials.
191
Based on the results of the UCS testing in Section 7 where the unfrozen rock strength was 0.5 to
3 MPa, and historical testing from EBA (1999), Table 9.2 lists the recommended frozen rock
mass material properties.
Note that limited strength testing was completed on the altered graphitic metapelite basement
material, as the focus of this research was the altered sandstone material overlying the jet bored
cavities.
192
10. Conclusions
The purpose of artificial ground freezing at the Cigar Lake mine is to ensure stability of the jet
bored cavities during mining and minimize groundwater inflow. The majority of this study
focussed on the gain in strength due to freezing of a very weak, altered and jointed rock mass
sampled directly above and below the Cigar Lake orebody. Although, well defined trends in the
data were not established, it is clear there is a significant gain in strength of the rock mass due to
freezing.
The influence of freezing was initially thought to be controlled by the gain in the intact strength
(UCS) from the unfrozen to frozen properties of the rock. However, the healing of joints under
freezing conditions was found to add tensile strength under short term loading conditions
significantly improving the rock mass quality from a very poor to a good quality rock mass when
frozen. The Cigar Lake rock mass is not intact but a blocky to very blocky/disintegrated rock
mass with discontinuities. The benefit of freezing at the Cigar Lake mine is the addition of joints
taking on properties of the rock matrix, changing from having zero tensile strength and cohesion
in unfrozen conditions.
193
be summarized as follows:
From the back analysis of the Cigar Lake jet boring trial in 1999, the influence of freezing on
weak rock is clearly shown to increase the rock mass conditions from an estimated unfrozen
RMR of less than 35 of the jet bored cavities to approximately 50 (based on the stable
194
unsupported line for a 5 m span). This increase in the frozen rock mass strength is attributed to
the increase in cohesion and UCS of the weak rock as the pore water freezes.
195
11. Recommendations
This section discusses the proposed recommendations for future work based on the outcomes of
this research.
11.1 General
Geotechnical descriptions of the Cigar Lake material including the "clay cap" or altered
hematized and bleached sandstone overlying the orebody are heterogeneous and should be
described by a range of values and not one point value.
Improvements to the UCS testing completed with the 2009 surface freeze drill core include:
• Better measurements of the vertical displacements of the loaded UCS sample. The
vertical displacement of the top of the sample was measured with a screwdriver
connected to an LVDT. The vertical displacement recording was not always consistent as
the screwdriver did not always move with the loading platen.
• Testing of weak samples was biased due to the ability to trim and prepare the core. Half
of the samples collected could not be trimmed as they were too friable.
• Freezing the samples under a confining load to simulate the conditions expect at Cigar
Lake.
• Additional UCS testing to evaluate the post peak characteristics of the frozen sample
during failure
A series of direct shear tests from unfrozen, open and frozen, and healed with ice should be
tested with varying roughness and infill. Significant gains in rock mass quality can be made in
the reduction of open joints through freezing and future work should focus on this aspect,
investigating the controlling factors on the healing of joints.
196
11.3 In Situ Testing
Design and construction of a freeze wall requires reliable strength and deformation material
properties. The majority of material properties are from laboratory testing; however, the effect
of sample disturbance prior to lab testing is an issue to address. In situ testing methods are
recommended to minimize the effect of sample stress relief and quantify the material properties
on a larger scale. In situ testing can be carried out in materials that cannot be sampled without
considerable disturbance and with a larger volume of soil tested than in the laboratory. However,
strain rates applied during in situ testing are often higher than applied in field or laboratory.
Laboratory testing has well defined boundary conditions with reasonably uniform stress and
strain fields applied on the samples.
In situ testing methods can minimize the effect of sample stress relief, quantify material
properties on a larger scale, and reduce the concern of relying upon data from samples in zones
of poor core recovery. In situ tests recommended include the following:
In situ testing methods must be done in an open uncased hole. Given the high risk of hole
collapse in the target sampling area, in situ methods were not selected at Cigar Lake mine due to
the high risk of hole collapse.
Geophysical methods by downhole surveys in an open borehole or from surface can provide the
properties of the surrounding rock mass such as porosity, moisture content, density, and contrasts
in conductivity over larger areas than a drillhole. Geophysical methods to measure the in situ
properties of the frozen and unfrozen Cigar Lake material are suggested including:
• Downhole seismic survey, where an active nuclear source probe is placed down an open
borehole to measure the insitu density and rock modulus.
• Downhole gamma and conductivity survey to measure the in situ density relatable to the
197
porosity
198
References
Andersland, O.B. and B. Ladanyi. 2004. Frozen Ground Engineering. 2nd Ed. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J.
Andres, Dale. 1999. “The evolution of pillar mining at the Polaris Mine”. Proceedings of the 5th
International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic. Yellowknife, Canada. June 1998. pp 125-134.
Aoki, K., Hibiya, K. & Yoshida, T. 1989. Storage of refrigerated liquefied gases in rock caverns:
Characteristics of rock under very low temperature, Nilsen (ed.), Proc. Intern. Conf. On storage
of gas in rock caverns, Trondheim, pp. 237–243.
Arenson, L., M.M. Johansen, S.M. Springman. 2004. “Effect of volumetric ice content and strain
rate on shear strength under triaxial conditions for frozen soil samples.” Permafrost and
Periglacial Processes. Vol 15. pp. 261-271.
Arenson, L., and S. Springman. 2005. "Mathematical descriptions for the behaviour of ice-rich
frozen soils at temperatures close to 0oC". Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol 42. pp 431-442.
Baker, T.H.W. 1979. Strain rate effect on the compressive strength of frozen sand.” 1st
International Symposium on Ground Freezing, Bochum, Germany. Edited H.L. Jessberger. pp.
223-231.
Bandopadhyay, S., X. Wang., and M.G. Nelson. 1996. “Roof span stability in an underground
placer mine in the arctic.” Proceedings of the fourth international symposium on Mining in the
Arctic. Longyearbayen, Svalbard, Norway, 27-30 July, 1996.
Barton, N.R., R. Lien, and J. Lunde. 1974. Engineering classification of rock masses for the
design of tunnel support. Rock Mechanics. Volume 6. Pp 189-239.
Baudemont, 2000. Core orientation from underground geotechnical holes, Tentative modeling of
post-Athabasca faulting. Report prepared for COGEMA Resources. Issued January 2000.
Baudemont, D. And Rafini S. 2000. Cigar Lake deposit, Eastern Athabasca. Core orientation
from underground geotechnical holes. Tentative modelling of post-Athabasca faulting. Internal
report, Areva. 28p.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses. Trans. South African
Institute Civil Engineering. Volume 15. Pp 335-344
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Rock mss classifications in rock engineering. Exploration for Rock
Engineering. Vol 1, pp. 97-106. A.A. Balkema: Cape Town
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifications. Wiley: New York.
Brady, B.H.G. and E.T. Brown. 2006. Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. 3rd ed.
Springer, Netherlands.
199
Bruneton, P. 1993. “Geological environment of the Cigar Lake uranium deposit.” Canadian
Journal of Earth Sciences. Vol. 30. pp 653-673.
Bruneton, P., 1986. Geology of the Cigar Lake uranium deposit (Saskatchewan, Canada) in C.F.
Gilboy and L.W. Wigrass, eds., Economic Minerals of Saskatchewan, Geological Society of
Saskatchewan, Special Publication, no. 8, p. 99-119.
Cameco Corporation, 2007. “Cigar Lake Project, Northern Saskatchewan Canada, NI 43-101
Technical Report.” Issued March 30, 2007.
Cameco, 1996. “Design ground freezing numerical analysis: pond 2, panels one and two”
McArthur River project. Issued October 1996
Cameco, 1997. “Cigar Lake and McArthur River Freezing hole drilling programs – Past
experiences and proposed methods” McArthur River project
Cameco, 1998. “pod two panel three preliminary extraction plan.” McArthur River project.
Prepared by Mine Engineering Department, McArthur River project. Issued September 1998.
Cameco, 2000. “2000 Jet Boring Systems Test – Final Report”. Cigar Lake Mining Corporation.
Chamberlain, Edwin. 1973. Mechanical properties of frozen ground under high pressure.
Permafrost second international conference. 295-305.
Chislov, A.I. 1991. “Peculiarities of rock massif behaviour in a zone of transition from subzero
to above zero temperatures.” Int. Arctic Technology Conference, SPE, Anchorage, AK, May 29-
31, p. 593-602.
Czurda, K.A. and M. Hohmann. 1997. “Freezing effect on shear strength of clayey soils. Applied
Clay Science. Vol 12. pp. 165-187.
Deere, D.U. 1964. Technical description of rock cores for engineering purposes. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering. Vol. 1. pp. 17-22.
Deere, D.U. and D.W. Deere. 1988. Rock Quality Designation (RQD) after Twenty Years. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Contract Report GL-89-1.
Diederichs, M.S. and P.K. Kaiser. 1999. “Stability of large excavations in laminated hard rock
masses: the voussoir analogue revisited.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences. Vol 36. pp. 97-117.
Dusseault, M.B. and C.J. Fordham. 1993. "Time-dependent behaviour of rocks". Journal of
Comprehensive Rock Engineering. Volume 3. pp 119-149.
Dutta, P.K. and K. Kim. 1993. High-Strain-Rate tensile behaviour or sedimentary and igneous
rocks at low temperatures. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory. CRREL Report 93-16.
200
Dwivedi, R.D., A.K. Soni, R.K. Goel, A.K. Dube. 2000. “Fracture toughness of rocks under sub-
zero temperature conditions. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences. Vol
37. pp. 1267-1275.
EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.. 1990. 'Stress Analysis Ground Freezing Design - Cross-Cut
Drift - 420 M Level.' Report EB-90-01.
Economopolous, J.N., A.I. Sofianos., and N.J. Koronakis. 1994. Voussoir beam response of
bedded limestone roofs in Greek underground mining excavations. Laboratory of Mining
Technology, National Technical University of Athens, Greece.
Fayek, M., J. Janeczek, and R. Ewing. 1997. “Mineral chemistry and oxygen isotopic analyses of
uranite, pitchblende and uranium alteration minerals from the Cigar Lake deposit, Saskatchewan,
Canada.” Journal of Applied Geochemistry, Vol. 12, pp. 549-565.
Fayek, M., T.M. Harrison, R.C. Ewing, M. Grove, C.D. Coath. 2002. O and Pb isotopic analyses
of uranium minerals by ion microprobe and U-Pb ages from the Cigar Lake deposit. Journal of
Chemical Geology. Volume 185, issue 3-4, May 2002, p. 205-225.
Fouques, J.R., Fowler, M., Knipping, H.D., Schimann, K., The Cigar Lake uranium deposit;
discovery and general characteristics, in Evans, E.L. (ed), Uranium deposits of Canada:
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Special v. 33, p. 218-229.
Geo-Analysis Ltd. 2000a. “Analysis and calibration of freezing model for recent test mining
area.” Memorandum issued to CLMC, November 2000.
Geo-Analysis Ltd. 2000b. “Artificial ground freezing of the McArthur River Uranium ore
deposit.”
Geoconcept, 1995. “Ground Freezing studies, 1994-1995.” Prepared for Cameco Corporation.
Issued July 1995.
Geo-Slope. 2004. “Ground freezing modelling for CLMC.” Memorandum issued to Cameco
Corporation, August 2004.
Geo-Slope. 2007. “Ground freezing modelling for Cigar Lake mine.” Memorandum issued to
Cameco Corporation, October 2007.
Giegerich, H.M. 1992. “Keynote address: Mining in the Arctic”. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic. Fairbanks, Alaska, July 1992. pp 3-9.
Grimstad, E. and Barton, N. 1993. Updating the Q-System for NMT. Proc. int. symp. on
201
sprayed concrete - modern use of wet mix sprayed concrete for underground support, Fagernes.
46-66. Oslo: Norwegian Concrete Assn.
Golder Associates, 1995. “Geotechnical characterization and stability assessment of the proposed
mining plan for the McArthur river project.” Prepared for Cameco Corporation. Issued July
1995.
Golder Associates, 1995. “Underground flow testing program, McArthur river project” Prepared
for Cameco Corporation. Issued August 1995.
Golder Associates, 1997. “Hydraulic conductivity testing vent shaft pilot holes MAC 258 and
MAC 259, McArthur River project.” Prepared for Cameco Corporation. Issued February 1997.
Golder Associates, 1999. “Hydraulic conductivity testing shaft no. 3 pilot hole MAC 260,
McArthur River project.” Prepared for Cameco Corporation. Issued February 1999.
Golder Associates. 1985. 'Geotechnical Model Above and Below Clay-Ore Zone.'
Golder Associates. 1985. 'Preliminary Evaluation of the Freezing Properties of the Clay-Ore
Zone.' Report GO-85-09.
Golder Associates. 1986. '1986 In situ testing program Cigar Lake Property Main Text and
Appendix A, A geotechnical report on drillholes WDG1-193A, WDG1-195 and WDG1-196.'
Golder Associates. 1986. 'Borehole Deformation and Hydrofracturing Test Analysis of Holes
WDG1-193A, WDG1-195 and WDG1-196 in the Cigar Lake Orebody.' Report GO-86-06.
Golder Associates. 1986. 'Laboratory Testing of Samples Borehole WDG1-187A.' Report GO-
86-03.
Golder Associates. 2002. 'Production Horizon Analysis and Validation Study.' Report
Goodman, 1989. Introduction to Rock Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Goto, S., K. Minegishi, M. Tanka. Direct Shear Test at a frozen/unfrozen interface. 1988. 5th
International Symposium on Ground Freezing. Jones & Holden eds. 1988 Balkema Rotterdam
Goughnour, R.R. and O.B. Andersland. 1968. “Mechanical properties of sand-ice system.”
ASCE Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division. Vol 94. Pp. 923-950.
Gunzel, F. 2008. “Shear strength of ice-filled rock joints. 9th International conference on
permafrost, Fairbanks Alaska. pp 581
202
Harris, J.S. 1995. Ground Freezing in Practice. Thomas Telford Services, Ltd., London.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1980. Underground Excavations in Rock, London, Instn Min. Metall.
Hoek, E., Carranza-Torres, C., and Corkum, B. 2002. "Hoek-Brown Failure Criterion - 2002
Edition."
Hoek, 2006. Practical Rock Engineering. John Wiley and Sons, New York..
Hoek, E. 1999. Support for very weak rock associated with faults and shear zones distinguished
lecture for the opening of the International Symposium on Rock Support and Reinforcement
Practice in Mining, Kalgoorlie, Australia, 14-19 March, 1999.
Hoeve, J., and Quirt, D. 1984. Mineralization and host-rock alteration in relation to clay mineral
diagenesis and evolution of the Middle-Proterozoic Athabasca basin, northern Saskatchewan,
Canada. Saskatchewan Research Council, Technical Report 187.
Hoeve, J., Rawsthorn, K., and Quirt, D. 1981. Uranium metallogenic studies: clay mineral
stratigraphy and diagenesis in the Athabasca Group. In Summary of investigations.
Saskatchewan Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Report 81-4, pp. 76-89.
Hutchinson, D.J. and M.S. Diederichs. 1996. Cablebolting in Underground Mines. BiTech
Publishers Ltd., Canada.
Inada, Y. And N. Kinoshita. 2003. “A few remarks on storage of low temperature materials in
rock caverns.” ISRM 2003 - Technology roadmap for rock mechanics, South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy.
Inada, Y., Kinoshita, N., Kohmura, Y., Matsumoto, T., 1999. Consideration on Thermal
Behaviour of Rock Mass Around Openings Affected by Thermal Hysteresis of Low
Temperatures. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Inada, Y., Kinoshita, N., Seki, S., 1995. Thermal behaviour of rock mass around openings
affected by low temperature. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress on Rock
Mechanics, pp. 721– 724.
Inada, Y., N. Kinoshita, A. Ebisawa, S. Gomi. 1997. “Strength and deformation characteristics of
rocks after undergoing thermal hysteresis of high and low temperatures.” International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences. Vol. 34:3-4. Paper No. 140.
Inada, Y., Yagi, N., 1980. Mechanical characteristics of rocks at very low temperatures. J. Soc.
Mater. Sci. 29, 1228–1233. Japan (In Japanese with subtitles in English).
Ishizuka, Y., Kinoshita, N., 1988. Analysis of crack propagation around LPG storage cavern
using fracture mechanics. Shimizu Tech. Res. Bull. (Tokyo) 7, 55–64.
Ishizuka, Y., Kinoshita, N., Okuno, T., 1985. Stability analysis of a rock cavern with LPG
203
storage under thermal stresses. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Numerical
Methods in Geomechanics, vol. 2. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 1233–1240.
Jefferson, C.W., Thomas, D.J., Gandhi, S.S., Ramaekers, P., Delaney, G., Brisbin, D., Cutts, C.,
Quirt, D., Portella, P., and Olson, R.A., 2007, Unconformity associated uranium deposits of the
Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan and Alberta, in Goodfellow, W.D., ed., Mineral Deposits of
Canada: A Synthesis of Major Deposit-Types, District Metallogeny, the Evolution of Geological
Provinces, and Exploration Methods: Geological Association of Canada, Mineral Deposits
Division, Special Publication No. 5, p. 273-305.
Kaplar, C.W. 1971. “Some strength properties of frozen soil and effect of loading rate. U.S.
Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire. Special
Report 159.
Kennard, D. 1998. Numerical Modelling Analysis of Excavations in Weak Rock at the Cigar
Lake Test Mine. M.A.Sc. Thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Department of Geological
Sciences.
Kumar, A.1968. The effect of stress rate and temperature on the strength of basalt and granite.
Geophysics, 33: 501-510.
Kuriyagawa, M., Matsunaga, I., Kinoshita, N. & Hibi, K. 1980. Rock behavior of underground
cavern with the storage of cryogenic liquefied gas. Proceeding International Symposium on
subsurface space, Stockholm, p. 665.
Ladanyi, B. 2006. “ Creep of frozen slopes and ice-filled rock joints under temperature
variation.” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. Vol. 33, pp. 719-725.
Lang, B., 1994. Span Design for Entry Type Excavations. M.A.Sc. Thesis, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC.
Li, N., P. Zhang, Y. Chen, G. Swoboda. 2003. “Fatigue properties of cracked and saturated
frozen sandstone samples under cyclic loading.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences. Vol 40. pp. 145-150.
Lindblom, U. 1977. Experimental and analytical research related to LNG storage in rock
caverns. Proc. 1st International Symposium on storage in excavated rock caverns, Stockholm.,
pp. 257–263.
Marcellus, R.W. and D.N. Huff. 1991. “The role that fracture plays during ice failure.” Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. Vol 28: pp 752-759.
204
Marinos, P and Hoek, E. 2000. GSI – A geologically friendly tool for rock mass strength
estimation. Proc. GeoEng2000 Conference, Melbourne.
Martin, C.D., P.K. Kaiser, D.R. McCreath. 1999. “Hoek-Brown parameters for predicting the
depth of brittle failure around tunnels.” Canadian Geotechnical Journal. Vol 36: pp. 136-151.
Mathis, J.I. and C.H. Page. 1995. “Drifting in very poor rock – experience and analysis.” 101st
Annual Northwest Mining Association Convention, Spokane, Washington, December 6-8, 1995.
Mawson, S. 2012a. Interoffice Memo: Comparison of RMR parameter ratings for frozen and
unfrozen ground. Saskatoon: Cameco Corporation. August 23, 2012.
Mawson, S. 2012b. Interoffice Memo: Comparison of RMR parameter ratings for frozen and
unfrozen ground. Saskatoon: Cameco Corporation. November 5, 2012.
MDH Engineered Solutions, 2008. “Draft – Cigar Lake Conceptual Geological Model, M1225-
190007.” Report prepared by MDH and Triple Point Consulting for Cameco Corporation. Issued
February 2008.
Mellor, M. and D.M. Cole. 1981. Deformation and Failure of Ice Under Constant Stress or
Constant Strain Rate. Cold Regions Science and Technology. Volume 5, p. 201-219.
Mellor, M. 1970. Phase composition of pore water in cold rocks. U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers.
CRREL Research Report 292. Hanover, New Hampshire.
Mellor, M. 1971. Strength and deformability of rocks at low temperatures. USA Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory, Research Report 294.
Mellor, M. 1973. Mechanical properties of rocks at low temperatures. In Permafrost: The North
American Contribution to the 2nd International Conference on Permafrost, Yakutsk, 13-28 July,
Washington D.C.: Natural Academy of Sciences.
Miller, R.D. (1980). The adsorbed film controversy. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 3
(1), pp. 83-86.
Milne, Hadjigeorgiou, Pakalnis, 1998. Rock mass characterization for underground hard rock
mines. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology. 13:4, 383-391.
Milne, D. 2007. Problems with rock classification for empirical and numerical design.
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Rock Mass Classification in Underground Mining.
Information Circular 9498. pp. 111-118.
Min, K., J. Rutqvist, C. Tsang, L. Jing. 2005. “Thermally induced mechanical and permeability
changes around a nuclear waste repository – a far-field study based on equivalent properties
determined by a discrete approach.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences. Vol 42. Pp 765-780.
205
Murphy, Patrick. 1999. “Freeze hole drilling issues at the McArthur River underground Uranium
mine.” Thesis submitted to the department of mining engineering in accordance with the
requirements for the degree of bachelor of science. Queen’s university.
Myrvang, A.M. 1988. “Rock mechanics related to coal mining in permafrost on Spitzbergen.” 5th
International Conference on Permafrost. Trondheim, Norway, August 1988. pp. 1435-1440.
Nater, P., L.U. Arenson., S.M. Springman. 2008. “Choosing geotechnical parameters for slope
stability assessments in alpine permafrost soils.” 9th international conference on permafrost. Pp
1261-
Nelson, M.G. 2001. “Underground Mining Frozen Placers” Underground Mining Method:
Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies. Ed W.A Hustrlid and R.L. Bullock.
SME.
Ouchi, A.M., R. Pakalnis, and T.M. Brady. 2004. “Update of Span Design Curve for Weak Rock
Masses.”
Pakalnis, R., 2002. Empirical Design Methods – UBC Geomechanics Update. NARMS-TAC
2002.
Pakanlis, R., 2012. Site Visit Exit Report, McArthur River Cameco, Technical Review. June
2012.
Palmstrom, A. 1982. The Volumetric Joint Count – A Useful and Simple Measure of the Degree
of Rock Jointing. Proc. 41st Int. Congress Int. Ass. Engng. Geol. Delphi. 5: 221-228.
Park, C., J.H. Synn, H.S. Shin, D.S. Cheon, H.D. Lim, S.W. Jeon. 2004. “An experimental study
on thermal characteristics of rock at low temperatures.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Mining Sciences. Vol 41. Pp 367-368.
Petrovic, J.J. 2003. “Review mechanical properties of ice and snow.” Journal of Materials
Science. Volume 38, Number 1, pp 1-6.
Portella. P., Annesley I.R., 2000. Paleoproterozoic tectonic evolution of the eastern sub-
Athabasca basement, northern Saskatchewan: Integrated magnetic, gravity and geological data.
Geol. Assoc. Can. – Mineral. Assoc. Can, Program Abstr.
206
Rhoads, J. L. (1994) Basic Explanation of Creep Processes. NE-161 Report. Department of
Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
Robertson, A. 1988. “Estimating weak rock strength.” AIME Annual General Meeting, Tucson,
Arizona.
Ruzicka, V., and LeCheminant, G.M. 1986. Developments in uranium geology in Canada, 1985.
In Current research, part A. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 86-l A, pp. 531 -540.
Sammis, C.G. and R.L. Biegel. 2004. “Mechanics of strengthening crystalline rock at low
temperatures: a preliminary assessment.” 26th Seismic Research Review – Trends in Nuclear
Explosion Monitoring. pp. 475-485.
Sanger, F.J. and F.H. Sayles. 1979. Thermal and rheological computations for artificially frozen
ground construction. Engineering Geology 13, 311-337.
Sayles, F. 1973. “Triaxial and Creep Tests on Frozen Ottawa Sand.” Permafrost: North
American Contribution to the Second International Congress. Pp 384-391
Schmall, P.C., A.B. Corwin, and L.P. Spiteri. 2005a. “Ground freezing under the most adverse
conditions: Moving groundwater.” Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference Proceedings.
Ed. J.D. Hutton and W.D. Rogstad. Pp 360-368.
Schmall, P.C., A.B. Corwin, D. Maishman. 2005b. “Defining the Niche of Ground Freezing.”
Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference Proceedings. Ed. J.D. Hutton and W.D. Rogstad.
Pp 996-1005.
Schultz, M.S. and H. Hass. 2005. “Application of Ground Freezing for Underground
Construction.” Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference Proceedings. Ed. J.D. Hutton and
W.D. Rogstad. pp 1062-1080.
Schmitke, B.W. 2004. “Cigar Lake’s Jet Boring Mining Method.” World Nuclear Association
Annual Symposium. September 8-10, 2004, London.
Schulson, Erland. 1999. “The structure and mechanical behaviour of ice.” JOM, 51 (2) (1999),
pp. 21-27.
Seymour, J.B. D.R. Tesarik, and R.W. McKibbin. 1996. “Stability of Permafrost Gravels in an
Alaskan Underground Placer Mine. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on
Mining in the Arctic, Longyearbyen, Svalbard, Norway, 27-30 July, 1996. pp 147-158.
Sleptsov, A.E. 1992. “Basic tendencies of underground mining strategy development in the
Arctic zone.” Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic.
Fairbanks, Alaska, July 1992. pp 97-101.
Sofianos, A.I. 1996. “Analysis and Design of an Underground Hard Rock Voussoir Beam Roof.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science. Vol 33, No. 2. pp. 153-166.
207
Thomson, S. And E.F. Lobacz. 1973. “Shear Strength at a Thaw Interface” Permafrost: North
American Contribution to the Second International Congress. Pp 419-
Tsytovich, N.A. 1960. “Bases and Foundations on Frozen Soil.” Special Report 58, Highway
Research Board.
Udd, John E. And Marc C. Betournay. 1999. “Some ground control considerations for mining in
permafrost.” Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Mining in the Arctic.
Yellowknife, Canada. June 1998. pp 43-51.
Ushakov, G.S. 1974. “Calculation of the long term strength of the roofs of rectangular rooms in
perennially frozen ground.” Institute of Physicotechnical Problems of the North, Yakutsk.
Translated from Fiziko-Tekhnicheskie Problemy Razrabotki Poleznykh Iskopaemykh, No. 4, pp.
34-40.
Vyalov, S.S. 1962. The strength and creep of frozen soils and calculations for ice-soil retaining
structures. U.S. Army, CRREL, Hanover, New Hampshire, Translation 76.
Walder, J. and B. Hallet. 1985. “A theoretical model of the fracture of rock during freezing.”
Geological Society of America Bulletin. Vol. 96. pp. 336-346.
Wang, D., W. Ma, and Z. Wen. 2008. “The freezing process deformation of soil under high
confining pressure.” Pp 1917-1920
Wardrop, 2005. Report on “Assessment of Permafrost Cases”. Issued to Bema Gold Corporation
January 2005.
Weerdenburg, P.C. and N.R. Morgenstern. 1984. “Underground Cavities in Ice-Rich Frozen
Ground.” 4th International Conference on Permafrost. Washington, DC, July 1983. pp. 1384-
1389.
Wyllie and Mah. 2007. Rock Slope Engineering, Civil and Mining. 4th Ed. Spon Press, New
York.
Yang, Yugui, Gao, Feng, Lai, Yuanming. 2012. "Modified Hoek-Brown criterion for nonlinear
strength of frozen soil". Cold Regions Science and Technology. doi:
10.1016/j.coldregions.2012.10.010
Youseff, H. And A. Hanna. 1988. “Behaviour of Frozen and Unfrozen Sands in Triaxial
Testing.” Transportation Research Record 1190, TRB, National Research Council, Washington
D.C., pp 57-64.
Yuanlin, Z. And D. Carbee. 1985. Strain rate effect on the tensile strength of frozen silt. Fourth
208
International Symposium on Ground Freezing, Sapporo.
209
Appendix A: X-Ray Diffraction Testing
210
QUANTITATIVE PHASE ANALYSIS OF TWO POWDER SAMPLES USING THE
RIETVELD METHOD AND X-RAY POWDER DIFFRACTION DATA.
The core samples 18 and 19 were reduced to the optimum grain-size range for quantitative
X-ray analysis (<10 μm) by grinding under ethanol in a vibratory McCrone Micronising Mill
for 7 minutes. To avoid preferred orientation of the platy illite crystals, the ground samples
were suspended in a 0.5% aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and sprayed from an
airbrush into a heated chamber (150°C). As the spray falls in the heated chamber, spheres of
randomly orientated crystals a few tens of micrometers in diameter are formed.
Step-scan X-ray powder-diffraction data were collected over a range 3-80°2θ with CoKa
radiation on a Bruker D8 Focus Bragg-Brentano diffractometer equipped with an Fe
monochromator foil, 0.6 mm (0.3°) divergence slit, incident- and diffracted-beam Soller slits
and a LynxEye detector. The long fine-focus Co X-ray tube was operated at 35 kV and 40
mA, using a take-off angle of 6°.
RESULTS
The X-ray diffractograms were analyzed using the International Centre for Diffraction
Database PDF-4 using Search-Match software by Siemens (Bruker). X-ray powder-diffraction
data of the samples were refined with Rietveld program Topas 4 (Bruker AXS). The results of
quantitative phase analysis by Rietveld refinements are given in Table 1. These amounts
represent the relative amounts of crystalline phases normalized to 100%. The Rietveld
refinement plots are shown in Figures 1–2.
To avoid preferred orientation of the platy illite crystals, the ground samples were
suspended in a 0.5% aqueous solution of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and sprayed from an
airbrush into a heated chamber (150°C). As the spray falls in the heated chamber, spheres of
randomly orientated crystals a few tens of micrometers in diameter are formed.
Table A.1. Results of quantitative phase analysis (wt.%)
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-1,000
-2,000
-3,000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Figure A.1. Rietveld refinement plot of sample “18” (blue line - observed intensity at each step; red line - calculated pattern; solid grey line
below – difference between observed and calculated intensities; vertical bars, positions of all Bragg reflections). Coloured lines are individual
diffraction patterns of all phases.
RP-MR_SstCore-19_spray-D8.raw_1
Illite 2M1 82.94 %
9,000 Rutile? 0.78 %
Hematite 13.38 %
Pyrite 2.41 %
8,000 Alunite? 0.49 %
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-1,000
-2,000
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Figure A.2. Rietveld refinement plot of sample “19” (blue line - observed intensity at each step; red line - calculated pattern; solid grey line
below – difference between observed and calculated intensities; vertical bars, positions of all Bragg reflections). Coloured lines are individual
diffraction patterns of all phases.
Appendix B: 2009 Unconfined Compressive Strength
Testing
211
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 1
Borehole: ST791-06
To (m): 432.40
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.07 23.2 1.9 2.81 1352
4
Axial Stress (MPa)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 3
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 435.35
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.22 20.6 1.9 2.85 3540
U
Unconfined
fi d Compressive
C i Strength
S h Test
T
2.5
2
Axial Stress (MPa)
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 4
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 435.45
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.02 20.7 1.9 3.01 1198
1.2
1
Axial Stress (MPa)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 5
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 435.70
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.08 15.9 2.1 3.09 2685
5
Axial Stress (MPa)
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 6
Borehole: ST786-07
To (m): 427.75
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.22 35.6 1.4 2.71 922
U
Unconfined
fi d Compressive
C i Strength
St th Test
T t
2.5
2
Axial Stress (MPa)
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 7
Borehole: ST786-07
To (m): 427.93
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.02 38.1 1.3 2.68 1158
1.6
1.4
1.2
Axial Stress (MPa)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 8
Borehole: ST786-07
To (m): 425.10
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.00 34.2 1.5 2.70 2346
1.4
1.2
Axial Stress (MPa)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 9
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 428.96
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.75 10.0 2.2 2.70 5946
16
14
12
Axial Stress (MPa)
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 11
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 441.48
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.20 22.0 1.7 2.67 240
2.5
2
Axial Stress (MPa)
1.5
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 12
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 441.67
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.06 26.1 1.7 2.67 433
3.5
3
Axial Stress (MPa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 13
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 442.10
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.93 15.8 1.8 2.64 5346
U
Unconfined
fi d Compressive
C i Strength
S h Test
T
9
6
Axial Stress (MPa)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 16
Borehole: ST786-07
To (m): 427.10
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.16 33.2 1.6 2.71 1325
4.5
3.5
Axial Stress (MPa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 17
Borehole: ST786-07
To (m): 427.30
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.09 30.0 1.5 2.71 1872
4
Axial Stress (MPa)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 18
Borehole: ST786-07
To (m): 427.50
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.02 43.0 1.3 2.68 3322
3.5
3
Axial Stress (MPa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 19
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 434.90
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.25 22.8 1.8 3.01 2055
3.5
3
Axial Stress (MPa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 20
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 435.20
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.05 20.9 1.9 3.01 1830
3.5
3
Axial Stress (MPa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 22
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 432.55
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.00 30.7 1.5 2.64 1195
2
Axial Stress (MPa)
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 23
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 432.75
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-10 0.00 30.9 1.5 2.70 968
2
Axial Stress (MPa)
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 24
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 432.95
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.22 28.2 1.6 2.70 1845
4
Axial Stress (MPa)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 26
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 443.05
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.24 25.0 1.7 2.64 3217
5
Axial Stress (MPa)
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 27
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 443.25
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.08 25.0 1.6 2.60 3862
2.5
Axial Stress (MPa)
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement (mm)
After Sample Trimming After Failure
Sample ID: 28
Borehole: SF801-04
To (m): 443.40
Moisture Bulk
Temperature Strain Rate Content Density S.G. E
(C) (%/min) % (MPa)
-20 0.02 25.0 1.6 2.60 1332
U
Unconfined
fi d Compressive
C i Strength
S h Test
T
4.5
3.5
3
Axial Stress (MPa)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement (mm)
Appendix C: Four Point Beam Testing
C1 - Concrete
C2 - Cigar Lake Drill Core
212
C1 - Concrete
213
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Failed 30 mm from center
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Failed 27 mm from center
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Failed 38 mm from center
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Failed 15 mm from center
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Failed at joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Press
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Did not fail at joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo
Failed at Joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Failed at joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Failed through joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Failed at joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Failed at joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Failed at joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Failed through joint
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
FAILS THROUGH MID SECTION
FAILS THROUGH MID SECTION
DID NOT FAIL AT JOINT
Pressure vs Deflection
5000 Mid Span
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
Pressure
essu e vs
s Deflection
e ect o
5000 Mid Span
4000
essure (kPa)
3000
Pressure
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deflection (mm)
C2 - Cigar Lake Drill Core
214
FOUR‐POINT BEAM BENDING TEST
Test # 1 Moisture Content %
Top Roller Span 75 mm
Bottom Roller Span 229 mm Applied Strain Rate
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Pressure vs Deflection
5000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Pressure vs Deflection
5000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Pressure vs Deflection
5000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Pressure vs Deflection
5000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Pressure 0 kPa
Peak Force 0 kN Joint Yes
Mid Span Deflection 0 mm
C k Di t
Crack Distance 130 mm Modulus of Rupture, T
Modulus of Rupture TMR 0.00
0 00 MP
MPa
Test Duration 90 s ~Tensile Strength 0.00
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo FAILED ON HANDLING
Pressure vs Deflection
5000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo No Photo
Pressure vs Deflection
5000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Peak Pressure 0 kPa
Peak Force 0 kN Joint Yes
Mid Span Deflection 0 mm
C k Di t
Crack Distance 130 mm Modulus of Rupture, T
Modulus of Rupture TMR 0.00
0 00 MP
MPa
Test Duration 90 s ~Tensile Strength 0.00
PHOTOGRAPHS
Before Test After Test
No Photo FAILED ON HANDLING
Pressure vs Deflection
5000
4000
Pressure (kPa)
3000
Pressu
2000
1000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
215
DIRECT SHEAR TEST - Breaking Strength
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Sample 5
UBC Geomechanics Lab