1 INTRODUCTION

Geotechnical logging programs, as with geology

logging programs, can be susceptible to quality con-
trol issues within the data set. These quality control
issues typically arise from poorly-defined nomencla-
ture and incorrect or inconsistent logging procedures
at a site. Errors can be further exacerbated by the
FIFO schedules of loggers at remote sites as well as
the high turnover of personnel related to the current
positive mining market.
The creation of logging procedures manuals for
quality control is not a new approach, but existing
manuals tend to be generic documents. These docu-
ments are often carried without modification from
one project to the next. This paper advocates the es-
tablishment of a site specific geotechnical logging
atlas that achieves the consistent field determination
of geotechnical parameters.
This system takes into account the level of the
applicable study; the specific characteristics of the
mineralization context; the likely mining methods as
well as the specific rock mass characteristics that
may affect the mining method selection. By consi-
dering all these aspects, the blanket approach of
unfocused detailed geotechnical data acquisition
programs could be avoided. In the absence of a site-
specific, tailored approach, the logging exercise may
be a high cost, time consuming process. Additional-
ly, this would also avoid the case where earlier drill
holes should have been logged based on specific
geotechnical requirements prior to sampling, but
were not.
This paper discusses the process of establishing a
site specific atlas. Also included are three case stu-
dies where the geotechnical logging program was
tailored to focus on specific geotechnical aspects re-
lated to future likely mining methods.
2 ASSESSING THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
OF A GEOTECHNICAL CORE EVALUATION
PROGRAM
To assess the key elements and tailor the require-
ments of the geotechnical logging program, the fol-
lowing aspects, need to be considered prior to and in
association with, a dedicated site visit (Fig. 1):

Current level of study
Mineralization context
Likely mining methods
Distinctive orebody/country rock characteristics.

The first three aspects listed above are discussed
within this section and the final aspect is considered
later in a separate section.

Establishing a site specific mining geotechnical logging atlas
B.A. Murphy & J .R. Campbell
SRK Consulting, Vancouver

ABSTRACT: In many instances geotechnical training and the generation of geotechnical logging procedures
is undertaken using a generic application of accepted rockmass classification systems. These logging proce-
dures regularly neglect to take into account the site specific rockmass characteristics and interpretations that
are integral to the undertaking of a quality assured assessment of the rockmass conditions. In addition, the
regular practice of fly in and fly out (FIFO) schedules and high personnel turnover leads to numerous quality
control aspects related to the inconsistent acquisition of geotechnical data. Discussed is the approach and
benefits of establishing a site specific detailed geotechnical logging atlas. This atlas should include aspects
such as descriptions and photographic references to specific types of discontinuity characteristics for the vari-
ous lithologies; rock strength testing and sampling procedures, as well as the reference logging of site repre-
sentative boxes of core. Three case study examples are included in the paper. Also discussed will be the tai-
loring of a site-specific geotechnical data acquisition program relative to the level of study being undertaken,
from exploration through to the final feasibility.



Figure 1. Elements to be considered when evaluating and setting up the guidelines of a site specific geotechnical logging program.



Once these project attributes are well understood
it is possible to tailor the exploration program to
limit the collection of superfluous data and focus the
requirements specific to the context. The implication
thereof is discussed in more detail below.
2.1 Level of study of the current program
To customize the level of geotechnical information
required, it is important to understand both the study
level and short and long term geotechnical objec-
tives. Once these factors are understood, the geo-
technical drilling program should be optimized to
focus on areas of geotechnical significance. Such
areas should target ground to be exploited (e.g. pit
perimeter, deeper sections only of drill holes for
open stoping), In addition to obtaining relevant, high
resolution geotechnical data, this customized ap-
proach will potentially save time and money over
the duration of the project evaluation.
From the outset of any exploration program it is
important to undertake a minimum level of geotech-
nical data acquisition on all drill holes. This should
include the following parameters for each drilling
interval: RQD (rock quality designation), TCR (total
core recovery), IRS (intact rock strength: strong,
weak and % weak) and weathering/alteration type
and intensity.
As the project advances through the various le-
vels of study, the coverage and resolution of the rep-
resentative geotechnical data needs to intensify. Ta-
ble 1 endeavors to generically quantify the minimum
level of required geotechnical data based on the lev-
el of study and the type of mining method that may
be employed. These requirements can then be fur-
ther tailored to the specific deposit type and context
related requirements.
2.2 Mineralization context and country rock
attributes
To make a reasonable assessment of the potential
range of mining methods and focus the geotechnical
logging program, the mineralization context and
country rock attributes need to be well understood.
Listed below are a number of contextual aspects that
need to be considered prior to formulating a geo-
technical logging program:

Orebody depth and geometry
Orebody and country rock strengths
Nature of the overlying rock mass and overbur-
den material
Influence of major geological structures
Weathering/alteration characteristics of the ore-
body and country rock
Hydrogeology and possible permafrost impacts.

Understanding the context of the deposit will fa-
cilitate a selection of the range of possible mining
methods as well as the specific aspects of the rock-
mass that need to be focused on during the geotech-
nical evaluation.
2.3 Likely mining methods
At an early stage of the project evaluation, an initial
engineering judgment should be made on the likely
range of mining methods that are being considered.
This would be based not only on the context of the
mineralization and country rock but also on the po-
tential economic value of the ore and on environ-
mental considerations.
Aspects such as the potential orebody geometry,
strength characteristics and depth are initially consi-
dered to determine the likely range of mining me-
thods. It is important to consider whether the mining
scenario would involve an open pit, underground or
a combination of both.
If an underground method is to be used, it is ne-
cessary to discern whether a caving, self supported
(open stoping/room and pillar) or supported method
(backfill) will be employed. Based on the likely
mining methods, the geotechnical program can be
structured to determine the required, more detailed
geotechnical parameters in specific areas, and not
just on a blanket approach. This is anticipated to
generate time and cost savings throughout the geo-
technical evaluation program.

3 MINERALIZATION CHARACTERISTICS -
INFLUENCES ON THE INTERPRETATION
OF GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
THROUGH CORE LOGGING
Depending on the deposit type, the interpretation of
certain aspects can substantially affect the interpre-
tation of the rockmass classification values. Figure 2
summarizes typical practices during core logging
which can adversely affect rockmass parameter de-
terminations. Specifically, the following represent
typical geotechnical parameters where a customized
approach may be required.
Alteration/weathering;
Rock strength;
Foliation/jointing/bedding/cemented jointing; and
Micro-defects (e.g. veining, cemented matrix).
Table 1. Typical requirements for geotechnical logging programs based on mining method and level of study.
Likely Mining
Method
Core Related - Key Geotechnical
Aspects Exploration Stage Project
Pre-Feasibility/Feasibility Following a
Positive Scoping Study
Open Pit
Slope stability - waste and ore
Rock mass strength

Discontinuity orientation and strength
Overburden characteristics and strength
Hydrology and hydrogeology
Structural Geology and fault strengths
In all drill holes:
All basic geotechnical information requirements
Point load testing program
In all dril l hol es wi thi n potential pit slope areas:
Detailed discontinuity information for the full hole length.
In representati ve drill holes:
Overburden characteristics including laboratory testing
Detailed discontinuity information including full
orientation of thereof
Laboratory testing intact rock strengths and discontinuity
shear strengths
Shear strength tests on fill material within the influential
major structural features.
Detailed hydrogeology information and testing.
Caving Method
Block,
Panel,
Sublevel
Cavability
Fragmentation
Waste/overburden Characteristics and
strength
Ore characteristics and strength
Hydrogeology
Structural Geology and fault strengths
Stress Field
In all drill holes:
All basic geotechnical information requirements
Detailed discontinuity information
Cemented joint frequency and strength
Micro-defect frequency and strength
Point load testing program.

In representati ve drill holes:
Detailed overburden logging and laboratory testing
Full orientation of discontinuities (orientation tool /
televiewer)
Laboratory testing of representative orebody and country
rock samples
Detailed hydrogeology information and testing.
Self Supported
Partial Extraction
Room and Pillar

Backfill Supported
Cut and Fill
Bench and Fill
Overhand
Underhand
Orebody strength/pillar strength
Detailed understanding of Immediate HW
and FW rock mass characteristics
Hydrogeology
Structural Geology and fault strengths
Stress Field
In all drill holes:
All basic geotechnical information requirements
Detailed discontinuity information (~20m above HW to
end)*
Cemented joint frequency and strength (~20m above HW
to end)*
Micro-defect frequency and strength (~20m above HW to
end)*
Point load testing program.
* distance above orebody HW increase if a HW
infrastructure is proposed.
In representati ve drill holes:
Full orientation of discontinuities (orientation tool /
televiewer)
Laboratory testing of representative orebody and country
rock samples
Detailed hydrogeology information and testing.
Basic Geotechnical Information
Recovery, RQD, Rock Strength
and alteration/weathering intensity
for each drilling interval.
Detailed major structural feature
information
General hydrogeology information
during drilling.
High resolution dry core
photographs
Detailed photographs of possible
major structure intersections.


Figure 2. Practices during core logging that can affect rock mass parameter determinations.


Although the themes presented above are often
captured using traditional rock mass classification
systems, complications typically arise from technical
misapplication and user error (lack of training, etc).
We plan to illustrate that with proper parameter
evaluation, field staff can collect extremely valuable
information required for future evaluation studies.
3.1 Intact Rock Strength (IRS)
3.1.1 Sampling bias
This can occur where strong and weak sections exist
within the same interval. The tendency is to sample
the stronger material thus leaving the weaker unre-
corded thereby overestimating the strength. This bi-
as has been addressed by Laubscher (1990) where
the percentage of both strong and weak rock is rec-
orded.
3.1.2 Rock strength anisotropy
The rock strength can be substantially different pa-
rallel and perpendicular to features such as foliation,
schistocity and micro-defects. It is therefore impor-
tant to collect strength data in multiple orientations.
3.1.3 IRS determination methodologies
IRS can be determined from empirical measure-
ments, Schmidt Hammer and point load estimations
and laboratory testing. As the level of study ad-
vances the methodology of estimating the IRS re-
quires improvement and calibration.
3.1.4 Soft rock/soil strength determination
Commonly, field-staff classify weak rocks or soils
as an R0 rating without applying the weaker S1 S6
empirical strength evaluation. With weaker mate-
rials, the S1 S6 evaluation should be applied oth-
erwise a substantial level of detail will be lost.
3.2 Rock Quality Designation (RQD) and joint
spacing
3.2.1 Machine and handling breaks
The logging guidelines should ensure that the impact
of drilling and handling breaks are removed from the
estimation of discontinuity counts.
3.2.2 Drilling direction bias
The impact of drilling bias on the determination of
the number of joint sets, joint spacing and the RQD
needs to be well understood. Evaluation programs
should include a number of drill holes drilled in
multiple orientations to ensure that all joint sets are
intersected. If available, the geotechnical drill pro-
gram must be evaluated against surface mapping at
an early stage to estimate the potential impact of
drilling orientation bias.
3.2.3 Weaker rock RQD estimations
High RQD measurements and low joint counts in
weaker rock masses such as kimberlite lead to unre-
presentative high rock mass classification rating
values. The impact of the rock strength on rockmass
strength determinations should be understood early
on and the geotechnical evaluation program tailored
to evaluate potential variations in this strength at a
higher resolution. This may contribute significantly
to the excavation designs and the related extraction
levels within the mining method stage of the evalua-
tion.
3.2.4 Joints and cemented joints
Cemented joints have a higher tensile strength than
open joints, but the type and nature of the cementing
material influences just how much stronger these
are. Often when undertaking core logging, it is dif-
ficult to discern whether a discontinuity in the
ground represents an open joint or a cemented joint.
A reasonable approach is that if a cemented joint is
open in the core, then it is reasonably weak and the
joint be counted as an open joint feature. This ap-
proach may be reconsidered for certain underground
mass mining techniques (e.g. caving) where the rela-
tive amount of cemented joints and open joints may
significantly affect the design layout. The above as-
pects are addressed in detail by J akubec & Laub-
scher (2000).
3.2.5 Fabric
At the data collection stage it is essential that the
impact of fabric on rock mass strength is well un-
derstood. For this reason, the number of fabric pa-
rallel breaks need to be separated from the total joint
count. Depending on the orientation of the fabric
and the prevailing stress field, excavation perfor-
mance can be substantially better than that deter-
mined from a rock mass classification based on em-
pirical design that included fabric counts in the total
joint count. This approach can be executed not only
in oriented core, but in unoriented core as a relative
indicator.
3.3 Joint conditions
3.3.1 Joint fill type and strength
Unless strict, site specific guidelines are established,
the fill type and joint strength determination is sub-
jective and large variations in these parameters will
be generated by various loggers. Additionally, field
staff must understand the influence of weathering on
joint strengths once the rockmass has been exposed.
If the effect is recorded, the geotechnical evaluation
programs should include further evaluation of this
aspect.
3.3.2 Joint roughness and aperture
As is the case with fill strength, site specific exam-
ples and guidelines need to be established to avoid
large variations in the estimation of these parameters
and the subsequent impacts on the rock mass
strength determination.

3.3.3 Joint condition averaging over a do-
main/interval
A serious flaw in many geotechnical logging pro-
grams is the averaging or estimation of the joint pa-
rameters. Inappropriate weighting of the weakest or
strongest parameters over a domain/interval may al-
so be problematic. Depending on the joint set orien-
tation, it may or may not play and important role in
defining the stability of an excavation. It is thus im-
portant that the joint conditions of the individual sets
be assessed separately. This will allow the use of the
appropriate parameters for the most influential joint
set, based on an excavation orientation.
3.4 General aspects
3.4.1 Logging intervals
Decisions need to be made whether the logging is
undertaken on a run by run (drilling interval) or do-
main (section of core with the same geotechnical
characteristics) basis. An important aspect to keep in
mind is that domain logging must be undertaken by
experienced geotechnical personnel.
Typically, the preference is to log the basic gen-
eral geotechnical parameters (RQD, core recovery
and IRS) on a run by run basis and then to determine
the more detailed geotechnical parameters over a us-
er-defined domain basis. The length of these do-
mains should be limited to a maximum of 9 15 m.
Otherwise, severe over-averaging can be incurred
and the resolution and accuracy of the data set may
be dramatically reduced.
If triple split tube logging is undertaken at the
drill rig, then all parameters should be logged on a
run by run basis, within the split-tube, prior to plac-
ing the core in the core box. Additional logging,
such as geology, may be completed at an alternate
location.
3.4.2 Major structures
From the outset of any geological or geotechnical
program, the logging of major structures needs to be
undertaken diligently as these measurements will
play a significant role in the later structural interpre-
tation of the deposit. Elements such as intersection
length, orientation, brittle/ductile characteristics,
shear sense indicators, fluid flow and fault zone cha-
racteristics (gouge, fracture frequency, nature)
should be evaluated. The nature of any gouge ma-
terial within the fault zones should be documented
as cohesive or non-cohesive and a level of soil log-
ging classification applied.
3.4.3 Poor drilling practices
Tight controls and documentation of the drilling
practices should be maintained throughout all drill
programs. This is especially relevant in weaker rock
masses where penetration rates, core recovery and
core quality should be evaluated and consistently
recorded within the database.
4 ELEMENTS OF GOOD SITE SPECIFIC
GEOTECHNICAL LOGGING ATLAS
Generally, a detailed geotechnical site specific log-
ging atlas would be established once a project has
successfully moved through a positive scoping
study. Generation of the atlas should be comple-
mented by three to four days of site review by an
experienced geotechnical practitioner. The content
and structure of the logging atlases have continually
evolved though internal experience generated from
previous and ongoing drilling programs (J . J akubec,
pers. comm.).
An important aspect to keep in mind when estab-
lishing a list of geotechnical parameters is to consid-
er type of classification system to be used for the
initial empirical designs. Depending on the type and
range of excavations being considered, the metho-
dologies could include the use of multiple classifica-
tion systems (e.g. Bieniawski 1976, 1989) RMR for
slope stability, Laubscher (1990), RMR and Laub-
scher (2000) IRMR/MRMR for caving, Bartons Q
(1974) for stope, caving and tunnel excavation de-
sign). Although there are multiple correlation formu-
lae between classification systems (Milne et al.
1998), it is important that the values be derived in-
dependently. The use of these general formulae can
lead to erroneous simplification and inadequate
weighting of important parameters. For this reason,
the list of determined geotechnical parameters
should be sufficient to evaluate the required classifi-
cation systems from first principles.
To establish an effective site specific geotechnical
logging atlas, the following aspects should be in-
cluded:
Geotechnical Program Context and Objectives:
Summary notes should be generated on the mine-
ralization context, potential mining methods and
geotechnical program objectives. Using this in-
formation, the more critical geotechnical aspects
should be identified.
Data Capture Practices: The structure of the in-
put forms and applicable methodology should be
highlighted. Detailed back-up procedures need to
be established.
General Logging Process Definition: A step-by-
step list of procedural requirements, including the
handling, logging, photography, sampling and
storage of the drill core should be established.
Photography Guidelines: The methodology by
which to photograph cores within split tubes, core
boxes as well as detailed photographs of specific
geotechnical features, should be provided. All
photographs, taken with consistent lighting,
should include a scale and colour chart. This ap-
proach will generate photographs of consistent
resolution and quality for future reference.
Geotechnical Feature Reference Slides: A com-
piled group of detailed photographs highlighting
typical geotechnical features (observed in drill
core, outcrop, etc) should be established. As addi-
tional features are encountered, they should be
photographed, classified and implemented to the
reference section of the logging atlas.
Logging Parameter Definitions: Detailed refer-
ences on the methodology for assessing geotech-
nical parameters should be made readily available
to logging staff.
Major Structures: Clear documentation identify-
ing such structural aspects as brittle/ductile cha-
racteristics, shear sense indicators and infill ma-
terial types should be documented for reference.
Core orientation procedures: Procedural docu-
ments (including troubleshooting) describing the
specific orientation hardware(s) should be made
available to field staff.
Logged Boxes Reference Slides: Reference slides
should include a set of photographs of
logged/marked boxes (Fig. 3) of the various rep-
resentative geotechnical conditions that are en-
countered at the site. These photos serve as a ref-
erence template during logging.
Geotechnical Testing: Operational procedures for
the specific hardware (e.g. Schmidt Hammer,
point load tester) used on the site as well as a set
of reference slides to classify successful tests, es-
pecially for point load tests should be supplied.
Sampling Procedures: Notes should be included
detailing sampling objectives, procedures and
proper preservation of samples prior to testing.


CJ
CJ
CJ
J
J
J
J J
CJ
CJ
CJ
J
J
J
J J

Figure 3. Reference marked-up and logged boxes to indicate
good logging practices.

Once the atlas is finalized, it should be presented
to the geotechnical logging team including senior
geological/geotechnical personnel for review and
discussion. It is important that senior site geologi-
cal/geotechnical personnel buy into the proposed
program as they form a critical part of the QA/QC
process. The final document should then be printed
in colour and a number of copies retained within the
core shack and drill site (if applicable). In addition, a
set of laminated reference charts should be devel-
oped and clearly mounted where the logging is to be
undertaken.
5 CASE STUDIES
5.1 Ekati Diamond Mine Alteration
Ekati diamond mine is located approximately 300
kilometres northeast of Yellowknife and 200 kilo-
meters south of the Arctic Circle in the Northwest
Territories, Canada. The Ekati operation consists of
five open pits and three underground mines at vari-
ous stages of development. SRK Consulting has
been involved in the transition from open pit to un-
derground mining at the Koala, Koala North and
Panda kimberlite orebodies (J akubec et al. 2004).
The kimberlite orebodies exhibit typical pipe geo-
metries (diatreme and crater facies) and are hosted
in Archean granotoids.
SRK was employed to geotechnically character-
ize the kimberlite and granitoid host within the dee-
per levels of the Koala orebody. This work was un-
dertaken as part of the underground feasibility study.
As an initial task, SRK developed a site specific
geotechnical logging system. Using this system,
over 70 drill holes were geotechnically logged.
Using previous site experience and discussions
with Ekati staff, critical elements were highlighted
with respect to the geotechnical character of the
rockmass. In addition to standard geotechnical con-
cerns (e.g. structures, geology), alteration within the
rockmass, specifically the orebody, was identified as
the most important parameter to geotechnically cha-
racterize.
The alteration within the Koala kimberlite was
identified as the major variable in rockmass quality.
Within the Koala pipe, alteration dramatically ef-
fects porosity and rock strength with higher levels of
alteration exhibiting the highest degrees of second-
ary porosity and weakest rock strength. A simple,
but effective system of classifying this alteration
during core logging was introduced. The level of al-
teration observed in both the kimberlite and country
rock were graded on a relative scale from none to
intense. The scale is described below and depicted
in Figure 4:
None (rating 0)
Minor (rating 1)
Moderate (rating 2)
Intense (rating 3)
Additionally, an alteration code (AA) was en-
tered into the logging database if the alteration was
moderate or intense for the purpose of rapid identifi-
cation and sorting. To aid logging staff, photographs
and descriptions of alteration levels were added to
the logging manual (Fig. 4).


Figure 4. Alteration levels were classified for all kimberlites
and defined in the logging atlas.
5.2 Quimsacocha Gold Project Alteration and
defects
Wholly owned by IAMGOLD Inc., the Quimsaco-
cha gold project is located in southern Ecuador. The
epithermal gold deposit is hosted within quartz brec-
cias which have intruded intermediate volcanics. An
underground scenario is the leading mining method
option although the open pit option is still being ex-
plored. Target mining depths using the open pit sce-
nario are approximately 150m.
The project is currently advancing through Pre-
Feasibility and the need for advanced geotechnical
data collection has recently increased. SRK was em-
ployed to develop a site specific geotechnical log-
ging system and train technical staff in geotechnical
data collection.
After discussions with IAMGOLD staff and visits
to the project site, SRK devised a site specific geo-
technical logging system which focused on several
geotechnical aspects.
The rockmass at Quimsacocha is characterized by
zoned alteration, with the orebody representing both
the central core and highest rock strength within the
zonation. Recognizing that rock strength was inhe-
rently tied to the alteration zoning, SRK instituted
alteration and micro-defect classification systems to
characterize these important parameters (Fig. 5). To
aid logging staff, photos and descriptions of altera-
tion levels were added to a site-specific logging ma-
nual.



Figure 5. Within the logging atlas, alteration was classified in
terms of type and level of alteration. Note the correlation be-
tween alteration type and rock strength.


In terms of rockmass classification, primary alte-
ration zoning, generated during epithermal minerali-
zation, provides the basic geotechnical conditions
within the mineralized zone. These background con-
ditions were classified using a system modified from
IAMGOLDs geology group. By using this system,
training was minimized and senior geologists were
able to confidently establish alteration levels based
on type (e.g. smectite, kaolinite) and intensity (mi-
nor, moderate and intense). Using these data, an al-
teration model is currently being constructed which
will serve as the most important tool for future geo-
technical studies (mine design, slope/underground
stability).
In addition to alteration classification, SRK rec-
ommended that micro-defects within the rockmass
(veinlets, microbrecciation, and dissolution) also be
quantitatively assessed. Similar to the alteration
classification, micro-defects are assessed based on
their weakening effect on the rockmass. Both inten-
sity (none, minor, moderate and intense) and type
are being classified by IAMGOLD geologists and
geotechnicians. Obtaining information on micro-
defects will provide future workers with greater con-
fidence at several important stages including mining
method selection, stability and blasting.
5.3 Voiseys Bay - Defects
The Voisey's Bay nickel deposit is located 350 km
north of Happy Valley-Goose Bay in Labrador,
Canada. Voisey's Bay Nickel Company (VBNC) is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Inco Ltd. and is respon-
sible for developing the Voisey's Bay project. The
deposit is hosted within the Voiseys Bay Intrusion
which is mafic in composition and is dominantly
composed of olivine gabbro and troctolite with vari-
able amounts of leucotroctolite, melatroctolite, oli-
vine norite, gabbronorite and ferrodiorite. Minerali-
zation occurs within a number of potential ore
deposits as either a massive sulphide or dissemi-
nated ore of variable sulphide content.
The more massive sulphide ores of these deposits
can have relatively low IRS as a result of well de-
veloped micro-fracturing (see Fig. 6) and there is a
potential relationship between percentage sulphide
content and IRS within the disseminated sulphide
zone (Fig. 7). The impact of this low strength on
rock mass performance is not adequately reflected
when evaluating using existing classification sys-
tems and it is suggested that IRS would need to be a
bigger portion of the rock mass rating.
For this reason it was considered that there
needed to be a higher level of resolution of the IRS
within a narrow range as this may become a critical
aspect in the mine design. If engineering judgment
during the later design process warrants that IRS
should have a higher weighting in an engineered
Rock Mass rating calculation to be representative of
the rock mass performance, then this detail may
prove invaluable in optimizing the chosen mining
method.
Attempts to quantify the micro fracturing and re-
late this to rock strength proved difficult and it was
considered best to evaluate the variation in strength
of the sulphides on a regular basis using a Schmidt
hammer. In contrast to just empirically logging it as
a R3 (25 50 MPa) range with the occasional point-
load test, a sizeable data set would be set up with a
higher resolution. This detail could become very im-
portant when defining geotechnical domains and the
associated mine design parameters.
Also of high importance to future mining me-
thods is the understanding of strength variations
within a potential orebody due to the varying sul-
phide content. Accordingly, the point load testing
and UCS testing program needed to be tailored to
ensure that representative sulphide ranges were
tested.



Figure 6. Detailed photograph of sampled massive sulphide
core indicating the extent of micro-fracturing/defects.



Figure 7. Variations in point load strengths within the massive
and disseminated sulphide zones.

6 CONCLUSION
In summary:
Each site is geotechnically unique and should be
treated as such. Time and expertise must be in-
vested in order to obtain the highest, most rele-
vant data collected from drilling programs. Sub-
stantial time and cost benefits can be realized
through a customized more focused geotechnical
data gathering program than a general blanket
approach.
The site-specific logging atlas should be com-
pleted only after a site visit where senior geo-
technical personnel are able to liaise with site
personnel.
Senior geological and geotechnical site staff
should be involved in initial orientation and train-
ing as they play a major role in ongoing QA/QC.
The most common geotechnical factors which
must be customized on a site specific basis in-
clude alteration/weathering, rock strength, dis-
continuity assessment and micro-defects.
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
BHP Billiton Diamonds, IAMGOLD and INCO
(VBNC) have graciously permitted us to include
case study examples in this manuscript. We would
like thank J . J akubec for his peer review and in-
sightful comments. We also extend our thanks to
our field staff who have greatly aided in developing
our site specific logging manuals.
REFERENCES
Barton, N.R., Lien, R. & Lunde, J . 1974. Engineering classifi-
cation of jointed rock masses for the design of tunnel sup-
port. Rock Mechanics 6: 189-236.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1976. Rock mass classification of jointed
rock masses. In Bieniawski (ed.), Exploration for Rock En-
gineering. J ohannesburg: Balkema, pp. 97-106.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering Rock Mass Classifica-
tions. J ohn Wiley & Sons, 251 pp.
J akubec, J ., Long, L., Nowicki, T. & Dyck, D. 2004. Under-
ground geotechnical and geological investigations at Ekati
Mine Koala North: case study. In 8th International Kim-
berlite Conference Selected Papers, pp. 347-357.
J akubec, J . & Laubscher, D.H. 2000. The IRMR/MRMR Rock
Mass Classification System for Jointed Rock Masses. SME.
Laubscher, D.H. 1990. A geomechanics classification system
for the rating of rock mass in mine design. Journal of the
South African Institute of Mining & Metallurgy 90(10):
257-273.
Milne, D., Hadjigeorgiou, J . & Pakalnis R., 1998. Rock mass
characterization for underground hard rock mines. Tunne-
ling and Underground Space Technology 13(4): 383-391.