Authors: Speakman, H

Open access courtesy of:


Cite As:
Speakman, H 2022, 'A mixed-method approach for major excavation ground support evaluation', in Y Potvin (ed.), Caving 2022: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Block and Sublevel Caving, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 279-288,

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero

The short and long-term stability of major excavations is crucial to the successful development and long-term performance of both the excavations and their mining function. Detailed geotechnical assessments and analyses are pivotal to understanding the causes of instability when planning a major excavation and are essential to performance forecasting and applying engineering and mitigation controls. This paper describes a mixed-method approach, which not only evaluates the suitability of a range of ground support regimes but provides a good practice framework that can be applied to future major excavation assessments during a feasibility study. This approach includes the collection of geological and geotechnical data, rock mass classification, the specification of strength and stress parameters, preliminary identification of support requirements using empirical methods, such as the Q, RMR, and GSI systems, kinematic joint and wedge analysis, and 2D and 3D numerical modelling. These methods take into consideration the local rock conditions and structural geology and the ground support response based on cover hole data to evaluate best the suitability of an underground excavation and related support elements before construction begins. The mixed-method approach was tested by assessing the construction of a new major excavation for an unnamed block cave operation. Detailed geotechnical data was obtained from two cover holes. The results identified the stress environment, the likely modes of failure, mean joint sets, potential wedge formations and key influences of joint properties, the likely failure zone, and the potential impact of the void created by caving. In addition, the approach allows a wide range of suitable support regimes to be assessed. The result was a support evaluation unique to the operation and local conditions. This framework helps to successfully determine the rock conditions and the effectiveness of various support designs in two and three dimensions where this type of analysis is essential to safely work in underground conditions that are adequately supported, which can be determined quickly and effectively using the mixed-method approach for evaluating ground support and rock mass conditions. Further steps are suggested to improve the approach’s usefulness subject to more data and analytic capabilities, including downhole geophysics, numerical modelling with a discrete fracture network, and synthetic rock mass modelling.

Keywords: ground support, numerical modelling, sublevel cave

Barton, N & Bandis, SC 1991, ‘Review of predictive capabilities of JRC-JCS model in engineering practice’, Publikasjon-Norges Geotekniske Institutt, vol. 182, pp. 1–8.
Barton, N 1988, Predicting the behaviour of underground openings in rock, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo.
Barton, N, Lien, R & Lunde, J 1974, ‘Engineering classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support’, Rock Mechanics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 189–236,
Campbell, AD, Lilley, CR, Waters, S & Jones, PA 2013, ‘Geotechnical analysis and ground support selection for the Ernest Henry crusher chamber’, in Y Potvin & B Brady (eds), Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Ground Support in Mining and Underground Construction, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 437–450, ‌/1304_29_Campbell
Casten, T, Golden, R, Mulyadi, A & Barber, J 2000, ‘Excavation Design and Ground Support of the Gyratory Crusher Installation at the DOZ Mine, PT Freeport Indonesia’, in G Chitombo (ed), Proceedings of MassMin, The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 295–299.
Eberhardt, E 2012, ‘The Hoek–Brown failure criterion’, in R Ulusay (ed), The ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 2007–2014, Springer, –012–0276–4
Hoek, E 2007, Practical rock engineering, Rocscience, Toronto, viewed 5 December 2021, ‌resources/learning/hoek/Practical-Rock-Engineering-Full-Text.pdf
Hoek, E, Kaiser, PK & Bawden, WF 2000, Support of Underground Excavations in Hard Rock, CRC Press, Florida.
Lang, TA 1961, ‘Theory and practice of rock bolting’, Transactions of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, vol. 220, pp. 333–348.
Li, CC 2017, ‘Principles of rockbolting design’, Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 396–414.
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) 2015, Q-system, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, Oslo, viewed 19 November 2021,
Rocscience Inc. 1998, DIPS, version 5.0, computer software, Rocscience, Toronto,
Rocscience Inc. 2003, UnWedge, version 3.0, computer software, Rocscience, Toronto,‌unwedge
Rocscience Inc. 2008, RS2, version 7.0, computer software, Rocscience, Toronto,
Rocscience Inc. 2020, RS3, version 4.018, computer software, Rocscience, Toronto,
Rocscience Inc. 2021, RS2 User Guide – Tutorials, viewed 7 November 2021, ‌tunneling/3d-tunnel-simulation
Salminen, P, Lindfors, U & Haapalehto, S 2017, GSI Conversion Equations and Indirect Estimates of JRC and JCS values – Applicability for the Conditions of the ONKALO Facility, Posiva Oy, Eurajoki.
Saw, HA 2015, Early Strength of Shotcrete, PhD thesis, Curtin University, Western Australia.
Vlachopoulos, N & Diederichs, MS 2009, ‘Improved longitudinal displacement profiles for convergence confinement analysis of deep tunnels’, Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 131–146.

© Copyright 2024, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
View copyright/legal information
Please direct any queries or error reports to