Mine Pillar Design Using the Ground Reaction Curve Concept

"Modern underground mining is becoming more complex and geotechnically challenging. The engineer uses numerical, analytical, and data-driven methods (empirical and/or experimental) or their combination to overcome these challenges. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. Nevertheless, given the amount of innovation and experience involved in developing each of these techniques, it will be prudent to use all their benefits rather than favoring one technique over the other. Pillars are the most important support element in an underground mine. A holistic geo-mechanical solution needs to be determined to design mine pillars using a proper sequence and exact mix of the three methods. A combination of these methods, in sync, can encompass the several advantages of the three methods while eliminating their disadvantages. This paper presents a conceptual three-tier solution to the pillar design problem, to improve its design pedigree, using a proper combination of numerical, analytical, and data-driven methods. At the focus of this proposed method lies the Ground Reaction Curve (GRC) concept.INTRODUCTIONAlthough the stability analysis of underground excavations is a challenging problem, its understanding has improved tremendously over recent years through the use of improved tools and techniques. The trial and error method was replaced with more scientific methods like the empirical and analytical methods that are still in use today. Empirical methods were developed based on large data sets obtained from experiments and observations (e.g., coal pillar strength equations). Analytical methods were developed based on mechanical understanding of stability (e.g., safety factor for vertical pillar loading, Convergence Confinement Method). Improvement in computing power and numerical techniques led to the development of several numerical methods (e.g., finite difference, finite element) suitable for geo-mechanical analysis.Each of these methods have certain advantages and limitations. Nevertheless, the user is often puzzled over the proper method selection and over the proper sequence of using them. This exercise becomes more challenging when different methods are combined, where, for example, one has to estimate the pillar strength based on empirical equations (e.g., Mark-Bieniawski coal pillar strength equation), determine the factor of safety based on an analytical approach (e.g., tributary area load divided by pillar strength), and analyze pillar-strata interactions using numerical analysis (see Esterhuizen, Mark, and Murphy, 2010b).Challenges increase when current pillar design methods are designed as passive structures to balance the fixed dead weight of the overburden. This classic suspension design approach does not recognize the self-stabilizing capacity of the overburden (Frith and Reed, 2018). A practical solution to address these issues is the use of numerical analysis. However, one should always keep in mind that the numerical modelling approach may have certain practical limitations."