e_

CANADA C

DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
MINES BRANCH
OTTAWA

ARTIFICIAL SUPPORT OF ROCK SLOPES

K. BARRON, D. F. COATES AND M. GYENGE

MINING RESEARCH CENTRE

JULY 1970

Research Report R 228 Price $1.25

 @ Crown Copyrights reserved

Available by mail from Information Canada, Ottawa

and at the following Information Canada bookshops

HALIFAX
1735 Barrington Street
MONTREAL
"Eterna-Vie Building, 1182 St. Catherine St. West
• OTTAWA
171 Slater Street
TORONTO
221 Yonge Street
WINNIPEG
Ma ll Center Bldg., 499 Portage Avenue

VANCOUVER
657 Granville Street

or throug,h your bookseller

Aria $1.25 Catalogue No. M38-1/228

Price subject to change without notice

Information Canada
Ottawa, 1970
 FOREWORD

It is well recognized that development projects are an order of

magnitude more expensive than research projects. Consequently, R & D organi-

zations must be particularly careful in selecting those prospects on which

development funds will be expended.

In Canada, the majority of excavated rock slopes are in open-pit

mines. Approximately 200 million tons of ore and 250 million tons of waste

are currently being excavated from these open pits, which generate by these

operations about 700 million dollars per annum. The cost of mining this ore

is strongly influenced by the slope angle that is used for the pit walls.

The benefits from research directed towards obtaining the capability of

designing optimum slope angles are being obtained, but the technical problems

that must be overcome to obtain the full capability are difficult.

The recommendation by the Mining Research Centre that their research

on this subject be supplemented by the practical approach of developing support

systems was fully approved. In the light of the modest amount of work that has

now been done on this development, I am gratified to see the prospects that

this work will lead to a distinct modification of current open-pit mining

methods with consequent economic benefit to the country.

As has been the experience of the Mines Branch in much of its research,

the active participation in this work by an operating company has been most

beneficial. We believe the industry at large, as well as ourselves, should

provide such companies with a hearty vote of thanks.

ohn Convey,
irector
Ottawa, July 1970
 AVANT-PROPOS

Il est généralement admis que les travaux de développement sont

considérablement plus coûteux que la recherche. Les entreprises de recherche et

de développement doivent donc choisir avec soin les travaux auxquels elles comptent

consacrer des fonds de développement.

Au Canada, la plupart des parois rocheuses résultant d'excavations sont

dans des mines à ciel ouvert. On extrait actuellement quelque 200 millions de

tonnes de minerai et 250 millions de tonnes de déblais de ces mines à ciel ouvert,

dont les opérations annuelles représentent une valeur d'environ 700 millions de

dollars. Le coût d'extraction de ce minerai dépend beaucoup de l'angle d'in-

clinaison de la paroi de l'excavation. La recherche a donné jusqu'ici de précieuses

indications en vue d'obtenir le meilleur angle de pente possible, mais il reste

d'importantes difficultés techniques à surmonter pour obtenir le rendement optimal.

La proposition du Centre de recherches minières voulant que ces re-

cherches à ce sujet soient complémentées de travaux pratiques en vue de la mise

au point de techniques de soutènement a été approuvée entièrement. A la lumière

des quelques travaux déjà réalisés en ce sens, je suis heureux de constater qu'il

pourrait en résulter une transformation radicale des méthodes d'excavation à

ciel ouvert, entraînant des économies à l'échelle nationale.

Comme ce fut le cas pour la majeure partie des recherches de la Direction

des mines, la participation active d'une entreprise en exploitation à ces travaux

s'est révélée fort utile. Nous sommes d'avis que l'industrie en général, ainsi que

le Centre de recherches minières, doivent remercier de telles enteprises de leur

généreuse coopération. AA0L-

hn Convey,
irecteur
Ottawa, juillet 1970
 Mines Branch Research Report R 228

ARTIFICIAL SUPPORT OF ROCK SLOPES*

by

K. Barron*, D. F. Coates** and M. Gyenge*

ABSTRACT

Part I of this research report gives some simple

analyses and establishes some guidelines for designing support

for hard rock slopes. Part II describes the installation of a

trial support system and gives a breakdown of construction costs.

Part III considers the design and costing of support systems for

some hypothetical rock slopes. It is shown that the potential

profits per linear foot of pit wall, obtained by using arti-

ficial supports to safely increase the slope angle, may be

optimized.

* Research Scientists, and ** Head, Mining Research Centre,

Mines Branch, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources,
Ottawa, Canada.

KEY WORDS: Slopes, supports, analysis, design, costs, profit,

optimization.
 iv

y
Direction des mines

Rapport de recherches R 228

LE SOUTENEMENT ARTIFICIEL DES PAROIS ROCHEUSES

par

K. Barron*, D. F. Coates** et M. Gyenge*

MsumÉ.

La première partie du présent rapport de recherche

renferme certaines analyses simples et des directives générales

sur le soutènement des parois rocheuses. La deuxième partie

ei
décrit l'installation d'un dispositif de soutènement d'essai

et fait état de coût de sa construction. La troisième partie

étudie le plan et le coût de dispositifs de soutènement pour

diverses parois hypothétiques. Le rapport démontre que l'utili-

sation des supports artificiels pour accentuer l'angle de la

parois des excavations permet d'augmenter le profit par pied

linéaire.

-* Chercheurs scientifiques et **Chef, Centre de recherches minières,

Direction des Mines, ministère de l'Energie, des Mines et des
Ressources, Ottawa, Canada.

MOTS CLEFS: Pente, soutènement, analyse, dessin, coûts, profit,

• -y
optimisation.
 CONTENTS
Page
•
Foreword
Avant-Propos ii

Abstract
Résumd (French) iv

PREFACE ix

PART I: DESIGN OF A SUPPORT SYSTEM

The Basic Concept of the Support System 1

General Assumptions 3
Slope Stability Analysis 5
Cable Support Design 10
Bench Stability Analysis 17
Design of the Welded Wire Mesh 22
Design of the Horizontal Stringers 27
Conclusion 31

PART II: A TRIAL INSTALLATION OF A SLOPE SUPPORT SYSTEM

•••■ Introduction 33
Plans for the Installation 34
Instrumentation 36
Construction Sequence 37
Critique on Construction Experience and Item Costs 39
Site Preparation 39
Anchor Holes 39
Welded Wire Mesh 41
Steel Rod Stringer Beam and Abutments 43
Concrete Stringer Beam and Abutments 44
Anchors 45
Assembly and Installation of Anchors 46
Grouting of Anchors 50
Tensioning of the Anchors 52
Final Grouting 53
Conclusion and General Comments 53
Results of Instrumental Studies 59
Instrument Layout 59
Cable Anchor Tensions 59
Extensometer Measurements 69
• Concrete Strain Gauges 69
Plate Load Tests 79
set
Television Viewing of the Boreholes 79
Instrumentation Costs 79
•
 vi

CONTENTS (Concluded)
Page

PART III: EXAMPLES OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST

ESTIMATES FOR A MAJOR SUPPORT PROJECT

Introduction 80
The Hypothetical Problem 80
Slope Stability Analysis 80
Bench Stability Analysis 86
Cost Analysis 92

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 102

REFERENCES 102

APPENDICES. 103-145

I: Tendon characteristics 303

II: Bench stability analysis: angle e at which excess shear
stress T reaches a maximum . . . . . •. . . 104
III: Data on wélded wire fabric 106
IV: Standard bars 109
V: Design properties of stressteel bars 110
VI: The load cells . 111
VII: Sensitivities of Yibrating-Uire Mxtensompters 115
VIII: Photographic Record of Construction of Trial
Support Installation (43 photos) 117
IX: Construction Costs of Trial Installation 128
X: Plate Load Tests 132
XI: Ontario Hydro Pown-Hole Television Camera: An
Assessment 141
XII: Instrumentation Costs 145

■■•. ■••■•■•

4
 vi i

FIGURES
No. Page

1. Schematic of rock anchor support system 2

2. Assumed "area of influence" of cable anchor force 6
3. Unit block on inclined plane 7
4. Volume of rock requiring support 7
5. Angle of plane of maximum excess shear stress, io,
for various slope angles a°, and m = 0 to 1 0 9
6. n cables each apply force P to slope surface at
(1°, at Giào to horizontal 11
7. Orientation of discontinuous joint systems affects
calculation of cable lengths 15
8. Calculation of cable lengths - cables numbered from
crest (1,2,---r, r+1,---n) 15
9. Rock volume involved in bench stability analysis, cp<cc 18
10. Rock volume involved in bench stability analysis, ce>cc 19
11. Assumed action lines of mesh forces 23
12. Cable assembly and installation time versus depth of
anchor hole, for 12/.5 cable tendons 49
13. Instrument numbering and layout 60
14. Extensometer anchor positions 61
15. Strain gauge positions in concrete stringer beam 62
16. Load cell No. 1 - 33-ft cable - initial load 267,600 lbs 64
17. Load cell No. 2 - 110-ft cable - initial load 309,250 lbs . . . 65
18. Load cell No. 3 - 55-ft rod - initial load 113,500 lbs 66
19. Load cell No. 4 - 195-ft cable - initial load 299,660 lbs . . . 67
20. Extensometer No. 1 70
21. Extensometer No. 2 71
22. Extensometer No. 3 72
23. Extensometer No. 4 73
24. Concrete gauges Nos. 1 and 2 74
25. Concrete gauges Nos. 3 and 4 75
26. Concrete gauges Nos. 5 and 6 76
27. Concrete gauges Nos. 7 and 8 77
28. Concrete gauges Nos. 9 and 10 78
29. Support costs per linear foot versus slope angle 96
30. Profit per linear foot versus slope angle 98
31. Comparison of profit per linear foot for cases with
and without mesh - over the benches 101
(In Appendices)
A6.1. Schematic of the load cell 114
A6.2. Load cell calibration 114
A8r Photographic record of construction of trial support
installation - Photographs 1 to 43 117-127
A10.1. Plate load test arrangement 133
A10.2. Displacements during plate load test cycles 135
■-■
A10.3. Surface displacements during plate load testing,
33-ft cable site 136
A10.4. Surface displacements during plate load testing,
110-ft cable site 1 39
A11.1. Measurements of slack in rod couplings 142
 viii

TABLES

No. Page

1. Percentage Cost of Each Phase of Construction 55

2. Cost Estimating Data for Each Construction Phase 57
3. Summary of Cable Support Design Guidelines 85
4. Cost Estimates 93-95
5. Excavation Saving and Profit/Linear Foot, by Use of Support 97
6. Support Costs, Excavation Savings and Profit Per Linear
Foot - If No Mesh Used with Supports 100
(In Appendices)
A1.1. Tendon Characteristics 103
A3.1. Standard Styles of Welded Fabric, Showing Styles, Weights,
Spacing and Gauges of Wires, and Sectional Areas 106
A3.2. Tables for Estimating Weight of Welded Wire Fabric 107
A3.3. Sectional Areas of Welded Wire Fabric 108
A4.1. Designations, Areas, Perimeters, and Weights of
Standard Bars 109
A4.2. Areas of Groups of Standard Bars, Square Inches 109
A5.1. Design Properties of Stressteel Bars 110
A10.1. Calculation of Modulus from plate Load "nisplacrments . . . 138
A10.2. Moduli letermined for Surface Loading and Displacement
Measurements 140
1.11.1. Slack in Rod Couplings 142
• 12.1. Instrumentation Costs 145
 ix

PREFACE

If the slope angle of an open-pit mine can be increased by

merely a few degrees, then there would be a considerable saving in costs

resulting from the decreased cost of excavating superfluous waste rock and

also, perhaps, from increased profits due to additional ore excavation at the

toe. Most slope research work has therefore been directed towards the de-

termination of slope angles which will optimize costs without endangering

safety.

In underground mining,various methods of artificial support

are used successfully, not only for maintaining safe working conditions, but

also for reducing the amount of waste rock excavated. It is thus quite con-

ceivable that artificial supports could be used in open-pit mining to enable

steeper slopes to be safely ndmed,with the resulting economic benefits.

Similarly, artificial support might enable an already steep slope to be safely

maintained as the pit is deepened. Although artificial supports have been

used by civil engineers in stabiliring excavations for building foundations

and for stabilising dam abutments,they have not, as yet, been used in open-pit

mines; this is probably due to a lack of information on how such support

systems should be designed and on the costs. The latter is particularly im-

portant in mining since,if the support costs are greater than the economic

benefits to be derived from the steeper slope,there is no advantage to be

gained.

A preliminary benefit-cost assessment (1) has shown that in an

open-pit mine of, say, 600-ft dept11, an artificial support system allowing the
0
average slope angle to be increased from 45 to 50 0 would cost approximately
$1000 per linear foot of pit wall. This could result in a decrease in waste

excavation costs of $2000 per linear foot of wall (at $0.34 per ton) or, alter-

natively,it might increase profit by approximately $7,700 per linear foot of

wall through increased ore extraction (at $1.20 per ton). The change in net

revenue could thus be between $1000 and $6,700 per linear foot of wall. With

such incentives it is clear that a research programme is warranted which would

be aimed at the development of suitable support systems. It is believed that

such a support system can be designed with reasonable confidence, since it does

not require new technological developments but would merely adapt established

materials, anchor systems and construction methods to this use.

The first part of this report deals with the design concepts

involved in using artificial supports in open-pit mines, and presents some

relatively simple analyses which could enable a preliminary design to be made.

However, it is emphasized that these analyses cannot be regarded as exact or

complete but should be regarded as merely establishing engineering guide-

lines for design purposes. Any final design will always require a consider-

able degree of engineering judgement, based on site conditions, to be exercised.

In order to obtain experience with the construction techniques

and to refine cost estimates on the basis of actual construction experience,

a trial installation of a support system was planned. The second part of this

report gives details of this trial,which was carried out in cooperation with

an iron ore open-pit mine. The support system is described and details of its

construction are given together with c/itical comments on each phase. A

breakdown of construction costs is given and basic data for estimating con-

struction costs have been derived.

 xi

In the third part of this report, some hypothetical pit slopes

are considered and examples are given of how the analysis presented in

Part I might be used to establish a preliminary design of supports for these

slopes. The data derived in Part II are then used to estimate costs of these

support systems and their relative economic returns.

 1

PART I: DESIGN OF A SUPPORT SYSTEM

THE BASIC CONCEPT OF THE SUPPORT SYSTEM

It is emphasized that the following discussion is restricted to

the consideration of hard rock slopes in which there are no major structural

weaknesses. The walls of an open pit in such a rock mass can be considered to

consist of a mass of tightly interlocked blocks of rock created by bedding and

joint planes. On excavation of ore or waste, the confining stress on these blocks

is removed, thus permitting some expansion and opening of joints and bedding

planes. Damage from blasting, weathering, etc., on these open joints leads to the

development of loose rock that will fall down any slope steeper than the angle of

repose of such loose blocks. Consequently, for any extensive rock slope steeper

than the angle of repose of this loose rock, some method should be provided to

prevent rock falls causing damage.

Rock anchors, that are anchored in ground not subject to this

surface expansion and that are preloaded, can provide some constraint to the

surface rock that has expanded as a result of the excavation of the adjacent

ground. In addition, if wire mesh is supported by horizontal stringers

between these anchors it can contain the immediate surface loose that is

developed but not stabilized by the anchors. In this way it should be

possible to prevent rock falls on steep slopes.

Figure 1 illustrates the type of anchorage envisaged to achieve

these ends. In this figure the slope has an overall angle of cco. It is

assumed that there is a plane at some angle i ° beyond which the rock may still .

be regarded as a tightly interlocked competent mass. The object is therefore

to install a series of deep bolts or cables which are anchored in this solid

rock mass and to apply sufficient pre-load to these cables to support all the
 2

ANCHOR LOADING PADS

HORIZONTAL
STRINGERS

WELDED MESH
COVERING
SURFACE

GROUTED
ANCHORAGE

DEEP ROCK BOLTS

OR CABLES

II
/ /

1/

Figure 1. Schematic of rock anchor support system.

 3

ground in excess of i ° (i.e. between i° and (1 0 ). Welded wire mesh placed

over the surface and supported by horizontal stringers between the cable

terminations would help control the immediate surface loose and would supply

some degree of bench support.

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS

To attempt even an approximate analysis of the stability of

loose rock on the face of a slope, it is necessary to make a number of assump-

tions. In this study the following assumptions were made:

(i) It was assumed that there is a plane at some angle i° beyond which the

rock can be regarded as a competent mass. The choice of the angle i° will be

considered later.

(ii) It was assumed that the plane at i° passing through the toe of the

slope is a potential plane of shear failure.

(iii) It was assumed that the mass of loose rock between i and a can be

regarded as a rigid body sliding on the plane at io and that the coefficient

of friction on this surface is given by p.. The estimation of the coefficient

of friction is important in practical applications of the ensuing analysis.

There can be a considerable variation between the coefficients of friction for

rock masses even of the same general type. When the pit wall is composed of

different types of rock, an even larger variation might be expected. The

degree of alteration of these different rock types also adds to the uncer-

tainty. Consequently it is not possible to establish a friction coefficient •

applicable to the whole open pit,even with the most elaborate field measure-

ments. A coefficient of friction obtained by the most sophisticated in-situ

method would only apply for the location represented by the testing site.
 4

In view of this wide variation it is not unreasonable to

assume, at the preliminary design stage, that 11 is given by the easily obtain-

able coefficient of friction derived from small-scale laboratory tests

between rough sawn surfaces of rocks (2,3,4). For instance, Patton (3)

concluded that "the range of values computed from field observations on

unstable slopes compares favourably with the values obtained from sliding

tests on wet, rough sawn, rock surfaces in the laboratory".

(iv) It is assumed that the cohesion on the plane at i ° is zero. The wall

of an open pit consists of variable sizes of blocks separated by bedding and

joint planes. Even without support, cohesion might exist on these planes,

at least temporarily,until joints open up as a result of relaxation due to

the removal of the lateral support by excavation. Further, if the incipient

failure surface does not coincide with the joint planes, then some cohesion

must exist. A proper installation of the proposed support system would

minimize the lateral expansion of the surface block; and the existing cohesion

between the blocks would be at least partially retained. However, in the

following analysis cohesion has been ignored. The partial retention of

cohesion in practice should therefore add to the safety factor of the design.

(v) Some assumption must be made as to how the applied cable force is

distributed in the rock mass. Since the size of the bearing plate at the

cable end is relatively small, the cable force may be regarded as a point

load on the rock surface.

To define the volume of rock restrained by the cable anchors,

as opposed to that which must be supported by the wire mesh, a simplified

three-dimensional stress distribution was used wherein the cable force is

assumed to be acting only on the volume of rock contained within a 900

 5

circular cone. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

However, to define the effect of multiple cable forces on the

assumed incipient failure plane at i °,it was assumed that the total force

from all cables was uniformly distributed over the plane at i ° . Whilst

this is an oversimplification of the actual stress distribution on this

plane,it is believed that this assumption is as adequate as any more

sophisticated solution and does, at least, offer the advantage of simplicity.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

If a unit cube of weight y lbs/cu ft is resting on a plane at

.0
to the horizontal (see Figure 3), then this block will slide if the

component of weight down the slope, T, becomes greater than the resisting

force S. If g is the coefficient of friction and N is the normal component

of weight,then S = gN, assuming zero cohesion. For a safety factor of

unity these forces cancel out when g = tan i. For any initial arbitrary

angle i ° , the excess shear force, fe, acting down the slope, per unit cube,

is thus given by:

fe = T-gN = y(Sin i-g Cos i) (1)

Now,for a slope of depth Z feet and overall slope angle n ° with an incipient

failure plane at i ° (i ° < a ° ), the volume of rock, V, per unit thickness of

section is given,as illustrated in Figure 4,by:

a
Z2, r
V = /2 LCot i - Cot a} (2)

(This neglects slight variations due to bench configuration.)

Hence, if the volume of rock can be regarded as a rigid body sliding on the

plane at 1. 0 , the total excess shear force, Fe, per unit thickness of section,
 6

ROCK UNCONF INED

BY CABLE
— — CABLE ANCHOR
ANCHOR FORCE
FORCE ACTING ON
ROCK WITHIN 90°
C IRCULAR CONE

CABLE ANCHORS

Figure 2. Assumed "area of influence" of Cable anchor force.

 7

INCIPIENT
FAILURE PLANE

Figure 3. Unit block on inclined plane.

2
Z ( I I
2 \tani tana/ 2

Figure 4. Volume of rock requiring support.

 8

is given from equations (1) and (2) as:

2
= Vfe =
2
[Cot i - Cot cd [Sin i - - g Cos il (3)

The average excess shear stress, , over the plane at i = Fe/A where A

is the area of this plane and equals Z/Sin i. Hence the average excess

shear stress is given by:

Fe = r
tC t i - Cot a} [Sin2 i - gSin i Cos i) (4)
r° = A " 2 °

It is seen from equation (4) that the excess shear stress

o
varies with the angle j ° , the slope angle a°, and the coefficient of friction

g. For any particular slope angle a and coefficient of friction g,there will

be some value of i° at which the excess shear stress reaches a maximum value.

This maximum value should be determined and the support system designed so

that this maximum excess shear stress is eliminated by the applied forces.

For any constant values of a and g, Te will be a maximum

when --e = O. Thus,differentiating equation (4) with respect to i and

31
equating to zero gives:

o= 2 }[Sin2 i-g Cos iSin il

ai Sin

2
[Cot i-Cot ΠJ t2 5 in i Cos i - gCos 2 i + gSin2

i.e., 0 =. [gCot i - + Cot i[Sin 2i+pCos 2il - Cot a[Sin 2i+gCos 211

Cot i-1
i.e . , Cot a = Cot i + { 4
(5)
Sin 2i+gCos 2i}

Equation (5) defines the angle i° at which the excess shear

stress is a maximum for any values of a and g. This angle i has been cal-

culated for all values of a between 0 0 and 90 0 for a range of values of g

from 0 to 1, bearing in mind that a i; these results are plotted in Figure 5.

 9

i.

90 /
/
/
/
/
0 80
._ /
... /
tit /
z /
a /
_1 70 / /1- =1.0
a.
(I)
/-"--9
U)
Lu
ix 60 )1 ' 8
}-
cn At. :: •6 .5
tr
< ---17-
-1-1- 4-P. r-
i 50
cn ke '1
(I)
in
w
0 40
X
tii
2
D
> 30
)..:-<
a
2
1-1- 20
0
Lu
_1
o
z 10
a

I t I I t I I I I

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
SLOPE ANGLE a°

Figure 5. Angle of plane of maximum excess shear stress, 1. 0 , for

various slope angles a ° , and la = 0 to 1.0.
 10

0
For example: If the overall slope angle is 55 and pl. = 0.7, then, from T

0
Figure 5, the plane of maximum excess shear stress occurs at i = 45 . Like-

wise if a = 60 ° and pt = . 0.7, then i= 461/2 ° .

Hence, given a and 1.J., the angle of the plane of maximum excess

shear stress can be determined from equation (5) or from Figure 5. From

this value of using equation (4) the magnitude of this maximum excess

shear stress can be calculated. It is this value of the excess shear stress

which must be eliminated by the application of the cable forces in order to

achieve a stable slope.

CABLE SUPPORT DESIGN

For a safety factor of unity the applied support forces should

exactly eliminate the maximum excess shear stress on the plane at Suppose,

therefore,that n cables, equally spaced by a vertical distance a, each apply

a force P to the surface of a slope at an angle A° to the horizontal (see

Figure 6). Let the lateral spacing of the cables be 1. Assuming that the

total applied force,nP , is uniformly distributed over the area of the in-

cipient failure plane at then the total stress o- acting on this plane is

given by:
nP nP Sin i
-
1(a/Sin i) a 1

Thus, resolving into stress components normal and tangential to the plane at
• o .
glves:
nP . .
The normal component of stress on the plane ubi = Sin Sin (i +
j.
pp
and the tangential component of stress on the plane T = - Sin i Cos (i + A).
al
 a = VERTICAL SPACING
I = LATERAL SPACING

Figure 6. n cables each apply force P to slope

surface at e, at A° to horizontal.
 12

Hence the total shear resistance mobilized by the cable forces, Tp, is given

by:

Tp T

-np
i.e., T = Sin i [Cos (i + ) + g Sin (i+A) I (6)
p al

Now, Tp given by equation «Owill vary with the angle A of the

applied forces to the horizontal. However, TP will reach a maximum, for a given

angle i ° , when = 0. Thus,differentiating equation e )and equating to

zero gives:

= 0 = 1. ? Sin i [-Cos i Sin A - Sin i Cos A] gnP Sin if sin i sin

clA al al

Cos i Cos A]

[tan A + tan Ji
i.e. — {l-tan A tan i} — tan (i + (7)

i.e. The shear resistance mobilized by the cable forces reaches a maximum

if A is chosen such that g = tan (i +A); e.g., if the overall slope

Π= 55 0 and g = 0.7, then,from Figure 5, i = 45 0 . Thus for maximum resistance

to be mobilzed by the cables:

0.7 = tan (45 +A)

45 + A = 35 o ; o
i.e. i.e. A = -10 ;

i.e.,ideally in this case the cables should be installed in holes drilled 10 °

'up dip'. Now from a practical point of view this may not be possible, since

it is not known whether it is practical to installcables in holes up dip.

Hence, if this solution yields a value of A which is impractical from instal-

lation considerations,a compromise should be made by choosing A as near to the

ideal as is practically possible. For example, in the above case it is

probably practical to installcables in holes at an angle A = +5 ° , i.e. 5°

 13

down dip. This, whilst not the ideal solution, would be a much preferred

situation to installing the cables, say, normal to the pit slope (a = 55 ° ,

A = 35 ° ),

For a safety factor of unity, the total shear resistance

mobilized by the cable forces should exactly equal the average excess shear

stress in the plane at Thus equating Tp = Te, from equations (4) and (6),

gives:

[Cot i-Cot Œ}[Sin2 i-1iSin i Cos il = [Sin i Cos(i+A)+gSin i Sin(i+A)l

2

2nP {Sin i Cos (i+A) +.1_g Sin i Sin (i+A)

or a.1= (8)
Zy LCot i-Cot ŒNSin i - g Sin i Cos ii

This equation defines the relative horizontal and vertical cable spacings

required to support the rock slope with a safety factor of unity. From a

practical point of view, the spacing of the cables vertically (distance a)

should be either full-bench or half - bench height. The lateral spacing is then

decided from equation(8). Further, if there are n cables spaced vertically on

full-bench spacing and the pit wall has benches all of equal height, then

there will be (n-1) benches and the vertical spacing a = Z/n-1, where Z is

the pit depth. Likewise, if the cables are spaced vertically every 1/2 height

of the bench, then the number of benches is and a = 2Z/(n-1). Hence,

2
from equation (8), substituting for a, the lateral spacing of the cables is

given by:

(a) For full-bench vertical spacing

2nSn-1)P (Sin i Cos (i+/A) + g Sin i Sin (i+A)1

1 —
Z y UCot i-Cot Œ][Sini-g Sin i Cos il f (9)

when n number of cables, and (n-1) = number of benches.

 14

(b) For half-bench vertical spacing

1 n(c-1)P 55m i Cos (i+A) + g Sin i (10)

Z y k LCot i-Cot a][Sin2 i-g Sin i Cos iJ

(n-1)
where n = number of cables and - number of benches.
2
The above criteria are derived for a safety factor of unity. The safety

factor can be regarded as the ratio of the mobilized shear resistance Tp to

the excess shear stresses Te. Hence, from equations (4) and (6):

2nP [Cos (i+A) + g Sin (i+A)J

2nP tCos (i+13)]
Safety factor SF =-:Yrt - (11)
alZy (Cot i-Cot a)(Sin i-Cos i)

Thus,if the design is to be made according to a chosen safety factor other

than unity,then the lateral spacing of the cables should be accordingly

reduced.

Consider now the required cable lengths. It has been tacitly

assumed,in the above analysis,that the plane of maximum excess shear stress is

the plane beyond which the rock may be considered to be solid competent mass

and that this plane at i ° is the incipient failure plane. Now,if the slope

contains a system of, say, discontinuous joints oriented at 00 to the

horizontal,then if 0>i°, as illustrated in Figure 7(a), it is thought that

this tacit assumption is valid. Thus in this case the cable lengths should be

designed to extend beyond the plane at i ° plus, of course, the manufacturer's

recommended length, x ft, for the cable anchorage. If the cables are numbered

from 1 to n, starting at the crest, then by geometry,as shown in Figure 8, the

length of the rth cable is given by:

- (r 1) a} Sin (a i)]
- -
Lr = (12)
Sin a 5in(ii-b)
 15

- ,

.<,. . --
,

,..-i
/ /.....„.., . .,. . . ,
.---"--
'

...--- e /-.---- - ......-- ----- -----

.1"-- ,...--- ----- -----.- .----
..„,-- „/„.....--- „..-->. ....---
,-4-- .-----_.
/ .---- --->----
------ ..„.....„----
-----
r
/-
/ ----->--- --------
.-----

ANGLE OF DISCONTINUOUS JOINT

SYSTEM WITH HORIZONTAL

(a) > a (b)e < a

CALCULATE CABLE LENGTHS,USING i ° CALCULATE CABLE LENGTHS ONLY,
BY PUTTING i i s.
Figure 7. Orientation of discontinuous joint systems affects
calculation of cable lengths .

{Z— (r— 1)a} Sin (a-i)

Lr = + X
Sin a Sin (i +A)

Figure 8. Calculation of cable lengths - cables numbered from

crest (1,2 ,---r, r+1 -n).
 16

If, however, 0<i° as illustrated in Figure 7b, it is feasible

that the incipient failure plane might be the plane through the toe oriented

at po. Although this latter plane is not the plane of maximum excess shear

stress,it might be a plane of minimum shear strength. In this case it is

thought that the cable anchors should be extended beyond the plane at 0 °

the toe. Nevertheless, the cable anchor loads and spacing would throug still

be designed to eliminate the maximum excess shear stress on the plane at i0o .

Thus, when p ‹1 , the cable lengths are obtained by replacing 3.. o by B in

equation 12.

There is, of course, some minimum length of cable which it is

practical to install. This minimum length depends mainly on the cable chosen

but can, for most cables, be taken as (15 x) ft. Where x is the recommended

length for grouted anchorage, this minimum length should always be used when

the calculated length given above in equation (12) yields a lower value.

The choice of the actual cable anchors to be used is dependent

to a large extent on availability. Table A 1 in Appendix I gives the charac-

teristics of a number of multi-strand tendons which might be suitable.

Generally, the largest capacity cable available would be chosen in order to

provide maximum restraint for a minimum number of installations. For example,

from Table A 1 in Appendix I, a 12-strand type 270K cable might be chosen.

This cable has a maximum initial tensioning load of 390,000 lbs; however, it

is generally good practice to allow an extra safety factor here and to tension

to approximately 15% lower than this value (or as recommended by the manu-

facturer). Thus the design load P for this cable could be chosen as 340,000

lbs.
 17

BENCH STABILITY ANALYSIS

After application of the cable forces,it is assumed that the

rock mass contained within the 90 0 cones about the cables is supported by the

cable forces. However, the individual benches are still unsupported. Some

support may be given to this unsupported ground by means of welded wire

mesh laid over the slope face and tied down by horizontal stringers running

between the cable anchor points along the toes of the benches. Ideally these

elements should also be designed to resist the load of the rock mass which

might fail. The volume of rock which is unsupported by the cable forces is

in the wedge LMNO in Figure 9. For design purposes it is assumed that this
■ ••

rock fails through the toe of the bench along a plane at some angle e to

the horizontal. As before, consider the excess shear forces acting on this

plane. Let a° be the overall pit slope, let w be the bench width, let A be

the angle of the cables with the horizontal, and let y be the rock density in

lbs/cu ft.

As before (Figure 3), the excess shear force per unit block

acting down the slope at angle ce is given by:

fe = y (Sin Cp - Cos g) (13)

The volume of rock, V, per unit section thickness is the volume of the

wedge MLPN in Figure 9 when Cpt, and is the volume of the wedge LMN in

Figure 10 when cP>a. The total excess shear force, Fe, on the plane at cp° ,

per unit thickness of section, is given by:

Fe = Vfe = yV(Sin cp - p. Cos g)) (14)

(assuming no cohesion on line LP when cp<a).

 18

. ."

, .

e • :•.'• •

45 °
— W giV,LYN7
5 4
deetfelo

,
e•

a t.

\ •
,1
.
!
/.
,

_ !-• ,

o,

5°

4Ncf,0
0#

stsADE4„140E,4 INOICATES pROUND.

\'' Sig4e.)#ità Tttelem:toeitinfne
N:

Figure 9. Rock volume involved in bench stability analysis, cp <

 19

/ V= 1/2 ax ; x= W —
a Cot cib
a Cot a

y ; y = (a Cot a— a Cot 9)
>1

i.e. V= 1/2 a {W—a Cot a + a Cot 96}

Figure 10. Rock volume involved in bench stability analysis, cp > a,

 20

(1) when cp<a

In this case the volume V equals V1 + V2 , the sum of the wedges

NML and NLP in Figure 9. Let w be the bench width and let NP = c, then:

Vi = 1/2 aw (15)

and v2 - a a c • Sin (a-g0 (16)

•
but, by geometry:

a 1
Sin(135-a-A) — Sin a • Sin(45 + a + cp)

]2c a Vf2
l'e ' tCos(a+A) + Sin(a4-A)1 Sina [Cos(a-licp) + Sin (a-Fc.c)]

a Cos (a+A) + Sin (a+2)1

i.e. c — (17)
Sina Cos (a-kp) + Sin (a-117p))

Hence, from equations (14), (15), (16) and (17):

[a Sin (a-g) [Cos (a+) + Sin

Fe =w + (a44 1 {sin - p cos cpl (18)
2 Sin'd a Cos (a-e) + Sin (a+4

and the average excess shear stress on this plane, Te , = Fe/c, assuming

no cohesion on the line LP.

Hence Te is given by:

_ay 1w SinalCos(a+cp) + Sin(a-l-cp)1 p in(a-.0)

c. cP-u Cos cpt (19)
te - 2 1 a tCos(a+A) + Sin(a+A).1 L Sin a

= [ki[Cos(a-lip) + Sin(œe)] + k 2 Sin (a-cP)J[Sin cio - p. Cos cp] (20)

SinΠay
where k 1 =El
2 and k2 — 2 (21)
tCos(a+A) + Sin(a+A)i Sin a

rc.ê will reach a maximum value at some angle cp when aTe/p = 0. Ideally the

support for the benches should be designed to resist this maximum excess

shear stress. The value of cp for which Te reaches a maximum has been determined
 21

in Appendix II and is given by:

1.■

tki(SinŒ + Cosa) + gki(Sina-CosŒ) + k2(Sincc + eesa)]

tan 2rp -_ r (22)
1k1(SinŒ - Cosa) - Ilki(SinŒ+Cosu) + k2(Cosa - p.SinŒ)1

Hence cl) may be calculated and, using this value of eP, the maximum excess shear

stress can be calculated from equation (20). An example is given in Appendix

(ii) when cp > a

In this case the volume V per unit section thickness equals

the volume of the wedge LMN in Figure 10. By geometry:

V = 1/2a [w - a Cot a + a Cot soi (23)

Hence the excess shear force Fe is given by:

Fe = yV [Sin eP - [1, Cos c1) 1 (14)

and the average excess shear stress, Te, on the plane NL is given by:

, 2
yy Sin el) {Sin - eos _ tSin m -(p./2) Sin 2ce}.
Te - (24)
a - a

Hence, from equations (24) and (23):

Te =
2
fSin2 eP -
2
Sin 2colfw - a Cot + a Cot crol

= [Sin2 cp (w-aCot a) - Sin Dp(w-a Cot a)

2 2

2 s.Cos cp
+ Sin eta
a p. 2 Sin elp Cos m Cos eP
Sin cp 2 Sin cp

g
agCc2)t
--Y [Siem(w-a Cot a) - Sin
- 2 e g2 - J — ap.(1-Sin 2m)]

= [Sin2cp(w-aCot Œ+ap.) - Sin 2cio - Cot a - ] - (25)

2
 22

'te will reach a maximum at some angle cp when aTe/acp = 0:

'-ue • 1. 2 Sin cl) Cos cP(w-a Cot Œ + ag) - 2 Cos 2cpM1- - Cot -
2 2 2
bp 2

put bTe/aP = 0 and solve for cp for maximum value of Te:

Sin 2cp [w -a Cot o. + api = Cos 24) fgw-ga Co t a - al

w-ag Cot a-aj .

Le. tan 2cp - (26)
w-a Cot a+agi

This equation defines the angle cp at which Te reaches a maximum when CP > Œ.

DESIGN OF THE WELDED WIRE MESH

Assume that the wire mesh is laid over the bench and tied

into the toe of each bench as illustrated in Figure 11. Assume that,if

failure occurs,a tension T is produced in the longitudinal strands of the

mesh, and assume that these tension forces act at the toe of each bench in

the direction of the deep cable anchors to which the mesh is attached.

The total resisting force which can be mobilized by the mesh,

per unit section thickness, is given by:

RF - 2 T [Cos (cp +C
- ) + Sin (cp + A))
))

Thus the average resisting 'shear stress, TF, mobilized by the mesh is given

by:

(i) when cP <

2T[Cos (cp+A) + g Sin *(cp+A)).Sin a [Cos(a+cp) + Sin (a+c,0

(27)
)]

«rF c a [Cos (a+A) + Sin (a-h)1

 23

LONGITUDINAL MESH TENSION= T

T ASSUMED AT END FIXTtJRES TO BE ACTING
IN SAME DIRECTION AS THE CABLE ANCHORS
(i.e. at e ° )

RESISTING FORCE, PER UNIT THICKNESS, DUE

TO MESH= 2T{Cos(4)+A)+//Sin(95+à)}

Figure 11. Assumed action iines of mesh forces.

 24

(ii) when cp > a a

11E. Sin
TF. C = 2T (Cos (cP +A) + g Sin (cP+A).1 Sin CP
(28)
a a

Thus for a safety factor of unity the shear resistance that can be mobilized

by the mesh should be equal to the maximum excess shear stress Te. Hence:

(i) when cp < a Te = TF, which from equations (20) and (27) gives:

a_y fw Sin a[Cos (a+L.,o) + Sin (a+p)] Sin (a-cp)] (Sin cp - gCos
2 a [Cos (a+A) + Sin (a+)1 Sin a

2T Sin atCos (cp+-A) + g Sin (cp+A)l[cos (a+p) + Sin (a+cp)j

a [cos (cc+A) + Sin (a+)]

Hence the cable tension is given by:

T
(Sin CD - gCos , a Sin (a-cp)[Cos (a+A) + Sin (a+)1 "m"
4 [Cos(cp+A) + gSin (cp+A)J Lw ' Sin 2 [cos (a+m) + sin (a+f-15)1]

Hence, if A o is the area of steel required within the longitudinal strands

of the mesh and (To is the yield strength of the cold-drawn mesh material,then:

Ao (30)
o-0

i.e. from equations (29) and (30):

A
= 4u0 [Cos
( Sin cP-g Cos cio)
(cp+A) + gSin (cp+)1 cw aSin(a-cp)[Cos(a+A) + Sin(a+A)1
Sin2 a [Cos(a+cP) + Sin(a+p)j]
(31)

For design purposes the lateral strands of the mesh are not assumed to

contribute to the strength.

(ii) when cp > a Te = TF, which from equations (25) and (28) gives:

-Sin 2cP(w-a Cot' a + ag) - Sin 2c,0(1 - au Cota - 2j? - ag)

2T fCos (cp+n) + gSin (cp+ae.)) Sin Cp

a
 25

Hence the cable tension is given by:

T = y a[Sin2m(w-a Cot a+ag) - Sin 2cpea'22 - cot -

2 2 (32)
2
[Cos (cP+A) + j Sin (cp-I A) 1 Sin cP
-

and from equations (30) and (32), the area of steel A o is given by:

ya [Sin 2m1(w-a Cot n+ag) - Sin zp ( 2 cot a 2)

- - 1 - agi (33)
Ao = 20_0
t Cos (cp+A) + g Sin (cp+/..$).1 Sin cp

Again, the lateral strands of the mesh are not assumed to contribute to the

strength.

Example: Suppose a = 50 ° , a = 66 ft, w = 40 ft, A = -10 ° , g = 0.8,

y = 165 lbs/cu ft, and 0-0 for cold-drawn steel is 71,000 lbs/sq in. The

angle cp at which the excess shear stress in the bench reaches a maximum must

be determined from either equation (22) or equation (26). For this example

it was shown in Appendix II that, using equation (22), cro - 48 °48' which is

<a° . Hence, using equation (31) for the case cp < a, the area of steel mesh

per unit thickness required is given by:

66 x 165 [Sin 48 048'-0.8 Cos 48°48'1 40 + 66 Sin 1 ° 12 I [Cos 40+Sin 40)

AO =
4x71,000 [Cos 38 0 48'-0.8 Sin 38 °48q 5in2 50 [Cos 98 °48+Sin 98 °48'1

= 0.298 0.30 sq inch per foot thickness of section.

In Appendix III, Table A3.1 gives a list of some standard styles

of welded wire meshes, TableA3.2 gives weight of this welded wire fabri.c,

and Table A3.3 gives the areas of cross section of welded wire fabric. In

this example, referring to Table A3.1, a mesh style 216-28 having a longitudinal

section area of 0.325 sq inch would be adequate. This mesh has 6 longitudinal

strands of No.2 wire (0.2625 in.diameter) per foot, and transverse wires,

spaced 16 inches apart, of No. 16 wire (0.062-in. diameter). The mesh weighs
 26

119.4 lbs per 100 sq ft. If a choice of styles is available it would be best

to select the lightest mesh with adequate longitudinal strength. Whilst the

above mesh is theoretically adequate to support the bench,it is exceedingly

heavy and a number of problems might be experienced in installing such a heavy

mesh in the field.

In other examples it is quite possible that the area of steel

required from the above calculation may be so large that a suitable mesh is

not available (even assuming it may be easily installed). It may not, there-

fore, be possible to provide complete bench support, either because a

sufficiently strong mesh is unavailable or because it is too heavy to install.

Nevertheless, the installation of such mesh is still recommended, even if not

of full required strength, for the following reasons:

(a) The ideal design is based on a "worst case" failure plane.

(b) It was assumed that the bench would fail along its complete length. In

most open-pit mines this would be an unusual occurrence; partial bench

failure is much more likely. This,of course, varies both from mine to mine and

from one wall section to another within any one mine.

(c) The lateral strands will add some strength to the mesh.

(d) Even partial support given by a light-weight mesh would give a better

control than exists at present, where bench failure is often tolerated as a

matter of course. The mesh would at least assist in protection from loose

falling rock.

The above analyses should therefore be viewed,not as

absolute design criteria, but as a method of estimating a maximum idealized

mesh size which might assist in the engineering judgement required in

selecting the actual mesh to be used in a particular area of the mine. It

 27

a
is probable that in many cases the mesh actually selected will not provide

complete bench support and,indeed, as will be seen below, even if the mesh

itself were sufficiently strong it is unlikely that the horizontal stringers

supporting the mesh would be able to withstand the resultant load.

DESIGN OF THE HORIZONTAL STRINGERS

The horizontal stringers are required in order to hold the

mesh in place along the entire span, 1, between the cable anchors. The mesh

load can be considered as a uniformly distributed load acting on this hori-

zontal beam.

The maximum bending moment at the centre of the span is given

approximately by: (5)

T1 2 (34)
M=—
10
where T= the load per foot acting on the beam (i.e. T = the mesh tension

given by either equation (29) or (32), if the mesh were designed to resist

all the bench failure force).

If the horizontal stringer is a reinforced concrete beam, then

this beam can be designed by the standard techniques to resist the maximum

flexural bending moment (5). These design techniques will not be dealt with

in detail here since they are included in many text books (5). To illustrate

the method,assume that a convenient size of concrete beam is 18 in. x 18 in.,

assume that the ultimate compressive strength of the concrete g = 2,500 psi,

and assume that the minimum yield strength of the steel reinforcing bars is

= 33,000 psi. The area of reinforcing steel required in the concrete beam
 28

is given by:

A = (35)
s f j d

where M= the bending moment; j = ratio arm of the resisting couple to the

effective depth (5) (for approximate design purposes j can be taken as 7/8);

and d is the distance from the compression face of the beam to the plane of

the centroid of the tensile steel, or the "effective depth" [for an 18-inch

beam and steel bars set 11/2 inches from the tension surface, d = 16.5 inches].

For example, to support the complete bench given in the pre-

ceding example it was found that the area of mesh required was 0.3 sq inch.

Thus , . from equation (30), the mesh tension T = the load on the beam per foot

and is given by:

T = Π0A 0 = 0.3 x 71,000 = 21,300 lbs/ft.

Hence, from equation (34), assuming that the span 1 = 40 ft, the maximum

bending moment M is given by:

m T12 _ 21,300 x 40 x 40 x 12
= 41 x 106 in lbs.
10 10

Hence the area of steel required in the beam is given by equation (35) as:

41 x 106
A =
A5 = 86 sq inches.
33,000 x 7/8 x 16.5

Appendix IV gives the areas of various steel bars. This case

would thus require 86 of No. 9 steel bars. This is obviously completely im-

practical. It is seen, therefore, that in many cases it will not be

possible to design a system for complete bench support.

What is probably more practical is to select a suitable beam

design and to estimate the safety factor of the bench support actually
 29

provided:

Choose the beam dimensions and the quantity of steel; then from equation (35)

the bending moment is given by:

M = A s fs j d (36)

Using this value of M,the load per unit length of the beam,T, can be cal-

culated from equation (34):

10M 10A
s sf' j d
T = (37)
12 - 12

Hence,from equation (3), the area of mesh required to support this beam load

can be calculated and thus the compatible mesh can be selected:

10As j d
A.0 - (38)
=-Ero To 12
(

Now the safety factor of the bench, SFB, can be defined as the ratio of the

mobilized resisting stress, TF, to the excess shear stress on the plane at

ce. Hence:

when cp < a, from equations (20), (21) and (27):

= 11 = 2TfCos((p+A) + g Sin (cp+A)} Sin a [Cos (ark,o) + Sin (a.«,0)1

1.13 Te atCos(a.+A) + Sin(Π-FA)irEy Sin a
4--211--Sin(a-ceSing)-pCoscp)
2 (Cos(a+A)+Sin(Œ+A) 25ina

2TSin2 Œ[Cos(c1D4)+gSin(cprFAMCos(Œ4c,0)+Sin(alic ro)11Cos(a+A)+Sin(a+A))

[a w y Sin2 a + a 2 ySin(a-c0[Cos(Œ+A)+Sin(n+A)1][Sincp - gCos cr.d

and substituting from equation (38) for T gives:

20A 5 “.j.d. Sin2 cqCos(cP+A)+gSin(cOliA)}[Cos(MCP)+Sin(Œ-Febâ)s(all+Sin(a+A)) (39)

sFB - a 1 2 y[w Sin2 a + aSin(cc-cp)tCos(a+A)+Sin(141)JJLSin cp - p. Cos cp]
 30

Similarly when cp > a, from equations 25 and 28:

= 211Cos (cp+A) + Sin(cP+A)1 Sin clo

sFB = 7-17 a _Ï tSin2cp(w-a Cot a + au) - Sin 2c,o au a -
a--1 au'
[ - -- Cot
2 2 2 2

4T [Cos (cp+A) + i Sin(cp+A)}

a y t Sin cp(w-a Cot a + au) - Cos CP(uw-auCot a-a) - auCosec croj

and substituting from equation (38) gives:

40 A s f. i d [Cos(cp+A) + gSin(cP4A)1
SFB — a y 1 2 [Sin cp(w-aCot a+au) - Cos cp(uw-au Cot a-a) - au Cosec cpj1 (40)

For example: Consider the previous example; say that it is practical to

insert an area of 10 sq inches of reinforcing steel in the beam (comprising

8 of No. 10 bars). Let the beam be 18 in. x 18 in., let d = 16.5 in., and

assume j = 7/8, g = 33,000 psi, cso = 71,000 psi. Assume a = 50 ° , a.= 66 ft,

w = 10 ft, A = -10 ° , 1 = 40 ft, u = 0.8 and y = 165 lbs/cu ft. In this case,

as shown previously, cp = 48 0 48 1 .

Then, from equation (38), the area of mesh steel required is given by:

10A,“j d 10.10.33,000 x 7 x 16.5

A0 — 12 = 71,000 x 8 x 40 x 40 x 12 — 0.035 sq in.,

i.e. from Appendix III, either mesh style 33-1212 or mesh style 66-99 is

suitable since they have area of 0.035 sq. inch. However, mesh 33-1212 is

lighter (24.74 lbs/100 sq ft) than 66-99 mesh (25.03 lbs/100 sq ft); thus the

33-1212 mesh would be selected. This mesh is not strong enough to support the

complete bench; the safety factor is given by equation (39) since cp < a:

2
20.10.33,000.7/8.16.5 Sin 50[Cos(38 °48') +.8 Sin (38 °40
S FB —
66 x 40 x 40 x 12 x165 1.405in2 50+66Sin 1 ° 12 1 [Cos4O+Sin 40J1 x I.

[Cos 98°48' + Sin 98 °48'}[Cos 40 + Sin 40/

[Sin 48 0 48' - 8 Cos 48 °48'1

= 0.07
 31

In this example, the bench stability safety factor introduced

by the mesh support is low and the bench cannot be regarded as completely

supported. However,the mesh will enable some control to be exercised on the

fall of loose pieces of rock. In other examples this factor might be con-

siderably higher; since the limiting factor of this support is the maximum

bending moment that the beam can tolerate,then obviously the span 1 of the

beam between the cable anchors has a large influence on the bench stability

safety factor. The shorter is this span the greater will be this safety

factor (i.e.,the horizontal stringer will be more rigid). This span 1 is,

however,decided on the basis of the slope stability analysis and not from

the bench stability analysis. It is very doubtful that it would be economic

to reduce this span below the maximum allowed by the slope stability analysis,

since this would increase considerably the amount of drilling required for

insertion of cable anchors.

CONCLUSION

It must be emphasised that the preceding analyses can on no

account be regarded as design criteria. Numerous assumptions have been in-

volved in the analyses, the validity of which are in some cases dubious. At

the most,these analyses can only be regarded as establishing guide lines for

design which might assist engineering judgement. Nevertheless, it is thought

that this approach does illustrate the practicability of using deep cable

anchors as a method of slope support which could be used to allow steepening

o of existing slopes in relatively competent hard rocks. In addition, although

the analysis shows that complete bench support is probably unobtainable, the

use of wire mesh does offer a small degree of bench support which must in

general be some improvement on current practice. The mesh does give a pro-
 32

tection to men and machinery against small, but nonetheless hazardous, rock

falls. The next section of this report therefore describes a trial instal-

lation of such a support system.

6
 33

PART II: A TRIAL INSTALLATION OF A SLOPE SUPPORT SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

In order to obtain experience in the construction techniques

and to refine costs estimates on the basis of actual construction experience,

a trial installation of a support system was planned (6). In addition, the

trial installation was to be instrumented to monitor the behaviour of both

the supports and the supported rock mass.

The primary objectives of this trial installation were defined

as follows:

(i) To examine difficulties which might be experienced in installation of a

support system.

(ii) To evaluate different construction techniques.

(iii) To determine construction costs upon which a more accurate estimate of

a major support system could be based.

(iv) To instrument the supports and the rock slope to assess the effective-

ness of the support system.

 34

PLANS FOR THE INSTALLATION

This trial support system was designed so that a maximum return

of knowledge of the difficulties that might occur in its installation and of

the costs could be obtained. As a consequence of this, where two alternative

methods of construction might equally well be used both methods have been

tried in different areas of the system.

The trial support system was designed to cover a 50-ft-wide

section of a typical bench, which is 68 ft high. The main support is pro-

vided by four tensioned cable anchors installed at an angle 10 0 below the

horizontal. Two of these are installed at the top of the bench and two

below, both pairs being spaced 50 ft apart. Each pair of cable anchors is

connected together with horizontal stringers, and mesh is laid to cover the

whole bench.

(a) The bench is covered with Style 66-44 welded steel fabric mesh having

individual wires, 0.225 in. diameter, spaced 6 in. apart in both directions.

The manufactured width of the mesh rolls is 5 ft. To obtain continuous

horizontal wires, the meshes are overlapped at the sides and bound together

with No. 9 wire. At the top and at the toe the mesh is connected to the

horizontal stringers.

(b) Two different types of horizontal stringers were used. At the toe of

lie bench the horizontal stringer is made of a cast-in-situ reinforced

concrete beam. This beam is nominally 16 in. square and contains six No. 10

reinforcing bars, three at the front and three at the back. The mesh is extended

about 5 ft beyond the beam and is embedded in the concrete. The reinforcing

bars are extended into and cased within the concrete cable anchor pads. On
 35

the upper bench the horizontal stringer comprises five No. il bars only, which

are cased into the concrete cable anchor pads at each end. The mesh passes

beneath these bars and is wired to them with No. 9 wire.

(c) The cable anchor pads were made from reinforced concrete, the bearing

plates and reinforcing being selected as recommended by the manufacturers

for use with 270K Freysinnet 12-strand cables (7). To measure the applied

cable force and its changes with time, a load cell was installed at each

cable anchor pad. The cable passes through the hollow-bodied load cell

which is located between the cable anchor pad and the Freysinnet locking cone

for the cable.

(d) The cable chosen for the deep anchors was a 12-strand (0.5-in , dia , per

strand) 270K cable (see Appendix I). Two holes sizes were chosen for installing

the cables; the smallest size was NX casing (3.5-in , dia.) and the largest was

HX (3.89 in.). These CATO sizes were chosen to investigate whether or not

it was easier to install the cables in the large holes or whether the smaller

size was adequate. The four deep anchors were each of different lengths in

order to assess the degree of difficulty in installing in various length

holes. The shortest cable was 33 ft; this was about the minimum length suit-

able for any installations, allowing about 20 ft for the grouted anchorage and

13 ft of free cable. The longest cable chosen was 195 ft, which is the

maximum that would be required in a support system for an open pit of 800-ft

depth. The third cable was chosen to be 110 ft long.

The fourth length chosen was 55 ft. In this case, however, a

Freysinnet cable was not used. Instead, a solid "stressteel bar" (8), 1 3/8 in.

diameter, was used as the anchor. This alternate type of anchor does not have
 36

the same capacity as the cable anchors but does offer some advantages with

respect to assembly and ease of installation. Appendix V lists the design

properties of these bars.

The two shorter anchors were deliberately placed on the same side

of the trial section. Thus, if movement should occur, it might be expected

to be greater on thisside than on the other,thus offering a possible means of

assessing the relative effectiveness of anchor length. All the anchors were

grouted for the bottom 20 ft of the length.

INSTRUMENTATION

It was decided to make the following measurements:

(a) The cable tension would be monitored. This should give information as

to the effectiveness of the grout anchorage. In addition, should ground

movement occur, it shoUld result in an increase of cable tenson.

(b) Borehole extensometers were used to monitor the ground movement with time.

(c) Since the operation of tensioning the cable against the concrete anchor

pads is, in effect, a plate load test, it was decided to measure the

surface displacement of the ground around the pads during several cycles

of loading on each pad prior to final tensioning of the anchor. From

these plate load tests it should be possible to determine an in-situ

modulus for the surface rock.

(d) Strain gauges were installed in the concrete forming the lower horizontal

stringer. In the event of movement occurring, these measurements would

enable the support given by this horizontal stringer to be assessed.

(e) Core from the cable anchor holes and the extensometer holes was examined

to be sure that the cables were anchored in solid ground and to determine
 37

whether any major geological discontinuities were present in the supported

ground. In addition, it was decided to examine the interior of the cable anchor

holes with a television camera.

(i) A 500,000-lb-capacity load cell was required for measurement of the

cable tensions. • Since no suitable hollow-bodied load cell of this capacity

was commercially available, a cell was specially designed for this purpose.

These cells were able to discriminate load changes of approximately + 300 lbs

and had an overall accuracy of approximately + 3000 lbs 670 full capacity).

Appendix VI gives a brief description of these load cells.

(ii) Mines Branch vibrating wire extensometers, which can be used with

up ,to four wires in any one borehole, were selected for measuring the ground

displacement with time. A PC101 vibrating-wire comparator was used to read

these instruments. Appendix VII gives the sensitivities of the instruments used.

(iii) Commercially available vibrating-wire concrete strain gauges,

type PC658, were chosen for embedment in the concrete stringer.

(iv) Examination of the inside of the cable anchor holes was carried

out with a television camera developed by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission

of Ontario. It was suitable for insertion into NX, or larger, holes. This

work was carried out by BEM° on contract and under supervision of Mining

Research Centre personnel.

CONSTRUCTION SEOUENCE

The following lists the sequence of operations carried out in this

trial support installation; Appendix VIII gives a photographic record of these

operations: •

1. A section of pit wall, 50 ft long and extending from one bench to another
 38

over a height of 66 ft, was cleaned and scaled in preparation for the

project.

2. A contractor was brought in to diamond-drill the holes for the four cable

anchors and for the wire extensometers.

3. A panel of welded wire mesh was assembled which would cover the 50-ft

width from the toe of the upper bench to the toe of the lower bench.

This panel was assembled from 5-ft widths of mesh, overlapped and wired

together to make up a single unit over the whole area. This panel was

then rolled up and placed on the upper bench of the site. It was fastened

at the top in the desired position by short rock bolts and was then rolled

over the bank so that it lay in the desired location for the installation.

4. The cable anchors and the rod were assembled on site and installed into

four holes, two on the upper bench and two on the lower bench. These

were grouted at their lower end by 20 ft of portland cement grout.

5. Forming and reinforcing steel were constructed at the head of each anchor

to provide a concrete abutment for a bearing plate against which the

anchors could be stressed. This concrete formwork also joined the anchor

abutments on the lower bench to enable the horizontal stringer to be

cased.

6. On the upper bench, the horizontal stringer was constructed of five

steel rods passing over the 50-ft test width and through the concrete

abutments which provide the anchorage for these rods. The steel mesh

was wired to these steel rods along the whole width of the bench section.

7. On the lower bench, the wire mesh passed under the formwork for the

horizontal stringer so that when the concrete was poured the mesh would

be anchored in the horizontal stringer.

 39

8. Concrete was then poured for the abutments and the horizontal stringer.

This was allowed to cure for 28 days.

9. After the concrete had cured, the four anchors were stressed by means of

a hydraulic jack to the required load, and the cable ends were locked in

position.

10. The cable support system was then allowed to stand for a period of 9

months, during which its behaviour was monitored by the instruments. At

the end of this period the cables were slackened, the load cells were

retrieved, and the cables were retensioned. Finally, each of

the cables was grouted with portland cement grout over its full length

to proLeet the strands against corrosion.

CRITIQUE ON CONSTRUCTION EXPERIENCE AND ITEM COSTS

Site Preparation

Normal scaling and cleanup were carried out in the area before

commencement of the other activities. It was thought that the work done here

would be satisfactory for a major support system and that therefore no extra

cost, i.e., over and above normal practice, would be incurred.

Anchor Holes

Two sizes of cable anchor holes were diamond-drilled; HX size

(3.89 in. diameter) and NX casing (3.5 in. diameter). The 196-ft and 33-ft

holes were drilled HX size, whilst the 55-ft and 110-ft holes were NX casing

size. This drilling was contracted on a footage-plus-diamond cost basis.

Costs were as follows:

 40

HX 3.89-inch-diameter holes

Footage drilled (1 hole 196 ft and 1 holes 33 ft) 229 ft

Drilling cost $9.32/ft

Travelling, core bores, etc. $1.65/ft

Total cost $10.97/ft

Drilling rate 3.42 ft/operating

hour

NX Casing 3.5 -inch-diameter holes

Footage drilled (1 hole 112 ft and 1 hole 55 ft) 167 ft

Drilling cost $9.55/ft

Travelling, core bores, etc. $1.65/ft

Total cost $11.20/ft

Drilling rate 2.39 ft/operating

hour

No serious difficulties were encountered during the drilling of the

four anchor holes. The better efficiency was obtained by the drilling con-

tractor on the larger-size holes (HX) because of the availability of the proper

type of bits and core barrel. With the 3.5-Ln. (NX casing) size,core recovery

and bit life were poor because standard coring bits and corebarrel were not

available and were not worth obtaining for such a small footage. On a major

programme, standard NX casing equipment would be available; thus a better

efficiency would be expected and the drilling costs per.foot would be exPected

to drop below that for the HX-size holes.

 41

These holes were diamond-drilled so that a good wall would be

attained for viewing with the television camera. However, on a major pro-

gramme this television viewing is unlikely to be carried out; in which case

an evaluation of the costs of drilling these anchor holes by a percussion drill

would be useful. It is thought that, for certain types of rocks and for

relatively short holes,this could be an acceptable and efficient alternative

to diamond drilling.

Welded Wire Mesh

A panel of welded wire mesh 5 5,1i ft wide was installed over the

test area,extending from the lower beam to the upper beam. It was fastened

to these beams so that the mesh would prevent chunks of loose rock from falling

clown the slope and would give support to a portion of the berm in the event

of its failure.

Twelve 5 - foot widths of 66 - 44 welded wire mesh were cut into

lengths which would extend from above the upper stringer,across the berm,and

down the bank to just below the lower stringer. These lengths of mesh were

overlapped by six inches and were wired together with No. 9 annealed galvanized

wire. The wiring of the mesh was conducted in a level area away from the

test site. After the wiring was complete,the panel of mesh was rolled up and

transported to the upper bench of the test site, using a front-end loader.

There it was positioned, using a crane, and fastened to the rock with two short

bolts. It was then rolled across the berm and over the bank. This procedure .

placed the mesh in its desired position for the system.

The most effort required concerning the mesh was the wiring to-

gether of the lengths of mesh. It was found that a patented wire-twisting

 42

device,commercially available, was slow and cumbersome to use. As a result a

new procedure was devised: The annealed wire was cut into 6-in , lengths and

bent double to form a U with two 3-in. legs. The wire was twisted with an

electric power drill. A 3/8-in.-dia. shaft, 6 in. long, with a head that

had two 1/4-in. holes, 3/4 in. apart, was held by the chuck of the drill

(see photographs 18-21,Appendix VIII). The U-shaped wire was placed at the

junction of the two wires of each of the adjoining widths of mesh, the ends of

the wire were inserted into the 1/4-in. holes on the twisting tool and the

drill was turned on until the wire was tightly twisted. This operation was performed

by one or two men placing the wire ties and a third man operating the drill.

Materials, Equipment and Labour

(1) Construction of the wire panel

Labour • 194 man-hours

Front-end loader 1 hour

(2) Move mesh to test site

Labour 4 man-hours

Front-end loader 5.1i. hours

Mobile crane 1 hour

(3) Position wire mesh on site

Labour 39 man-hours

Front-end loader 1 hour

(4) Materials

66/44 welded wire mesh

140' x 60' = 8400 sq ft
at $6.35/100 sq ft = $533.00

200 lb, annealed galvanized

No. 9 wire at 15.32/100 lbs $30.64
 43

Although the operation had no major snags,it is a time- and labour-

consuming job. The wiring of the lengths of mesh could be organized into a

more efficient operation on a larger scale,thereby improving labour efficiency.

The power drill wire-twisting device described above proved to be considerably

more efficient than the patented commercial device for the same purpose.

If it is possible to get widths of mesh greater than 5 feet, the

wiring cost can be proportionately decreased.

The wiring together of the ends of two lengths, where the mesh

laid over one bench joins that over the next bench, could be done in a

similar fashion, without difficulties,after installation on site. An overlap

of 1 ft instead of 6 in. might be preferable, to ensure retention of

longitudinal strength.

It is doubtful that mesh panels of much greater than 55 ftwidth

could be conveniently handled and placed in position. In consequence, on a

major installation, adjacent panels of mesh should be wired together on site

after installation if lateral continuity of the mesh is to be retained. An

overlap of 3-4 ft might be desirable in this case. The wiring of adjacent

panels together after installation would be considerably more difficult than

was experienced above; a technique for doing this would have to be developed.

Steel Rod Stringer Beam and Abutments

The upper stringer beam used to support the welded wire mesh was .

composed of five 56-1t-long,No. 11 A432 steel rods. These rods were held in

position by the concrete abutments at each of the anchors. The welded wire

mesh passes under these rods and was fastened to them with No. 9 galvanized

iron wire. The rods were fastened to the reinforcing steel in the abutmentà
 44

to hold them in position until the concrete had been poured.

Materials, Equipment and Labour

Forming and Steel Work

Labour 50 man-hours

Reinforcing steel for abutments $16.00 total

No. 11 A432 steel bars $142/ton + tax + freight

Forming materials $30.00 total

Concrete Work

Labour 10 man-hours

Class 4000 concrete

cu yds at $22.30/cu yd = $78.00 -9

Positioning of Rods and Fastening Rods

to Wire Mesh

Labour • 32 man-hours

The configuration of the wall in the area of the abutments made

installation of forming and steel work rather difficult and inefficient. A

project with a greater number of abutments would quite likely result in more

efficient usage of labour and materials.

Concrete Stringer Beam and Abutments

The lower stringer beam to support the welded wire mesh is of

reinforced concrete integrated with the concrete abutments for the anchors.

The main structural steel members are six No. A432 steel rods,56 feet long.

The welded wire mesh was positioned to pass through the concrete which,

when poured and set, fastens the mesh to the beam.

 45

Materials, Equipment and Labour

Forming and Steel Work

Labour 61 man Thours

Reinforcing steel for abutments $20.00 total

No. 10 A432 steel bars $142/ton + tax + freight

Forming materials $50.00 total

Concrete Work

Labour 15 man-hours

Class 4000 concrete 12 cu yds at 22.30/cu yd

The wall configuration in this area was more regular than on the

upper bench, resulting in more efficient operation for the forming and the

steelwork. Here,again,it is anticipated that a larger project would result

in labour and material savings.

Anchors

The main support for the system is created by the installation and

tensioning of deep anchors. Four anchors were installed in this project:

three were in the Freysinnet principle which uses multiple-strand cable

tendons, and one was a high-tensile steel bar, 1 3/8 inches in diameter, called

a "Stressteel" bar.

Materials for the 12/0.5 tendons were shipped to the job site in

bulk and assembled by a crew of two men and an experienced supervisor from

Conenco Canada Ltd.

 46

Assembly and Installation of Anchors

Type 1 12/0.5 Cable Tendons

No. 1 Anchor length 40 ft

Hole depth 33 ft

• Hole size 3.89 in. (H X)

Hole orientation 10 0 below horizontal

Three men could assemble this anchor from an on-site source of

materials in 11/2 hours, and install immediately after assembly.

Total labour 3 x 11/2 = 4.3à. man-hours

No difficulty was experienced with the installation of this anchor_

into a 3.89 - in. hole. A diamond drill hole of n-in , diameter would'

be quite acceptable for this length of anchor.

No. 2 Anchor length 120 ft

Hole depth 110 ft .

Hole size 3.5 in. (NX Casing)

Hole orientation 100 below horizontal

Three men assembled this anchor from the bulk source of material

in 3 hours, installing the anchor as it was assembled.

Total labour = 3 x 3 = 9 man-hours

No difficulty was experienced with the installation of this anchor

into a 31/2-in. -dia. hole.

No. 3 Anchor length 205 ft

Hole depth 196 ft

Hole size 3.89 in. (HX)

Hole orientation 10 0 below horizontal

 47

A three-man crew was able to assemble this anchor from bulk and

install it in approximately 6 hours. Installation to approximately 130 ft

created no difficulties. From 130 ft to approximately 170 ft,two more men

were required to assist in pushing the anchor down the hole. At 170 ft the

hole passed through a fault extending for approximately 4-5 ft; this fault

produced caving ground in the hole. It was difficult to push the anchor

through this caved ground; nevertheless,by brute force with seven men pushing

on the anchor,it was forced to within 2 ft of the bottom of the hole where,

presumably, caved material pushed ahead of the anchor prevented further

insertion. Due to the weight and length of the anchor it is suggested that

the hole diameter nôt be reduced without further experiment. As a result of

these experiences it is also suggested that, during drilling of the anchor

holes, the holes should be grouted where caving ground is indicated by the

extracted core. This would considerably assist anchor installation through

caving ground. From the experiences indicated by these installations it

would appear that a 3.5-in.-dia. hole is adequate for installing 12/0.5

cable anchors in holes of up to 100-120 ft, provided the hole condition is

good. Above this depth the anchor hole diameter is probably best increased

to 3.89 in. These approximate figures apply to these holes dipping at

10° below horizontal. It would be anticipated that these lengths could be

increased in more steeply dipping holes. It is questionable whether a deep

anchor could be properly installed in holes drilled up dip. Such practice

is not recommended without further experiment. If percussion-drilled holes

were drilled,it is anticipated that the hole surface would be rougher than

these diamond-drilled holes; in consequence, the hole diameter should

probably be increased at a smaller depth than the 100-120 ft indicated above,

if easy installation is to be maintained.

 48

Total labour = 3 x 6 = 18 man-hours

To assist in estimating installation and assembly costs for 12/0.5

cable tendons, the above labour hours have been plotted against hole depth

in Figure 12. This figure indicates that these costs might be estimated on

the basis of assuming a value of 0.09 man-hours/ft to cover both assembly

and installation.

Type 2 1 3/8 inch Stressteel Bar

No. 1 Anchor Length 62 ft

Hole depth 55 ft

Hole size 3.5 in. (NX casing)

Hole orientation 10° below horizontal

Three men could assemble and install this anchor with no difficulty

in one hour. The unit installed came in a maximum length of 20 ft. Lengths

of 40 ft are normally available and would reduce installation time and cost

to some degree. Couplings used on the stressteel bar were of the grip type

(3-in. 0.D.). If a threaded type were used (2 1/4-in. 0.D.) it would be

possible to remove the grout tube, which was not possible with this installation.

Total labour cost = 3 hours

The labour costs of installation of the bar would appear to be

less,than those for the cable tendons. Also from this one experience,

it appears that the bar is easier to install and that probably a 3.5-in.

hole (or perhaps even smaller) could be used to considerably greater depths

than with the cable tendons. It should be borne in mind, however, that the

stressteel bar has a capacity of only about the load of the cable tendons

used; hence, whilst installation costs are lower with the stressteel bars,
 19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12
15
/ SLOPE = -090 man-hours/ft
cn II 166

0 I o
Z9 / X

2
8

X 12/5 cable tendons

5
EB Stress steel bar
4

Œf
I I I l l I I I I 111 111 111 I
VI

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
HOLE DEPTH, FEET

Figure 12. Cable Assembly and Installation Time Versus Depth of

Anchor Hole, for 12/.5 Cable Tendons.
 50

almost twice the number would be required to apply the same total support

load,thus also involving almost twice the amount of drilling. In consequence,

it is unlikely that the overall costs for supporting by means of stressteel

bars would be less than those for the cable tendons, unless bars of much
higher capacity became available.

Materials for the Anchors

hpe 1 - 12/0.5 tendons

Fixed cost per anchor (end fittings,

cone-locking device, etc.) $40.37

Additional cost per foot (cable

tendon material) $ 1.20

_brpe 2 - 1 3/8 stressteel bar

Fixed cost per anchor (end fittings,etc.) $19.04 -

Additional cost per foot $ 1.82

This cost per foot of the bar is up to 40 ft; thereafter,$7.80

for each additional 40 ft or less should be added for thread and coupler.

The overall assembly and installation of the anchors went quite

smoothly, and it is unlikely that much room for improvement is available for

a major installation. For a larger project, it is likely that materials

could be purchased more economically than was possible for this trial.

Grouting of Anchors

Grout was pumped down 1/2-in. or 3/4-in, plastic pipe so that it

covered the bottom 20 feet of the anchors. The following grouting . equipment

was supplied by Conenco Canada Ltd., who supervised the grouting work:

electrically powered mixer and tank, and gasoline-powered pump.

The grout was mixed in the following proportions: one-quarter

pound of Sika Intraplast expansion grout per sack (87 1i'lbs) of High-EarlY-
 51

Strength Cement, with 4 gallons of water.

After the grout was thoroughly mixed, approximately 8 gallons of

grout was poured into the tank of the pump; this was the average quantity

required to grout one anchor. After the grout had been pumped in, the

grouting tube was slowly pulled out before the grout had set. The grout tubes

were removed from all holes but the hole with the bar where the

size of the couplings had jammed the grout tube between them and the wall.

A three-man crew with the proper equipment on site can grout an

individual anchor with no difficulty in 2 hours. This requires that the

material and equipment be on site.

Materials and Labour

3 men at 2 hours per hole 6 man-hours per hole

8 gallons grouting mixture per hole $5.00 per hole

Mixer and grout pump rental $50 --->$75/month

(On a continuous project it would pay

to purchase this equipment.)

Grouting of the anchors would be more efficiently carried out on

a large scale when more than one anchor could be reached from one set-up.

It is the opinion of the Conenco personnel that the leaving of the grout tube

in a 12/0.5 tendon during tensioning would only result in damage to the tube

and render it useless for additional grouting. They suggest that additional

grouting could be achieved by the insertion of a grout tube in the collar

a
of the hole after tensioning. -

The grout was allowed to set for 28 days before the cables were

tensioned.
 52

Tensioning of the Anchors

Tensioning of the anchors was supervised by Conenco Canada Ltd.,

personnel. They used hydraulic jacks and pumps supplied by Conenco which

have been specifically designed for this type of work.

Each anchor was tensioned in increments to its approximate design

load; it was then unstressed in increments down to almost zero load. This

procedure was repeated three times to allow measurements to be made of the

displacement of the surface rock as the load was cycled. These measureMents

during this "plate load test" enabled an estimate of the in-situ modulus

of deformation of the surface rock to be made. After readings were com-

pleted,the anchor was loaded and locked at its design load. From 4 to

5 hours were required to complete this procedure for each 12/0.5 tendon.

About 2 hours was required to complete the same procedure with the rod.

It is estimated that a two-man crew with either a tripod and block

, and tackle, or some other convenient means of handling the jack for a 12/0.5

tendon, would be able to set up, tension, lock, and dismantle one cable in

hours. Two men could set up, tension, lock, and dismantle for a stressteel

bar in 45 minutes under good conditions.

Equipment and Labour

Type 1. 12/0.5 Tendon

Labour 2 men at 1 3à. hours 3 man-hours per cable

Jack and electric pump (rental) $75/week or $200/month

Type 2. 1 3/8 stressteel bar

Labour 2 men at 3/4 hour 1.12- man-hour's per bar

Jack and electric pump (rental) $50/week or $150/month

 53

The tensioning of the anchors appears to be a quite straightforward

process once the proper techniques have been learned. To achieve the

productivities estimated above,it would be necessary to have all materials

and equipment on the job site and to be able to move them from one site to

the next without significant delay. .

Final Grouting

After cable tensioning, the whole system was left and its behaviour

was monitored over a period of 9 months. The load cells were then retrieved

from the cable ends by relaxing and retensioning the cables. The holes

were then grouted over their entire length in order to protect the cables

and the bar from corrosion. In normal practice this would be done immediately

after the initial tensioning of the cables.

The holes were grouted by inserting short plastic pipes into the

collars of the holes and sealing these in position with quick-setting mortar.

Using the same cement mix as previously and the same pump and mixing equip-

ment, all four holes were grouted in one shift of approximately 6 hours,

averaging approximately 58 ft grouting per hour including set-up and dis-

mantling time. A total of 21 bags of grout were used for the 347 ft of

grout, averaging 161/2 ft per bag.

Labour 2 men for 6 hours 12 man—hours

Grouting mix 161/2 bags at 2.50/bag $41.25

Mixer and pump rental $50-$75 per month

CONCLUSION AND GENERAL COMMENTS

The work done on the trial installation was carried out by men

regularly employed by the Company. They were directly supervised by

the regular mine surface foreman. Design and construction control was

supplied by the Company's Engineering Department and by personnel of the Mining

Research Centre. Services supplied to the workers on the job, such as

power, transportation of men and materials, and the use of tools and shops,

have not been charged against the project. Neither have the supervision

end control mentioned above been charged to the project. In all job

breakdowns given in the preceding paragraphs, only hours of labour spent

have been indicated.

The distribution of these labour hours would be approximately

50% at a tradesman's rate (carpenter, steel man, etc.) and 50% at a helper's

rate. The cost of this labour would vary with individual companies and

locations. An approximate cost of any mobile equipment used, such as crane

or frontend loader, with operator included, would be in the vicinity of $10.00

per hour. This would also vary with area, company, and size of equipment.

In order to derive some actual costs,some example labour rates

(not necessarily applicable to this or any other mine) have been assumed,

together with an allowance of 15% extra to cover the cost of fringe benefits,

etc. A total construction cost of this project has then been derived, using

these example labour rates, and is given in Appendix IX.

 C.

The table below indicates the percentage of the overall costs made

by each construction phase.

TABLE 1: PERCENTAGE COST OF EACH PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION

ITEM % Overall Cost

1. Site preparation

2. Anchor hole drilling 53.6%

3. Wire mesh 17.1%

4. Steel rod stringer beam and abutments 6.3%

5. Concrete stringer beam and abutments 8.2%

6. Anchors and installation 10.1%

7. Grouting of anchors 1.57

8. Tensioning of anchors 2.0%

9. Final grouting of cables 1.2%

100.0%

It is interesting to note from this table that drilling costs

account for over 50% of the total. Thus any economies in this work would be

best achieved by reducing drilling costs. This makes a very strong case for

investigating the possibilities of using percussion drilling rather than

diamond drilling,and for conducting some experiments on the ease of installation

of anchors in percussion drill holes.

The next most expensive item is the wire mesh installation at 17.1%

of the total costs. Of this wire mesh cost,approximately 43% (7.4% of overall

costs) is accounted for by the labour involved in wiring the

mesh sections together. Significant reduction in overall costs might

therefore be obtained by reducing this figure through the use of wider mesh
 56

sections (i.e. if 10-ft-wide mesh is available, these labour costs would be

halved,giving an overall saving of 3.7%).

The cost of anchors and their installation (10.1% overall) would

not appear to leave much room for potential economies. It is doubtful that the

labour costs in this operation could be reduced significantly,since this was

one of the most efficient of the operations during this installation.

Whilst the fixed cost per anchor of end fittings, etc.,might well be re-

duced by bulk buying,it is doubtful that this would reduce significantly the

total costs.

From a cost point of view there would appear to be little difference

in using concrete stringer beams or steel rod stringer beams. Whilst the

concrete beams do cost a little more, they also give a better support to the

mesh. In consequence, it is probably worthwhile to pay the slightly higher

costs and install concrete beams.

In this type of trial installation, where the work load was

irregular and not excessive, it was found more efficient to perform the work

with regular company personnel rather than contract it out. This was shown

in this project,where the Company was able to integrate the work on the

project with the regular activities of the work force.

In a major installation of a slope support system, the work load

would be much more regular and would have to be integrated into production

requirements. In view of the importance of integrating this work with

production, it would again seem advisable to carry out this work with mine

personnel (possibly 3 men full-time) rather than contract it out.

 57

On the basis of this study,a number of guidelines to estimating the

costs of such a support system have been derived. These are summarized below:

TABLE 2: COST ESTIMATING DATA FOR EACH CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Job Rate or cost - for

Estimating Overall Costs

1. Site Preparation

Normal clean up and scaling practice is

sufficient for most sites. Involving no
additional costs.

2. Anchor Hole Drilling

For holes up to 120 ft deep,3.5-inch-diameter

hole is adequate unless ground is bad. For
hole beyond 120 ft,H(3.89")-diameter holes
should be used (both these figures apply to
10 12/0.5 cable tendons).
For estimating purposes assume H size holes,
diamond drilled, are used in all holes.
EstiMate on basis of $11.00/ft. $11/ft

3. Wire Mesh

Materials. Calculate square footage of mesh

required, allowing for overlap. Mesh costs,
depending on mesh size, e.g. 6 x 6 4/4 mesh
$6.35 per sq ft. $6.35 per sq ft
Annealed galvanized wire. Estimate on basis
of IA of total mesh cost. 1/2 7. total mesh cost

Labour. This is dependent on the number of

strips to be wired to form each panel of
mesh. Allow 0.26 man-hour per foot to wire
adjacent strips. This includes time spent
installing. Assume total labour hours split
50-50 between tradesman's and helper's rates. 0.26 man-hours/ft

Equipment. Assume 8 hours required for equip-

ment (front-end loader and/or mobile crane)
to move each panel to site and install. 8 hours/panel
 58

4. Stringer Beams and Abutments

Forming and steel work

Reinforcing steel required calculated on
basis of $142.00/ton. $142.00/ton

Labour
Allow 1.2 man-hours per foot of beam
(include abutment formwork). 1.2 man-hours/foot

Forming materials allow $1.00 per ft of beam. $1.00/ft

Concrete work
Allow $23.00/cu yd for concrete. $23.00/cu yd

Labour allow 1.25 man7 hours/cu.yd. 1.25 man-hours/cu yd

All labour split 50-50 tradesman and

helper.

5. Cable Anchors (12/0.5 tendons)

Materials. Assume $40.50 per anchor $40.50 per anchor

plus $1.20 per foot of anchor hole. $1.20 per foot anchor
hole

Labour. Allow 0.09 man-hours per foot for

assembly and installation (50-50 tradesman
and helper). 0.09 man-hours/ft

6. Grouting of Anchors

Labour: Allow 6 man-hours per anchor. 6 man-hours/anchor

Materials: Grouting cement - allow $5.00/hole. $5.00 per anchor

Equipment rental: Allow $60 per month. $60.00 per month

7. Tensioning Anchors

Labour: Allow 3 man-hours per cable anchor. 3 man-hours/anchor

Jack and pump rental: $75/week. $75/week

8. Final Grouting of Cables

Labour: Allow 0.035 man-hour per foot of hole. 0.035 man-hours/ft

hole
 59

Grout materials: Allow 14i /ft of hole. $.12 per foot hole

Mixer and pump rental: 41low $60.00/month. $60.00/month

The above figures, designed to assist in estimating overall costs,

are based on those from the trial installation. For a larger project,these

figures will probably give an overestimate and should be modified as

experience dictates.

RESULTS OF INSTRUMENTATION STUDIES

Instrument Layout

Figure 13 shows a sketch of the instrument layout on the site. The

four load cells were installed under the cable-anchor heads of each of the

anchors. The load-cell numbers and the anchor depths are indicated in this

figure. Likewise,the positions and numbers of the extensometers are given

in this figure. Figure likshows a section through the extensometer holes,

showing the location of the anchors within these holes and the orientation

of these holes. The strain gauges installed within the concrete stringer

beam were numbered and installed in the pattern and positions indicated in

Figure 15.

Cable Anchor Tensions

Cable No. 1 (33 ft) was tensioned to 302,850 lbs and the Freysinnet

cone was locked, causing the load to drop to 209,930 lbs. Shims were then

introduced between the cone and the load cell,and the cable tension was then

increased to the "initial load" of 267,600 lbs. This cable was then left in

position and the cable tension variations during the ensuing 9 months were
 -

55-FT ANCHOR I95-FT ANCHOR

X3

L = LOAD CELL

X = EXTENSOMETER
C = CONCRETE STRAIN GAUGE

33-F 1 ANCHOR 110-FT ANCHOR

CI C3 C5 C7 C9
— C2 —C4 C6— XI —
- C8 —CIO

Figure 13. Instrument numbering and layout.

•
 XI-2 XI-1

I X 31
WIRE
1-1
ANCHOR DEPTH
248 ft
1-2 200 ft
1-3 115 ft
1-4 59 ft
2-1 200 ft
2-2 135 ft
2-3 79 ft
2-4 43 ft
31 140 ft
3-2 87 ft
3-3 50 ft
3-4 25 ft
4-1 200 ft
4-2 150 ft
X2.1
4-3 120 ft

X4-4 4-4 66 ft

Figure 14. Extensometer anchor positions.

 ---CI C3 C5 C7 C9
---
4 t t
9n
15" 14" 13" 13"
1 C4 re. i CIO
—C2
3 88 — C6 — ...,...

5' 5
25'

(a) PLAN

8,1
13" 10" 14"
— — 101/2"
—
Cla2 C38(4 C5&6 C78i8 C9&10

(b) SECTION —FACING PIT WALL

Figure 15. Strain gauge positions in concrete stringer beam.

 63

1 observed, and are plotted on Figure 16. This cable tension remained stable

throughout the whole period.

Cable No. 2 (110 ft) was tensioned to a load of 319,700 lbs and the

Freysinnet cone was locked,causing the load to drop to 281,380 lbs. Shims

were then introduced to increase the cable tension to the "initial load" of

309,250 lbs. This cable lost load rapidly and continuously over the 9 - month

observation period, and at the end of the time had lost over 307. of the

initial load. Figure 1/ shows the record. •

Cable No. 3 (55-ft steel rod) was tensioned to a load of 113,500

lbs and the bolt was locked. No loss of load was experienced due to locking

of the bolt. A slight loss of load was experienced over the 9-month period,

but at the end of this tim ,, the load was still approximately 103,000 lbs.

This record is shown in Figure 18.

Cable No. 4 (195-ft cable) was tensioned to a load of 291,700 lbs,

which dropped to 261,900 lbs when the Freysinnet cone was locked. Shims

were introduced between the cone and the load cell,raising the load to the

"initial value" of 299,660 lbs. During the first month of observation this

load dropped to approximately 280,000 lbs,where it remained stable for the

rest of the observation period. Figure 19 shows the load-time record.

The following tentative conclusions can be drawn from these

observations:

(a) Whilst it is possible to tension the cable anchors accurately to a given

'10

load, the act of locking the cone and wedge relaxes some of this tension.

This relaxation can be a significant portion of the design load and is pro-

bably greater for the shorter cables. After locking the cable, shims can be
 310 r

300

290

280

270
x \ x/
e
/X es\x...........9( X .,
I`x----
_.....X.,..x
------x ....e
.
LOAD
X
X
- + 1 0/0
_ _10/0

-CI
- 260
0

0
be 250

OC

240 20

0-- C1 •

230 10 / •
Id*
•

-Os
TEMPERATURE
220 0
- - 0-

10 -10

200 20 510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 1015 20 25 5 10 15 20 25

50 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER • NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE

Figure 16. Load cell No. 1 - 33-ft cable - initial load 267,600 lbs.
 5

111

310 r

3001-

290

\X 3eNir,......J \
X
280 1-

2701

260 -
\ LOAD

0 \
X
.< 250 -
0

°C
240 20

0--0
i ct
230- 10 \
0
`c,

2201- 0
TEMPERATURE
0'

210 —10

11..........1.1.1.1..11.111 lllllllllll .1.1.1

It to
200L —20 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
5. 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
SEPTEMBER

Figure 17. Load cell No. 2 - 110-ft cable - initial load 309,250 lbs.
 160

150

140

130

120

Jte \ x
LOAD
*— 110
to

X
X
• 100

oc
90 20

Q- -0

A
80 10
'0(
0-
TEMPERATURE

70 0

60 —10

9111_11/111,111t tie II/ RI, Ill

',III!, ell it 1111111e •
50 —20 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
5 10 520 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL >A AY JUNE
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

Figure 18. Load cell No. 3 - 55-ft rod - initial load 113,500 lbs.

k" 110
 • •

310

300

290
LOAD

280 x X
x

270

- 260

< 250
o
-1

OC
240 20r

- C?

230 10
■

••••. TEMPERATURE
220 o -
***0- -----

210 -10

llllllllllllllllll
It a., • tt • 1
200 20 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE

Figure 19. Load cell No. 4 - 195-ft cable - initial load 299,660 lbs.
 68

inserted between the wedge and the bearing plate (or load cell), which will

increase the load towards the design load. However, this load will only be

accurately known if there is a load cell incorporated in the system. It is

not normal practice to use such a load cell on every anchor,as the costs

then increase considerably. In consequence it is probable that the tension

on the cable when finally installed will not be accurately known and it

could deviate by a significant amount from the design load. Experience

may enable some allowance to be made for the relaxation during locking.

(h) The above problem was not experienced with the stressteel bar; no

relaxation during locking procedures occurred in this one case.

(c) After shimming, load cell No. 1 on the 33-ft cable remained stable

throughout the observation period. However, load cell No. 2 on the 110-ft

cable showed a continuing load loss. This was believed to be due to slip

in the anchorage, either at the bottom in the grout anchor or at the top

between the cone and wedge. In normal practice, however, the entire cable

would be grouted over its whole length immediately after final tensioning.

In consequence, this type of load loss would not normally be experienced.

The'rod and the 195-ft cable both showed some loss of load during

the first few weeks; thereafter the load remained stable. This load loss is

probably due to time-dependent compaction of the rock under load, closing

of fissures,etc. It is significant that the 33-ft cable, which received

3 load cycles during the plate-load tests, did not exhibit this effect since

most of the compaction would have occurred during these presetting load

cycles. It would therefore seem advisable to precycle the load up to its

highest level for several cycles, in order to reduce the load loss after setting.
 69

Extensometer Measurements

Figures 20, 21,22 and 23 show the displacements recorded by the

extensometers during the 9-month observation period. The behaviour of these

extensometers was most unsatisfactory. Extensometers No. 1, 2 and 3 re-

corded displacements, or rather lack of displacement, reasonably well until

mid-January 1969. At this time a cycle of freezing and thawing weather

caused much condensation of water and subsequent freezing within the units,

in many cases preventing the vibrating wires from moving, and stiffening the

springs with ice. In consequence, at this time the readings became erratic

and in many instances the wires could not be read. Extensometer No. 4

showed erratic readings from a much earlier date. It is obvious that this

behaviour was not a reflection of movement within the slope,since the re-

corded movements are not reflected in the different wires in the same hole.

As a result of these experiences, it is obvious that a number of design

changes are required in the extensometer in order to improve its performance,

particularly when subject to weather of this nature. The only conclusion

that can be drawn from these measurements is that it is probable that little

or no movement occurred in the slope up to January 1969. There is no

secondary evidence to indicate that movement occurred after this time.

Concrete Strain Gauges

Figures 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 show the strains recorded by the

pairs of concrete strain gauges embedded in the concrete stringer. With the

exception of gauge No. 9, no significant strains were recorded during the

9 month observation period. For some unknown reason,gauge No. 9 showed high

strains during the December-to-February period before reverting to the

original strain level. This is not believed to be a true strain recording

since it is not reflected in any of the other gauges, in particular it is

 1200
LEGEND
1100
II 0 to 248 ft
.•
1000 1-2 — 0 to 200 ft
1.3 • 0 to 115 ft
900 1•4•—••0 to 59 ft

800

700 ..•-•"••
.••••
.•'•
600 . • • " • MUST BE MISBEHAVING
SINCE NOT REFLECTED IN OTHERS
500

400
in
-t

300 •
DIS PL ACEMENT x10

•
• ■
• ■
200 •
e" ■
•""

100 • - --- - -- -- •
••••••

NOT READING

-100

- 200

—300

—400

—500

—600

—700

—800

—900

,.t.1 ■ •••••
—1000 5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE

Figure 20. Extensometpr No. 1.

• •
 •

1200 — LEGEND
1100 - 21 0 to 200 ft
2.2 0 to 135 ft
1000 -
2-3 0 to 79 ft
900 - 2-4 ----- 0 to 43 ft

800 -

700 -

600 -

500 -

400 -
DIS PL ACE ME N T x 1 0in
-3.

300 -

200 -

100 -

o --- .

—100

—200

—300

—400

—500

—600

—700

—800

—900

■ 18,1111. 1 ■ 1111
• t9111t1 ■ 11., /t/ .1118

—1000 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER

Figure 21. Extensometer No. 2.

 3200.r

3100

3000

2900

1500

.1400

1300 ......
DISPLACE ME N Tx10 - 3in

120.0

1100

1000
LEGEND
900 31 0 to140 ft
3-2 0 to 87 ft
800
3•3 0 to 50 ft
700 3.4 • -• 0 to 25 ft

600

500
, .

400 ,

,/
300 ,

200
/
- -
j
100

..

510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 2025 5 10 15 20 25

SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL NAY JUNE

Figure 22. Extensometer No. 3.

 • 6 •

1400

1300

1200
• '•

•••
•.
1100

1000 • 2000-

900 I : 900-

800 800-

700 1700-/
•

600
LEGEND
DI SPL ACE M EN T x10in

41 0 to 200 ft
-3

500 4-2 0 to 150 ft

4-3 0 to120 ft
400
4-4-- --0 fo 66 ft
300

200

100

- 100

- 200

-300

- 400

•
-500

- 600

-700

1 till

.5 10 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 3 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
SEPTEIM3ER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE

Figure 23. Extensometer No. 4.

 1000

900

800
LEGEND
X X GAUGE 1
700
0----0 GAUGE 2
600

500

400

300

200
(.0
10
100
- -_® --------- -0- -
0

- 100

- 200

- 300

7 - 400

-500
ct.
›
- 600

-700

- 800

-900.

-1000

I I II
5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE

Figure 24. Concrete gauges Nos. 1 and 2.

 KIL
II .• K

10 0 0

900 LEGEND
800 x--X GAUGE 3
— --0 GAUGE 4
700

600

0 500
C)

400
Iii
X X
300
X
200
o — -----
----

t wie) 100 —cf

x
Z 0

17)cr -100

-200

Z - 300
0
Fn -400
co
w
gr -500
a_
2
0 -600
U
- 700

-800

- 900

- 1000

I 1 I 1 I -- ---

510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25

.SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE

Figure 25. Concrete gauges Nos. 3 and 4.

 1000 [

900 LEGEND

800 X X GAUGE 5

- -0 GAUGE 6
700

600

0 500
7
400

;-
300

1'4 'el
0
200

- 100

rel•■ G 57-1. ■■• - --

0
•C
CC
F- -100

- 200
t - 300
CO M PRES SI O N

- 400

- 500

- 600

- 700

-800

-1000

1,11,1. el t .12,11, t el
t Jr /11111

50 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 23 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 23 5 10 15 20 25
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVENIBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH . APRIL MAY JUNE

Figure 26. Concrete gauges Nos. 5 and 6.

7
 1

1000

900
LEGEND
800 X--+X GAUGE 7

---0 GAUGE 8
700

600

500

400

300

200

0
- 100

- 0

, -100
cn
- 200

-300
COM PRES SION

-400

- 500

-600

- 700

-800

-900

-1000

510 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 50 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE

Figure 27. Concrete gguges Nos. 7 and 8.

 2000
, -9
1900 LEGEND
g- GAUGE 9
1800

8-- — —0 GAUGE 10
1700

1600

1500
o
Z.7) 1400

1300

Î
1200

1100

— 1000
. at.

900

CC
800
I-
. CO
700

600
t
500

400

300

200

100

—100
=2-'4
—200 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
5 10 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 50 15 20 25 510 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25
SEPTEMBER OCTOBE-R NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL . MAY JUNE

Figure 28. Concrete gauges Nos. 9 and 10.

 79

not reflected in the behaviour of gauge No. 10 adjacent to it. These erratic

readings from this gauge must be attributed to some malfunction of the gauge.

It may be concluded that no significant loading was experienced by

this horizontal stringer during the period of observation.

Plate Load Tests

The plate load tests carried out during the cable tensioning are

described in Appendix X. These experiments yielded an in-situ elastic

modulus of the surface rock of: E - (2.12 + 0.51) x 105 psi with a coefficient

of variation of + 247e . This value is 40 to 50 times less than was measured

in laboratory samples, indicating the very large effect of fracturing and

L.
fissuring on the in-situ rock mass.
alb

Television Viewing of the Boreholes

Appendix XI gives an assessment of the value of viewing the inside

of boreholes with a television camera.

Instrumentation Costs

Appendix XII gives a breakdown of the instrumentation costs for

this project.
 80

PART III: EXAMPLES OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMATES

FOR A MAJOR SUPPORT PROJECT

INTRODUCTION

In order to illustrate the potential application of supports as an

economic means of increasing slope angles, it is our intention in this part

of the report to use the analyses presented in Part I to establish a preliminary

design of supports for a number of hypothetical slope configurations. The cost

estimate data derived in Part II will then be used to estimate the costs of

these various support systems and their relative economic merits.

THE HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM

Assume that it is desired to mine an open pit to a depth of 500 ft

and that the benches will be 50 ft high and 30 ft wide. Assume that the slope

contains bedding or joint planes dipping at an angle of 40 0 to the horizontal.

Consider the preliminary design of a support system to stabilize this pit slope

at angles of a = 35 ° , 40 0 , 45 0 , 50 ° , 55 ° , and 60 0 with a required safety factor

of 1.5. Assume that the coefficient of friction has been estimated by

experiment to be g = 0.75. Let y the density of the rock be 165 lbs/cu ft.

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS

1. Determine the angle i ° of the plane of maximum excess shear stress

From equation (5), Cot a = Cot j + p. Cot i-1

Sin 2i + p,Cos 21.1

which has been plotted in Figure 5 for all values of g and a. Hence the values

of i° for each of the values of a required are given by:

 81

350 0 0 60o
a 40 ° 45 50 ° 55
o o 0
i 341/2 0 371/2 40 ° 42 44 46 °

2. Determine the optimum angle A of the cables

From equation (7), the optimum angle A of the cables is given by:

g = tan (i +

However, assume that we have difficulty in installing cables in holes up dip

above 10 ° from the horizontal. Thus, if the optimum A is more than

o o o
10 up dip (-10 ), choose A = -10 .

Hence, for all values of and g = 0.75, i.e. tan -1 0.75 = 37 ° . See below:

o 350 0 0
a 40 0 45 50 ° 55 60 °

o o 0
i° 341/2 ° 371/2 40 ° 42 44 46 °

o o o
A optimum 2 -3 -8° -13 ° -18 ° -23
o o o
A chosen +2 -3 ° -8 -10 ° -10 ° -10

3. Calculate the average excess shear stress, per unit thickness, in the
plane at i°

From equation (4), = z tcot i - cot alfsin 2 i - gSin i Cos il;

2

where Z = depth of 500 ft, y = 165 lbs/cu ft, substituting these values into

this equation gives:

o 0 55o
ao 35 40 ° 45 50° 60 °

Te lbs/sq ft -31 41 348 840 1490 2280

 82

0
Note that the excess shear stress when a is 35 is negative, i.e. ,

the natural shear resistance of the slope has not been overcome, and thus the

slope would be safe without support at this angle. The shear stress will

become positive (i.e. excess about the natural resistance) when p. = tan i,
-1 0•
i.e., when i = tan 0.75 = 37 We need not,therefore,consider the case of
0
a = 35 any more.

4. Calculate the required shear resistance which must be mobilized by the

cables for a safety factor of 1.5

The shear stress which must be mobilized by the cables must be 1.5

times the excess shear stress Te in order to obtain a safety factor of 1.5.

Hence the required shear resistance, Tp,is given by:

o 0
55 o
40 0 o
a 45 50 0 60
Tp lbs/sq ft 61.5 522 1260 2235 3420

5. Calculate the required lateral spacing of the cable anchors

Assume that there are ten 50-ft benches in the 500-ft depth,

i.e., that there are 11 cables required in each vertical section for full bench

spacing (n = 11, a =50 ft). Choose the maximum capacity cables to give

maximum load with minimum drilling costs, i.e. 270K 12/0.5 strand cable,with

design load of 340,000 lbs per cable.

Then,from equation (6), the lateral spacing required is:

n P Sin i
1 = [Cos (i+s) + Sin (i+ )}
a Tp

Hence the required lateral spacings are:

 83

o o 0
a. 40 0 45 ° 50 55 60 °

.o o
1 371/2 40 0 42 0 44 ° 46 °
o o
-3 ô-10o
-8 ° -10 -10 °

Tp 615 522 1260 2235 3420

1 ft 920 ft 114 ft 50 ft 29 ft 22 ft

Obviously the spacing of 920 ft required for the 40 ° slope angle is

out of realm of practicability,since the assumption that the cable load is

uniformly distributed over the plane at i° could not possible apply in this

case. In practice it would be better to have lower-capacity cables more

closely spaced (say 50-100 ft), but this would increase drilling costs con-

siderably and might well adversely effect the economics of the operation.

Nevertheless, purely as an academic exercise,the remaining design calculations

will still be carried out,using the excessive spacing since it may well

illustrate other important points later on.

6. Calculate the length of the cables

From equation 12, the length of the rth cable is given by:

{Z-(r-1) a} Sin (a,- i)

Lr — +x
S in cc Sin(i-FA)

when r is the cable number, counted from the crest and x is the recommended

length of grouting for the cable anchorage, say 20 ft, Now the beds dip into

the pit at 40 0 from the horizontal,so that in some cases considered p is i the

slope angle. Hence,i should be replaced by 0 = 40 0 in this equation,to ensure

that the cables are anchored beyond the bedding planes which pass through the

toe. If this equation yields a length of < (15 + x) = 35 ft, then a minimum

cable length of 35 ft should be used. Hence the cable lengths for each hole are:
 84

o
Cable No. a - 40 0 a = 45 0 a = 50 0 a = 55 0 cc = 60

1 80.5 ft 137.5 240 337 415

2 74.5 126 218 306 371

3 68.5 114 196 274 336

4 62.5 102 174 242 297

5 56.5 90.5 152 210 257

6 50.5 79 130 179 218

7 44.5 67 108 147 178

8 38.5 55 86 114 138.5

9 35 * 43.5 64 83.5 99

10 35 * 35* 42 52 59.5

11 35 * 35 * 35 * 35* 35*
,

Total footage 581 884.5 144.5 1980.5 2409

*
MINIMUM length = x + 15'7= 35 ft chosen.

The following Table 3 therefore summarises the cable support guide-

lines derived from this analysis.

 85

TABLE 3: SUMEARY OF CABLE SUPPORT DESIGN GUIDELINES

SLOPE ANGLE a = 40" a = 45 0 a = 50" cc = 55 ° a - 60u '

Pit depth - feet 500 500 500 500 500

Bench height - feet 50 50 50 50 50
Bench width - feet 30 30 30 30 30
Bedding & joint
plane angle 40 ° 40 0 40 ° 40 ° 40 °
Number of benches 10 10 10 10 10
No. cables per
vertical section 11 11 11 11 11
11 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
y,lbs/cu ft 165 165 165 165 165
Angle max, excess
371/2o 0 0
shear stress i° 40 0 42 44 46 0
Optimum cable
o o
angle A? -3 -8 ° -13 ° -18 ° -23
o o o
Angle A chosen -3 - 8° -10 ° -10
Average excess shear
stress,Te,lbs/sq ft 41 348 840 1490 2280
Safety factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Required shear
resistance,¶p,lbs/
sq ft 61.5 522 1260 2235 3420
Cable type 270K 270K 270K 270K 270K
12/0.5 12/0.5 12/0.5 12/0.5 12/0.5
Cable design load, 340,000 340,000 340,000 340,000 340,000
lbs
Cable lateral
spacing, feet 920 114 50 29 22
Cables length ri=1,ft 80.5 137.5 240 337 415
n=2 74.5 126 218 306 376
n=3 68.5 114 196 274 336
n=4 62.5 102 174 242 297
n=5 56.5 90.5 152 210 257
n=6 50.5 79 130 179 218
n=7 44.5 67 108 147 178
n=8 38.5 55 86 115 138.5
n=9 35 43.5 64 83.5 99
n=10 35 35 42 52 59.5
n=11 35 35 35 35 35
Total footage ft 580 884.5 1445 1980.5 2409
 86

BENCH STABILITY ANALYSIS'

1. Calculate the angle Ce of the maximum excess shear stress

cp is given either by equation (22) or by equation (26):

(a) if cp < a

[ki (Cos a+ Sin a) + a-Cos a) + k2(Sin a+p, Cos a))

tan 2 cp - (22)
[1(1 (Sin a-Cos a) - pki(Sin a + Cosa) k 2 (Cos a-p. Sin (1) -1

Sin a ay
where 1(1 = and k -
z tCos
Cos (a+A) + Sin (a+A.)1
[ • 2 2 Sin a

or (b) if CD >

[Law - ap. Cot a - a) à

tan 2 eP 1 (26)
w - a Cot a alu-
4

Substituting w = 30 ft, y = 165'lbs/cu ft, a = 50 ft into both equations

yields the following values of eP:

a 400
45 ° 50 ° 55
0
60 °

From (22) cp 43 ° 30 1* 45 0 55 1* 47 °54 49 ° 30' 50 °36' go must be < a

From (26) cp 48 ° 6' 52 ° 30' 56 ° 15' 60 ° 30' 64 ° 6' cp must be > a

* These results are not valid since cp > a,

Thus it is seen that for a = 40 0 and a = 45 ° there is a unique solution for

cp given by equation (26). However, for a = 50 ° , 55 ° and 60 ° both solutions

are valid. Hence in these cases we must calculate Te for both solutions and

design to resist the largest of the two maximum Te values.

6-1.4

2. Calculate the maximum excess shear stress on plane at cip

o

re is given either by equation (19) or by equation (26):

 87

(a) if cP < cc

Te = {k1 [Cos(a-4) + Sin (a-l-q))] + k 2 Sin (cc- q))} { Sin CP - g Cos cpj (19)

or (b) if cp > a

Te = -Ï {Sine Cp(w-a Cot a + ap.) - Sin 2 rn f-e-7 - Cot a - - ai} (25)

2 2 2 2

Thus, substituting for valid valuesof cP and w = 30 ft, y = 165 lbs/sq ft,

p. = 0.75 and a = 50 ft, we obtain:

1 ,

Œ
ID 0 o o
40 ° 45 50 55 ° 60
cp from (22) Invalid Invalid 47 ° 54' 49 ° 30' 50 ° 36'

le from (19), lbs/sq ft - - 324 414 496

cp from (26) 48 ° 6' 52 ° 30' 56 ° 15' 60 ° 30' 64 0 6'

Te from(25), lbs/sq ft 250 504 685 1155 1520

i.e., in this example the maximum Te values are always those given by equation (25).

3. Calculate the mesh tension T for idealized support (i.e. for safety factor of 1)

when CP >a, from equation (28)

a Te
(28)
T [Cos (cP-Fz,) + g Sin (CP+A) I Sin CP

which yields the following values:

cio T lbs
40 48 ° 6' 13,600

45 52 ° 30' 25,700

50 56 ° 15' 33,800

55 60 ° 30' 54,800

60 64 ° 6' 71,000
 88

4. *Calculated idealized cross—sectional area per foot for the mesh

A0
_o

if uo = 71,000 psi,then:

a T lbs Area A o sq inch Mesh style

40 13,600 0.191 216-510 or 316-28 or 612-3/04

45 25,700 0.362 216-17

50 33,800 0.476

55 54,800 0.772

60 71,000 1.00

For the requirements of the a = 50, 55 and 60 0 cases, the available

meshes are not sufficiently strong to completely support the bench. For the
0
40 0 and 45 cases the available meshes will be heavy. Further, since they

will be loading beams of fairly wide span it is almost certain, without further

calculation, that it would not be possible to design a horizontal stringer to

resist the bending moments imposed by these mesh loads. Hence it is not

possible to completely support these benches for any of these cases. Let us

therefore assume a horizontal stringer design which is practical and determine

what mesh size would allow the full strength of this beam to be utilized and

what safety factor for bench support is available.

5. Horizontal Stringers

Assume that in all cases the horizontal stringer is a reinforced

concrete beam size 18 in. x 18 in. containing 8 of No. 10 bars (10 sq inches); let

d = 16.5 inches; assume j = 7/8in.,q 33,000, and To = 71,000. The area of

mesh steel required to be fully loaded in order to fully load this beam is
 89

given by equation (38):

10 A, j d
Ao uo 1 2 '

Thus, for the spans 1 required for the cable spacings,this yields the following

values:

a 1 ft A Mesh Mesh chosen

o
-7 - 22-1616
40 920 6.65x10
-5 22-1616
45 114 4.3x10 -
-3 22-1616
50 50 2.2x10
-2 66-55
55 29 6.65x10 33-99 or 44-77
or 66-55
-1 316-610
60 20 1.16x10 316-610 or 44-44

Due to the very large spans for the lower a values, the area of

steel required to fully load the beam is very small and is below that of a

suitable available mesh. In these cases a very light-weight mesh has been

chosen merely to control loose rock; it could not possibly provide significant
0
bench support. For the 55 and 60 0 cases,available meshes would allow the

beam to be fully loaded and would thus allow some small amount of bench support

to be obtained. Let us now calculate the bench support safety factor for these

cases.

6. Bench support safety factor

Firstly, given the above mesh areas we can calculate the mesh tension,

T lbs, from T = A 00-0 . Then we can calculate the shear-resisting force TF

mobilized by the mesh if the bench fails;

TF = T [Cos (cp+A) + t Sin (cPiA)) Sin cp

a
 90

TF
and the safety factor S FB = 7-e. where Te is the previously calculated value of

the maximum excess shear stress.

Hence,

a A T lbs YEF Te S FB
-7 -2 -4 -6
40 6.5x10 4.6x10 8.5x10 250 3.4x10
-5 -2 -4
45 4.3x10 3.05 6x10 504 1.2x10
-3 -3
50 2.2x10 159 326 685 4.8x10
-2 -2
55 6.65x10 4760 100.5 « 1155 8.7x10
-1 -1
60 1.16x10 8240 177 1520 1.16x10

From this it is seen that for a = 40, 45 ° and 50 ° the bench support

is completely negligible and the use of a light mesh,as suggested above,would

be only to prevent small rocks frow falling. For the cases of a = 55 0 and 60 ° a

small portion of bench support is given,insofar as 8% and 11% of the bench

could fail before overloading the horizontal stringer. However, it is doubtful

that this degree of support would justify the cost of installation.

In conclusion it might therefore be said that the use of mesh as a

means of bench support is, in the cases considered here, not justified. The

laying of a light-weight mesh over the surface might be useful to help control

loose rock. However, benches are normally designed to catch and thus help

control loose rock; in consequence, the use of even a light-weight mesh for this

purpose may not be justified. If, on the other hand, the slope were to be

mined without benches (only, say, one transportation ramp),then it is thought

that mesh would provide a very good method to control loose rock and, since the

loads on the mesh without benches would be much less, might well give sufficient

resistance to prevent failure of the ground not supported by the cable anchors.
 91

Let us now consider the cost of the above installations,assuming,

-.. for this exercise at least, that mesh is installed to control the loose rock.
-

I'.
 92

cOST ANALYSIS

Using the cost analysis figures derived in Part II, the costs of

supporting these hypothetical slopes at cc = 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60 ° have been

calculated and are listed in the Table 4. Figure 29 shows the resulting cost

per linear foot versus slope angle. It is seen from this figure that the cost

per linear foot of the support system increases rapidly with increase of the

slope angle.

However, if we assume that this pit would have been mined at an

angle of 371/2 0 had no support been used,then there will be a saving of costs

through not ekcavating excess waste rock (in these cases, no allowance will be

made for possible increased revenue from the ability to excavate deeper ore levels

by reason of the increased slope angle). The amount of excavation saved is

given approximately by:

22 [Cot 0 - Cot la) eu ft/linear foot,

V = —
2

where O is the angle at which the slope would have been mined without use of

support ( O = 37k ° in this case). Table 5 gives the volumes saved and,

assuming an excavation cost of $0.34 per ton, lists the expenditure saved. IL

of expenditure increases rapidly with slope angle.

isaloenthisavg

If we consider the profit per linear foot of support to be the dif-

ference between the expenses saved and the support costs,then Table 5 also lists

this profit margin. Figure 30 shows the profit per linear foot versus slope
0
angle. It is seen from this figure that there is some angle (Cc= 53 in this

case) when the profit per linear foot is optimized, i.e. if a steeper slope

angle were chosen the increased cost of the support system would outweigh the

savings due to not excavating waste rock. Likewise, if a lower slope angle
 TABLE 4; COST ESTIMATES

a . 60o
ITEM, RATE,ETC. a - 40 0 $ a - 45' $ a 50 ° $ O. = 55 ° $ $

1. SITE PREPARATION ' - - - - - - - - -

I
2. ANCHOR HOLE DRILLING. '
Diamond Drill 11X 5 ize
at $11.00/ft of hole 581 ft at 11.00 6,390 884½ ft at 11.00 9,740 1445 ft at 11.00 15,900 19801/2 ft at 11.00 21,800 2409 ft at 11.00 26,500

3. MESH choose 5-ft- Span 920 ft Span = 114 ft Span = 50 ft Span = 29 ft Span = 22 ft
wide mesh, allow 6- No. widths230 No. widths=29 No. widths=13 No. widths=7 No. widths=6
inch overlap. 10-ft sq ft/bench sq ft/bench sq ft/bench sq ft 'bench sq ft bench
overlap on ends. = (100)x5x230 = 100x5x29 (100x5x13) = (100x5x7) = 100x5x6
Cost $150/ton x 10 benches x 10 benches x 10 benches x 10 benches x 10 benches
22-616 mesh=12.92 22-1616 mesh=12.92 22-1616 mesh=12.92 66-53 mesh=48.77 316-610 mesh =451
lbs. per100 sq.ft. lbs per 100 sq. ft. lbs per 100 sq ft. lbs per 100 sq.ft. lbs per 100 ''sq ft.
Total weight Total weight Total weight Total weight Total weight
= 74.5 ton at = 9.3 tons at = 4.2 tons at = 8.5 tons at = 6.75 tons at
$150/ton 11,200 $150/ton 1,400 $150 / ton 650 $150 / ton 1,300 $1501ton 1,000

Annealed wire, cost

at °/.. of mesh cosi
($50 minimum) 550 50 50 50 50
1
footage = footage = co
Labour, 0.26 man- footage= footage = footage = yl
hours/ft of mesh to 100 x 230 x 10 100 x 29 x 10 100 x 13 x 10 100 x 7 x 10 100 x 6 x 10 I
be laced together Man-hours Man-hours Man-hours Man-hours Man-hours
= 59,800 = 7,540 = 3,380 , 1,320 = 1,560
29,900 hrs at $2.50 74,800 3,700 at $2.50 9,400 1690 at $2.50 4,200 910 at $2.50 2,300 780 at $2.50 1,950
29,900 hrs at $3.10 92,500 3,700 at $3.10 11,500 1690 at $3.10 5,250 910 at $3.10 2,800 780 at $3.10 2,400
15% overheads 25,100 15 7, overheads 3,200 15% overheads 1,400 15% overheads 800 15% overheads 650

Equipment at 8 hrs/ 10 panels, 8 hrs 10 panels, 8 hrs 10 panels, 8 hrs 10 panels, 8 hrs 10 panels, 8 hrs
panel at $10/hour at $10/hr 800 $10ihour 800 *10 / hour 800 $10ihour 800 $10,hour 800

. 4. HORIZONTAL STRINGERS
Forming & Steel work 8 No. 10 bars x 8 No. 10 bars x 8 No. 10 bars x 8 No. 10 bars x 8 No. 10 bars x
Steel at $150;ton 920ft at 4.31bs/ft 114ft at 4.31bs/ft 50ft at 4-31bs / ft 29ft at 4.31bs ft 22ft at 4.31bs ; ft
X 11 stringers x 11 stringers x 11 stringers x 11 stringers x 11 stringers
= 18.7 tons ' = 1.17 tons = 0.5 tons = 0.3 tons = 0.23 tons
• 175 at $150/ton 75 at $150/ton 45 at $150iton 35
at $150/ton 2,800 at $150 / ton
Forming at $1/ft 920 ft x 11 10,200 114 ft x 11 1,250 50 ft x 11 550 29 ft x 11 320 22 ft x 11 240

Labour 1.2 hrs/ft footage =920x11 footage =114x11 footage =50x11 footage =29x11 footage = 22x11
hrs = 10,200 hrs hours = 1,250 hours = 550 hrs hours = 320 hrs hours = 240 hrs
5,100 at $2.50 12,750 625 at $2.50 1,560 275 at $2.50 690 160 at $2.50 400 120 at $2.50 300
5,100 at $3.10 15,800 625 at $3.10 1,940 275 at $3.10 855 160 at $3.10 495 120 at $3.10 340
15 7, overhead 4,270 15 7, overhead 525 15 7 overhead 230 15 7, overhead 135 15% overhead 95

- . I
 Table 4, cont d-

ITEM, RATE, ETC. a .. 40 0 0 0 0

$ a = 45 $ n = 50 $ a = 55 $ a = 60 0 $ '

4. HORIZONTAL STRINGERS
(cont i d) .

Concrete at $23 eu Volume = Volume = Volume = Volume = Volume =

yd. 3/2x3/2x920x11 3/2x3/2x114x11 3/2x3/2x50x11 3/2x3:2x29x11 3/2x3/2x22x11
27 27 27 27 27
= 834 cu yd = 104 cu yds = 46 eu yds = 27 eu yds = 20 eu yds
at $23 eu yd 19,200 at $23/cu yd 2,360 at $23/cu yd 1,060 at $23:cu yd 620 at $23/cu yd 460

Labour 1.25 hrs/cu hours = 1040 - hours = 130 hours = 56 hours = 34 hours . 25
Yd 520 at $2.50 1,275 65 at $2.50 160 28 at $2.50 70 17 at $2.50 45 13 at $2.50 35
520 at $3.10 1,610 65 at $3.10 200 28 at $3.10 90 17 at $3.10 55 12 at $3.10 40
15% overhead 435 15% overhead 55 15% overhead 20 15% overhead 15 15 7, overhead 10

. 5. CABLE ANCHORS 11 anchors x • $40.50 495 11 anchors x $40.50 495 11 anchors x S40.50 495 11 anchors x $40.50 495 11 anchors x $40.50 495
$40.50 per anchor 581 ft at $1.20/ft 700 884ft at 1.20/ft 1,060 1445 ft at 1.20.ft 1,735 198C0-2 ft at 1.20'ft 2,380 2409 ft at 1.20/ft 2,900 I
(.0
plus 1.20/ft. hours = 52 hours = 80 hours = 130 hours = 178 hours = 217 -1=.
Labour 0.09 hrs/ft 26 at $2.50 65 40 at $2.50 100 65 at $2.50 165 89 at $2.50 225 109 ai $2.50 270 1
26 at $3.10 80 4 0 at $3.10 125 65 at $3.10 205 89 at $3.10 275 108 at $3.10 335
lepoverhead 25 15% overhead ' 35 15% overhead 55 15% overhead 75 15% overhead 90
- . .
6. GROUTING 11 anchors x 6 hrs 11 anchors x 6 hrs 11 anchors x 6 hrs 11 anchors x 6 hrs 11 anchors x 6 hrs
. 6 man-hours/anchor = 66 hours . 66 hours = 66 hours . 66 hours :' 66 hours
. 33 at $2.50 80 33 at $2.50 80 33 at $2.50 80 33 at $2.50 80 33 at $2.50 80
3 3 at $3.10 100 33 at$3.10 100 33 at $3.10 100 33 at $3.10 100 33 at $3.10 100
15% overhead 30 15% overhead 30 15% overhead 30 15% overhead 30 15% overhead 30
Cement $5/hole 11 holes at $5 55 11 holes at $5 55 11 holes at $5 55 11 holes at $5 55 11 holes at $5 55
Equipment rental $60
/month assume 1 • .
month per level 11 levels at $60 660 11 levels at $60 660 11 levels at $60 660 11 levels at $60 660 11 levels at $60 660

; 7. TENSIONING 11 x 3 = 33 hrs 11 x 3 = 33 hrs 11 x 3 = 33 hrs 11 x 3 = 33 •hrs 11 x 3 = 33 hrs

3 man-hours/cable 17 at $2.50 40 17 at $2.50 40 17 at $2.50 40 17 at $2.50 40 17 at $2.50 40
16 at $3.10 50 16 at $3.10 50 16 at $3.10 50 16 at $3.10 50 16 at $3.10 so
• . . 15% overhead 15 15% overhead 15 15% overhead 15 15% overhead 15 15% overhead 15
Jack & pump rental
at 75.00/week assumè
1 week/level 11 levels at $75 800 11 levels at $75 800 11 levels at $75 800 11 levels at $75 800 11 levais at $75 800

- c on clurlf.d

e( a
 IL

Table 4 (concluded)

...

ITEM, RATE, ETC. a = 40 0 $ a i« 45 0 .$ a - 50 0 $ a = 55 0 $ a = 60 0 $

8. FINAL GROUTING .035 x 581 .035 x 8841/2 .035 x 1445 .035 x 1980'2 .035 x 2409
.035 man—hrs/ft ,.. 20 hours = 31 hours = 51 hours = 70 hours = 84 hours
10 at $2.50 25 16 at $2.50 40 26 at $2.50 65 35 at $2.50 90 42 at $2.50 105
10 at $3.10 30 15 at $3.10 45 25 at $3.10 80 35 at $3.10 110 42 at $3.10 130
157. overhead 10 157. overhead 15 157. overhead 25 157. overhead 30 15% overhead 350
grout at $0.12/ft
(min $5) 581 x 0.12 70 8841/2 x 0.12 105 1445 x 0.12 175 19801/2 x 0.12 240 2409 x 0.12 290
Mixer & pump $60/
month assume 1 month/
level 11 levels 660 11 levels 660 11 levels 660 11 levels 660 11 levels 660

TOTAL COST $283,710 $48,330 $37,380 $38,390 $42,030

COST per linear foot $308 $424 $748 $1324 $1910

(.71
 96

2000 r

1900

1800

1700

1600

1500

1400

e: 1300
4,
F.: 1200
o
o
IL 1100

w l000

900

0- 800

0 700
o
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
40° 45° 50° 55° 60°
a SLOPE ANGLE

Figure 29. Support costs per linear foot versus slope angle.
 TABLE 5: EXCAVATION SAVING AND PROFIT/LINEAR FOOT, BY USE OF SUPPORT

SLOPE ANGLE VOLUME EXCAVATION SAVED * V Cu V tons EXCAVATION SUPPORT COSTS PROFIT PER
o yds at 2.23tons/cu yd SAVINGS AT PER LINEAR FT LINEAR FT
a V =±[Cot 0-Cot ajcu ft/linear ft $0.34/ton
2

40 17,100 633 1410 $495 $308 $187

45 40,900 1515 3380 $1180 $424 $656

50 61,000 2260 5040 $1765 $748 $917

55 78,500 2910 6500 $2280 $1324 $964

60 93,700 3470 7750 $2420 $1910 $510

* Assumed that would be mined at 0 = 371/2 ° without support.

 OPTIMUM PROFIT

1000

900

800
PRO FIT $ PE RLI NEARFT

700

MK

600

500

400

300

200

100

45° 50°
a SLOPE ANGLE
Figure 30. Profit per linear foot versus slope angle.
 99

were chosen,the full benefits of waste rock excavation saving would not be

fully realized. It would be logical,therefore,to choose the slope angle at

ele

which the profit is optimized, or as close to it as may be dictated by other

considerations. Fortunately the profit is quite close to the optimum over a

reasonably broad range of slope angles (50 —356 0 in this case).

The above analysis has been carried out assuming that horizontal

stringers and mesh have been used to control the loose surface rock unsupported

by the deep cable anchors. If it is deemed that the bench design is adequate

to control this loose rock, then the mesh and stringers need not be used. In

such a case,lable 6 lists the overall support costs, the profits, etc.

Figure 31 compares the profit margins for the cases of mesh and no mesh over

the benches. The latter case optimizes at a slightly lower angle (52 ° ) and

yields considerably increased profits at all angles. At the optimum angles

respectively, the profit is increased from approximately $980 per ft with mesh

to approximately $1360 per ft without mesh.

`zr
 TABLE 6: SUPPORT COSTS, EXCAVATION SWINGS AND PROFIT PER LINEAR FOOT -
IF NO MESH USED WITH SUPPORTS •

SLOPE ANGLE TOTAL SUPPORT COST COST/LINEAR FT EXCAVATION SATM:3-'S, PROFIT PER PROFIT PER INCREASED PROFIT
o (NO MESH OR STRINGERS) OF SUPPORTS $/LINEAR FOOT LINEAR FT LINEAR FT . WHEN NO MESH
Cc (NO MESH) (WITH MESH) USED'S/FT

40 ° $10,380 $12 .$495 $483 $187 $296

45 ° $14,250 $125 $1180 $1055 $656 $399

50 ° $21,660 $433 $1765 $1332 $917 $415

55 ° $28,210 $973 . $2280 -; $1307 $964 $443

60 ° $33,640 $1529 $2420 •$890 $510 $380

 101

1500 r PROFIT PER LINEAR FOOT WHEN NO MESH

•■•
OR HORIZONTAL STRINGERS USED
1400

1300

1200

1100

1000

cr 900
4
•ct

800

o_
700

I-
I 600
o

500

400

PROFIT PER LINEAR FOOT

300 WITH MESH SUPPORT

200

100

0
40 0 45° 50 0 550 60°
a SLOPE ANGLE

Figure 31. Comparison of profitper linear foot for cases

with and without mesh - over the benches .
 102

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work and report were completed with the assistance of many

individuals on the staffs of the Company and the Mines Branch's Mining

Research Centre. Mr. D. Dugmore produced the diagrams.

REFERENCES

1. Coates, D.F., Gyenge, M. and Fenton, C., Unpublished report.

2. Patton, F.D. , "Multiple modes of shear failure in rock and related

materials", Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Illinois, 1966.

3. Jaeger, J.C. , "The frictional properties of joints in rocks", Geofis.

Pure et Appl., 1959, vol. 43, pp. 148-158.

4. Barron, K., "Fracture initiation in and ultimate failure of brittle rocks.

Part I: Isotropic rocks", Mining Research Centre, Divisional
report MR 68/75-LD, August 1968, Mines Branch, Ottawa.

5. Urquhart, L.D., O'Rourke, C.E. and Winter, G., "Design of concrete struc-
tures", McGraw-Hill Co. Ltd., New York, 6th Edition, 1958.

6. Barron, K., Gyenge, M. and Coates, D.F., Unpublished report.

7. "Freysinnet post tensioning", COnenco Engineering Bulletin

67-3, Conenco Canada Ltd., 1967.

s. "Stressteel post tensioning", Catalog No.SS-6, Conenco Canada

Ltd., May 1965.

9. Coates, D.F., "Rock Mechanics Principles", Mines Branch Monograph 874

(revised 1967), Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1967.

Sr 1/4.
 103

APPENDIX I: TENDON CHARACTERISTICS

TABLÉ A1.1 - Tendon Characteristics

QUALITY ASTM GRADE . TYPE 270K

Ultimate Strength 41,300 Lb.

36,000 Lb.
of One Strand

Nominal Steel Area .1531 In. 2

.1438 In. 2
of One Strand

Number of Strands 6 8 9 12 6 8 9 12

Nominal Steel 1.38 1.84

0.86 1.15 1.29 1.73 0.92 1.22
Area (In. 2)

Ultimate Tendon 330,400 371,700 495,600

216,000 288,000 324,000 432,000 247.800
Strength (Lb.)

Maximum Initial*
Tensioning Load(Lb.) 172,800 230,400 259,200 345,600 198,2.10 264,320 297,360 396,480
(80% of Ultimate)
Tendon Weight
(Lb./Ft.) 2.96 3.95 4.45 5.93 3.15 4.20 4.73 6.30
(without enclosure)

Recommended Hole 2-1/4 2-5/8

1-7/8 2-1/4 2-1/4 2-5 '8 1-7/8 2-1/4
J
I.D. (In.)

* II> The magnitude of effective design forces attainable with post-tensioning tendons
is a function of length and curvature of the tendons as well as the friction character-
istics of the enclosure.

See calculation of elongations and pressures for Freyssinet post-tensioning cables (Reference 7).
 104

APPENDIX II: BENCH STABILITY ANALYSIS: ANGLE ce AT WHICH THE EXCESS SHEAR -
STRESS Te REACHES A MAXIMUM

From Equation (19) in the text:

're = Ik1 [Cos (a+cp) + Sin (a+p)] + k2 Sin (a-c,0 )] [Sin cP-11 Cos 0 (A2.1)

where k = w Sin Πay
1 and k2 (A2.2)
2 [Cos(a+A) + Sin (Œ+A) f 2 Sin a

Differéntiating 'équation -A2.1 and equating to zero gives. :

bTe r
= [k1[ -Sin(Œ+m) + cos(a+cp)] - k 2 cos(a-cp)itsin cp-11 cos + [k i [cos(al-cp)
àcp

+ Sin(a4cp)] + k2 sin(a-co)}[cos c.p + iSïn m}.

= -k1 Sin cp Sin(a+cp) + 1( 1 Sin cp Ços(a+m) - k 2 Sin eP Cos(a-eP)

+ i Ici Cos cp Sin(a+cp) - p..k Cos m Cos(a+m) + k2 Cos cP.Cos(a-cp)

+ 1(1 Cos m Cos(a-fc,o) + kl Cos p Sin(Œ4m) + k 2 Cos cp Sin(a-c0

+ gki Sin cp Cos(a+p) + pAl Sin cp Sin(a+p) + iik2 Sin cp Sin (a p) -

= k l [Cos p'Cos(a4cp) - Sin cp Sin(Œ-Frp)} + k i [Cos cp Sin(a-FCP)

+ Sin cp Cos(a+m)] + ik1 [Cos cp Sin(a+p) + Sin CP Cos(a4M)).

- ik1 [Cos m Cos(a4M) - Sin cp Sin(a4p)1 - k 2 [Sin cP Cos(arg))

- Cos m Sin(a-cp)1 + 1.1k2 [Cos cp Cos(cc-cP) + Sin cp Sin(Œ-Cp)]

= 1(1 [Cos(ep+a)] + k l Sin(2cp+a) + 1ik1 Sin(e+a) - 1k1 Cos(2cp+Œ)

- k 2 Sin(2cP-a) + p.k1 Cos(2cp-a)

= k i lCos 2cp Cos a-Sin 2p Sin a) + ki[Sin 2cp Cos a + Cos 2p Sin ai

+ e cos a + Cos 2cp Sin ŒJ - pikl[Cos 40 Cos Œ - Sin . 2cP Sin a]

 105

-k 2 [Sin 2c,0 Cos a - Cos 2cro Sin al + 11k 2 {Cos 2cp Cos a + Sin 2cP Sin al

= Cos 2cp [1( 1 Cos a + 1( 1 Sin a + p.ki Sin a - 'A l Cos a + k 2 Sin a + p.k 2 Cos a)

- Sin 4 [k 1 Sin a - k l Cos a - Ilk i Cos a - p,k i Sin a + k 2 Cos a

- 11(2 Sin al

=0

i.e. tan 2cro —

f ki(Cos a+ Sin a) + ilki(Sin a - Cos a)+ k2(Sin a+ p. Cos a)]
k 1 (Sin a - cos a) - gki(Sin a + Cos a)+ k 2 (Cos a - p. Sin a)1

Example: Suppose Cc = 50 ° , a = 66 ft., w = 40 ft., A = -10 ° , p. = 0.8,and y =

165 lbs/cu fti

165 Sin(50) x 40
then k1 =
2 (Cos(40) + Sin(40)) — 1795

66 x 165
k2 — = 7110
2 Sin 50

1795(1.409) + .8 x 1795(.123) + 7110(.766 + .8 x .643) 1

tan 2cio —
[179
5(.123) - .8 x 1795(1.409) + 7110(.643 - .8 x .766)]

_ 12530 + 176.5 + 91001 — 11,806.5

= -7.49
221 - 2022 + 2211 -1580

tan 180-40 = 7.49 180-2Cp = 82 ° 24' op = 97 ° 36'

cf) = 48°48'

and when cio = 48 °48',

then the maximum excess shear stress is:

Te = f1795(Cos 98 °48' + Sin 98 °48') + 7110 Sin(50-48 °48')1 (Sin 48 °48'-.8 Cos48 °48)

= [1795(-.153 + .988) + 7110 .0211[.752 - .8 x .6591

= [1498 + 14911.220 = 369 = 370 lbs/sq ft.

 106
APPENDIX III : DATA ON WELDED WIRE FABRIC*
TABLE A3.1
STANDARD STYLES OF WELDED FABRIC
Showing Styles, Weights, Spacing and Gouges of Wires, and Sectional Areas
..itr eon% llli1411 . 1 . itt ii-h -1%11 . 4 Itt .parif id the wires is shown
Ill till. left .11 the 11:1-11 and . 11tv gauge uf hlti si ire'-. ti, the right.

Weight Weight
per 100 Spaving ,,r SteelWire
Sret. . r r a. prr 100 Spacing of
Steel Wire
Seer. Area.
Square Wiren Stpiare Indu , Square Wiren Square Inches
Feet inhwhen Gauge No. per rmll Feet in f Gauge No. per Foot
Style Bentdon Si de Ilu•ril on
Net Ni
Width Width
a no" of fde
Lmie. Trann. Longit. Lonait. Trann. Longit. Longit, Trans. Longit. Trans.
--
22-1616* 13 2 2 16 lb .018 .018 412-1212* 13 4 12 12 12 .026 .009
22-1414* 21 2 2 14 14 .030 .030 412-1112* 16 4 12 11 12 .034 .009
22-1313* 2 2 13 13 .039 .039 412-1012 19 4 12 10 12 .043 .009
22-1212* 37 2 2 12 12 .052 .052 412-912 22 4 12 9 12 .052 .009
22-1111* 48 2 2 11 11 .068 A168 412-812 25 4 12 8 12 .062 .009
22-1010 60 2 2 10 10 .086 A/86 412-711 4 12 7 11 .074 .011
24-1414* 16 4 14 14 .030 .013 412-610 36 4 12 6 10 .087 .014
24-1314* 19 2 4 13 Ut .039 .015 412-510 42 4 12 5 10 .101 .014
24-1212* 28 2 4 12 12 .052 .026 412-57 45 4 12 5 7 .101 .025
212-38 105 2 12 3 • 8 .280 .021
412-49 49 4 12 4 9 .120 .017
212-06 166 2 12 0 6 .443 .029
216-812 46 2 16 8 12 .124 .007 416-1012' 18 4 16 10 12 .043 .007
216-711 .55 2 16 11 .118 .008 416-912 21 4 16 9 12 .052 .007
216-610 65 2 16 6 10 .171 .011 416-812 25 4 16 8 12 .062 .007

216-510 75 2 16 5 10 .202 .011 416-711 30 4 16 7 11 .074 .009

216-49 89 2 16 4 .239 .013 416-610 35 4 16 6 10 .087 .011
216-38 104 16 3 8 .280 .015 416-510 , 41) 4 •16 5 10 .101 .011

216-28 119 ' 16 il

8 .325 .015 416-19 48 4 16 4 9 .120 .013
216-17 139 2 16 7 .377 .018 416-38 56 4 16 3 8 .140 .015
_ 416-28 64 4 16 2 8 .162 .015
33-1414* • 14 3 3 14 14 .020 .020 -
33-1212* 25 3 3 12 12 .035 .035 66-1212* 13 6 6 12 12 .017 .017
33-1111* 32 3 3 11 11 .016 .016 66-1010 21 6 6 10 10 .029 .029
66-99 25 6 6 9 9 .035 .035
33-1010 41 3 3 10 10 .057 .057
33-99 49 3 3 9 9 .069 .069"
66-118' 30 6 6 8 .041 .041
13-88 58 3 .3 8 8 .082 .082 66-77 36 6 6 7 .049 .049
_
316-812 32 3 16 8 12 .082 .007 66-66 42 6 6 6 .058 .058
316-711 38 3 16 7 'I .098 .009
316-610 45 3 16 6 10 .116 .011 66-55 49 6 6 5 5 .067 .067
66-46 50 6 6 4 6 .080 .058
316-510 52 3 16 5 10 .135 (II I 66- 1 I 58 6 6 4 4 .080 .080
316-49 61 3 16 4 9 .159 .013
316-38 72 3 16 3 8. .187 .015 66-33 68 6 6 3 3 .093 .093
66-22 78 6 2 • 2 .108 .108
316-28 83 3 16 2 8 .216 .015 66-11 (,). 1 6 6 1 1 .126 .126
316-17 96 3 16 7 .252 .010
316-06 '113 3 16 O .295 .022
66-00 107 6 6 0 O. .148 .148
44-1414* 1 4 4 14 14 .015 .015
44-1313* 14 4 4 13 13 .020 .020 612-77 27 , A2 7 .049 .025
44-1212* 19 4 4 12 12 .026 .026 . 612-66 32 12 - 67." 6 .058 .029
612-55 37 6 12 5 5 .067 .034,
44-1010 31 4 4 10 10 .043 .0.13
44-88 44 4 4 8 8 .062 .062 612-14 41 6 12 4 4 .080 .040
44-77 53 4 4 7 7 .074 .074 612-33 • 51 6 12 3 3 .093 .047
612-25 52 6 12 2 5 .108 .034
44-66 62 4 4 6 .087 .087
44-44 85 4 4 4 4 .120 .120 612-22 59 6 12 2 2• .108 .054
.;
612-17 56 6 12 .126 .025
48-1313* 11 4 8 13 13 .020 .010
612-14 61 12 1 4 .126 .040
48-1214* 12 4 8 12 14 .026 .008
48-1212* 14 4 8 12 12 .026 .013
612-11 69 6 12 1 .126 • .063
48-1112* 17 4 8 11 12 .034 .013 612-06 65 6 . 12 O 6 .148 .029
48-1012 20 4 8 10 12 .043 .013 612-03 72 12 0 3 .148 .047
48-912 23 4 8 9 12 .052 .013
612-00 81 6 12 0 0 .148 .074
48-812 27 4 8 12 A162 .013 612-2/04 78 12 2/0 4 .172 .040
48-711 33 4 8 11 .074 .017 612-3/04 91 12 3/0 4 .206 .040

NOTE: Styles Marked (*) elm be turnialict1 GALVANIZED only.

* From "Design Manual Welded Wire Fabric", Wire Reinforcement Institute Inc.,
Washington, D.C.,1957.
 107

TABLE A3.2

TABLES FOR ESTIMATING WEIGHT OF

WELDED WIRE FABRIC
For all styles having uniform spacings and gauges of members

Approximate Weights in Pounds per 100 Square Feet - Based on 60' width c. to c. of outside longitudinal wirea.
Weight of Longitudinal Members
Steel Wire •
Gauge Spacing
Numbers
2" 3' 4' 6' 8" 10' 12'
. . .

0000000 397.05 268.97 201.93 110.89 108.87 89.66 76.85

000000 332.22 2.3 11 . 60 181.79 121.98 96.38 , 79.53 68.17
00000 306..17 ' 207.61 158.18 108.75 84.03 69.20 I 59.31
0000 256.43 173.71 132.35 90.99 70.31 57.90 49.63
000 217.31 147.21 112.16 77.11 59.59 49.07 42.06
00 181.16 122.72 93.50 64.28 49.67 40.91 35.06
0 ' 155.37 105.25 80.19 55.13 42.60 35.08 30.07
1 : 132.43 89.71 68.35 46.99 36.31 29.90 25.63
2 ' 113.96 77.20 58.82 40.44 31.25 25.73 22.06
1/*
/4 , 103.33 70.00 53.33 36.67 28.33 23.33 20.00
3 ' 98.21 66.53 50.69 34.85 26.93 22.18 19.01
4 83.95 56.87 43.33 29.79 23.02 18.96 16.25
t
5 70.87 48.01 36.58 25.15 19.43 16.00 13.72
6 60.96 41.25 31.46 21.63 16.71 13.76 11.80
7 51.81 35.10 26.74 18.38 14.21 11.70 10.03
8 43.40 29.40 22.40 15.40 11.90 9.80 8.40'
9 36.37 24.64 18.77 12.91 9.97 8.21 7.04
10 t 30.14 20.42 13.56 10.69 8.26 6.81 5.83

11 24.01 16.27 12.39 8.52 6.58 5.42 4.65

12 18.41 12.47 9.50 6.53 5.05 I 4.16 3.56
13 13.84 9.38 7.15 1.91 3.80 ' 3.13 2.68

14 ; 10.58 7.17 5.4f) 3.76 2.90 2.39 2.05

15 8.57 5.81 4.43" 3.04 2.33 ' 1.94 ! 1.66
16 6.46 4.38 3.33 2.29 1.77 1.46 ' 1.25

\\ eight of 'fran-.% erse Members

Steel Wire :Spacing
Gauge
Nutnbers
2" 3" 4" 6" 11" 10" 12° : 16'

0000 I 256.43 170.93 1211.22 113.111 61.11 51.29 42.74 32.05

000 217.31 114.87 108.66 72.11 51.33 13.46 ' 36.22 27.16
00 181.16 120.78 90.58 60.39 45.29 36.23 30.19 22.65

0 155.37 103.58 77.69 51.79 38.84 31.07 25.90 19.42

1 132.43 88.29 66.22 44.14 33.11 26.49 22.07 16.55
2 113.96 75.97 56.98 37.99 28.49 22.79 18.99 14.24

WI" 103.33 68.89 51.67 34.44 25.113 20.67 • 17.22 12.92

3 98.21 65.47 49.10 . 32.74 24.55 19.64 16.37 12.28
4 83.95 55.97 41.97 27.98 20.99 16.79 13.99 10.49

5 70.87 47.24 35.43 23.62 17.72 14.17 11.81 8.86

6 60.96 40.64 30.411 20.32 15.24 12.19 10.16 7.62
7 . 51.81 34.54 25.90 17.27 12.95 10.36 8.63 6.48
8 43.40 28.93 21.70 14.47 10.85 8.68 7.23 5.43
9 36.37 24.25 18.111 12.12 9.09 7.27 6.06 4.55
10 30.14 20.09 15.07 10.05 7.53 6.03 5.02 • 3.77

11 24.01 16.01 12.01 8.00 6.00 4.110 4.00 ; 3.00

18.41 12.27 9.20 6.14 4.60 3.68 3.07 2.30
13 13.84 9.23 6.92 4.61 3.46 2.77 2.31 1.73

14 10.58 7.06 5.29 3.53 2.65 2.12 1.76 ! 1.32

15 8.57 5.72 4.29 2.86 2.14 1.71 1.43 1.07
16 6.46 4.31 3.23 2.15 1.62 1.29 ; 1.08 .81
 108

TA B LE A3.3

SECTIONAL AREAS OF WELDED WIRE FABRIC

(Area in square inches per foot of width for various spacings of wire)

Wire Center to Center Spacing, in Inches

Steel Wire
Gauge Area ' \'4" eig 11 t
2 • • !
Numbers I Diameter Pounds ,
Square 4 ! 6 8 10 12 16
Inches • Inches I I' er •
• 1. oot

0000000 .1900 .18857 .6104 1.1:31 .751 .366 .377 .283 .226 .189 .141
000000 .4615 .16728 . - .3681 1.001 i .669 , ' .302 .335 .251 .201 .167 .125
00000 .1305 .14556 J .1943 .873 . .582 .437 .29.1 .218 .175 .146 .109
0000 .3938 .12180 • .4136 ; .731 .487 .365 • .244 .183 .146 .122 .091
E
000 .3625 .10321 .3505 .619 .413 .310 .206 .155 .124 .103 .077
00 .3310 • .086049 .2922 • .516 i 344 ' .258 .172 .129 .103 .086 .065
.3065 • .073782 .2506 -.443 .; .295 .221 .148 .111 .089 .074 .055
1 .2830 .062902 .2136 .377 . .252 .189 .126 .094 .075 .063 .047
2 .2625 .051119 .1838 .325 .216 .162 .108 .031 .065 .054 .041
.2500 .019087 .1667 .295 . .196 . .147 .098 .074 .059 .049 .037
3 .2437 .016645 .1534 .280 .187 , .140 .093 .070 .056 .047 .035
4 .2253 .039867 .1331 .239 .159 .120 • .080 .060 .048 .040 .030
5 .2070 .033654 .11.13 .202 .135 , .101 .067 .050 .040 .034 .025
6 .1920 .028953 .0t»332 .174 • .116 .087 .058 .043 .035 .029 .022
7 .1770 .021606 • .08350 .148 .098 .074 .049 .037 .030 .025 .018
8 .1620 .020612 j .07000 .124 .082 .062 .041 .031 .025 .021 .015
9 .1183 ' .017273 .03866 ; .104 .069 .052 .035 .026 .021 .017 .013
10 .1350 .014314 .01861 :086 . .057 .043 .029 .021 .017 .014 .011
11 .1205 .011104 .03873 .068 • .016 :034 .023 .017 .014 .011 .009.
12 .1055 , .0087417 .02969 .052 .035 ' .026 .017 .013 .010 .009 .007
13 .0915 - • .0065755 .02233 .039 " .026 .020 .013 .010 .008 .007 .005
14 . .0800 .0050266 .01707 " .030 .020 .015 .010 .008 ; .006 .005 .004
15 .0720 .0010715 .0138:3 .024 " .016 .012 .008 .006 .005. .004 .003•
16 .0625 .0030680 .01042 .018 .012 .009 . .006 .005 .004 .003 .002
I
:

NOTE: This table does not necessarily indicate mill limitations.

For the sectional areas of half-gauge wires it is sufficiently accurate to interpolate between figures shown in theabove table.
 109

APPENDIX IV: STANDARD BARS *

Table A4.1: Designations, Areas, Perimeters, and Weights of Standard Bars

Cross-seetional Perimeter, thiitwt per

Bar designation* Mameter,in.
area,sq in. in. ft,lb

No. 2 X =0.250 0.e5 0.79 0.167

No. 3 eg = 0.375 0.11 1.18 . 0.376
No. 4 = 0.500 0.20 1.57 0.668
No. 5 5g ---- 0.625 0.31 1.96 1.013
No. 6 % = 0.750 0.44 2.36 1.502
No. 7 % = 0.875 0.60 2.75 '2.044
No. 8 1 = 1.000 0.79 3.14 2.670
No. 9 1j.gt = 1.128 1.00 3.51 3.400
No. 10 1W' = 1.270 « 1.27 3.99 4.303
No. 11 190 = 1.410 1.56 4.43 5.313

* Based on the number of eighths of an inch included in the nominal diameter of the
bars. The nominal diameter of a .deformed bar is equivalent to the diameter of a
plain.bar having the sanie weight per foot as the deformed bar. Bar No. 2 in plain
rounds only. All others in deformed rounds.
t APproximate to the nearest in.

Table A4. 2 Areas of Groups of Standaéd Bars, Square Inches

• Bar Number of bars

designa-
tion 2 3 '4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

No. 4 0.39 0.58 0.78 0.98 1.18 1.37 1.57 1.77 1.96 2.16 2.36 2.55 2.75 ,
No. 5 0.61 0.91 1.23 1.53 1.84 2.15 2.45 2.76 3.07 3.37 3.68 3.99 4.30
No. 6 0.88 1.32 1.77 2.21 2.65 3.09 3.53 3.98 4.42 4.86 5.30 5.74 6.19
No. 7 1.20 1.80 2:41 3.01 3.61 4.21 4.81 5.41 6.01 6.61 7.22 7.82 8.42
No. 8 1.57 2.35 3.14 3.93 4.71 5.50 6.28 7.07 7.85 8.64 9.43 10.21 11.00
No. 9 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00;
No. 10 2.53 3.79 5.06 6.33 7.59 8.85 10.12 11.39 12.66 13.92 15.19 16.45 17.72
No. 11 3.12 4.68 6.25 7.81 9.37 10.94 12.50 14.06 15.62 17.19 18.75 20.31 21.87

* From "Design of Concrete Structures" by L. D. Urquhart,

C.E. O'Rourke and G. Winter (Reference 5).
a

•. ■
 110

APPENDIX V: DESIGN PROPERTIES OF STPESSTEEL BARS *

TABLE A5.1: Design Properties of Stressteel Bars

Ultimate Maximum
Strength Recommended Recommended
Nominal Guaranteed Initial Tensioning Final Design
Nominal Nominal I
Minimum Load-0.7 f's Load-0.6 Ést
Bar Weiaht Area
Sq.
Size Pounds
REGULAR I SPECIAL REGULAR 1 SPECIAL g REGULAR SPECIAL
0" I Lin/Ft. Inches
160 ksi 101.5 ksi g 112 ksi 87 ksi 96 ksi
145 ksi V
(All units in values of 1000 pounds)

.67 .196 28 31 20 22 17 19
1/2
1.04 .307 45 49 31 34 27 30
%
3/4 1.50 .442 64 71 45 50 39 42

7/8 2.04 . .601 • 87 96 61 67 52 58

1 2.67 .785 114 126 80 88 68 . 75

-r
11/2 3.38 .994 144 159 101 111 87 95

11/2 4.17 1 1.227 178 196 125 137 107 118

1 3/8 5.05 1.485 215 238 151 166 129 143

tDesign properties indicated are in accordance with ACI tensioning load to obtain actual final design load. Actual
Building Code 318-63, Sections 2606 and 2607. Temporary final design load, after losses are accounted for, may be
jacking stresses up to 0.8f's are permitted to 'overcome less than 0.6f's.
losses due to tendon friction, anchorage seating and elastic
shortening. Losses due to creep, shrinkage and steel relax- See Specifications page 27 for a full description of
ation should be deducted from the recommended initial physical properties.

* From "Stressteel post tehsioning", Catalog No. 55-6 (Reference 8).

a 1

a
 111

APPENDIX VI: THE LOAD CELLS

The required specifications for the load cells were a maximum

capacity of 500,000 lbs (250 tons), to monitor the tension on the cables over

a long period of time, with a sensitivity of approximately 1000 lbs. High

tensile steel (Atlas SPS 245) which has a yield strength of 140,000 psi was

chosen for the load-bearing member. The load cell dimensions were designed to

give a factor of safety of 6 at maximum load.

Figure A6.1 shows a section through the load cell. The load cell

is basically a hollow steel cylinder with the top and bottom taking the form

of the letter "I" for better stress distribution in the steel. The cable

passes through the centre of the cell and the dimensions of the central hole

were chosen so that the standard Freysinnet cone, which anchors the cable, would

fit on top of the cell and by bearing directly on the cell transmit the cable

load to it.

Two load-measuring systems were used in the cell, providing a cross

check and to give a safeguard against any possible breakdown. The measuring

systems are vibrating-wire strain gauges and resistance strain gauges. Since

eccentric loading on the cell was a distinct possibility, four vibrating wires

and four sets of strain gauges were placed at 90 0 intervals around the central

circumference of the load cell.

The accuracy and range of the vibrating wires depend on the wire
« length; this length was pre-calculated from the elastic properties and dimen-

sions of the steel cylinder. Temperature change should not affect the
 I •-)

COVER

CLAMP'

:to

VIBRATING WIRE
MAGNET cb

8.25" DIA.

6.375" DIA.

Figure A6.1. Schematic of the load cell.

tn
o
VIBRATING WIRES
>—
0
cu 200 6 Li

I-
-1
u.. 0

—
W
° 400
4 O
W
•z1C

C.)

CD
600 2
CD

Cr Er

800 o
0 50 100 150 É oo 250
LOAD TONS

Figure A6.2. Load cell calibration.

 113

vibrating-wire readings since the vibrating wire and the steel cylinder have

nearly identical coefficients of thermal expansion. Readings were taken with

a vibrating-wire comparator unit; each wire was read separately.

The accuracy and range of the resistance gauges were also estimated

for design from the properties of the cylinder. Two 120-ohm gauges were bonded

in the vertical position and two similar gauges were bonded in the horizontal

position at each 90 0 interval. The horizontal gauges were used as temperature

compensation gauges. All the resistance strain gauges were wired in a simple

Wheatstone bridge network,so that the strains from each of the 90 0 interval

positions were averaged. The strain gauge output was read with a potentiometer

rather than the more usually used strain indicator. This enabled a constant

current supply to be used rather than the normal constant voltage supply. The

use of a constant current supply assists in minimizing errors due to small

resistance changes in read-out cables, junction boxes, etc.

All the load cells were calibrated in the laboratory up to their

maximum design capacity. Both uniform and eccentric loads were applied to

the cell during these tests, the load being applied through the Freysinnet

cone arrangement used with the cables. In addition, three load cells were sub-

jected to a constant load of 250 tons for a period of 4 days to determine the

stability of the gauges.

Figure A6.2 shows a typical load cell calibration. There is a small

amount of hysteresis recorded by both the resistance and vibrating wire gauges*;

this may be a feature of the steel used in the cell. The strain gauge cali-

bration curve is slightly non-linear at loads below 75 tons and linear between

this value and 250 tons. Since the in-situ cable load was about 200 tons,
 114

the strain gauges were operated over the linear portion of the curve. The
vibrating-wire calibration curves are non-linear over the loading range. Con-

sequently, individual calibration curves are required to determine the load

in the cells. The calibration curves for uniform and eccentric loads were

almost identical for all the load cells.

During the long-term, 4-day, stability tests at the maximum load of

250 tons, the maximum variation of the strain gauge read-out was 0.09 millivolt,

equivalent to a load change of 2700 lbs. The vibrating-wire read-out had a

maximum variation of 10 divisions, equivalent to a load change of 2900 lbs.

In conclusion, the discrimination of load change for both the

vibrating wire and the strain gauges was found to be better than + 300 lbs

for all cells,and their overall accuracy was better than + 3000 lbs.
 11.5

APPENDIX VII: SENSITIVITIES OF VIBRATING-WIRE EXTENSOMETERS

Extensometer No. 1 - Lower bench - Horizontal borehole (unit 6)

Wire Number Cantilever Number Anchor Depth Sensitivity when used

with PC 101 Comparator

1.1 2 248 ft 1.99 thou/div.

1.2 3 200 ft 1.91 thou/div.

1.3 4 115 ft 1.43 thou/div.

1.4 1 59 ft 1.41 thou/div.

Extensometer No. 2 - lower bench - 40 0 down hole (unit 5)

Wire number Cantilever Number Anchor Depth Sensitivity used with

PC 101 Comparator

2.1 1 200 ft 2.10 thou/div.

2.2 4 135 ft 2.56 thou/div.

2.3 3 79 ft 1.53 thou/div.

2.4 2 43 ft 1.61 thou/div.

Extensometer No. 3 - upper bench - 40 ° down hole (unit 4)

Wire number Cantilever Number !Anchor Depth Sensitivity used with

I PC 101 Comparator

3.1 1 140 ft 1.84 thou/div.

3.2 2 87 ft 1.34 thou/div.

3.3 3 50 ft 1.45 thou/div.

3.4 4 25 ft 1.22 thou/div.

 116

Extensometer No. 4 - Upper Bench - Vertical down hole (unit 3)

Wire Number Cantilever Number Anchor Depth Sensitivity used with

PC 101 Comparator

4.1 1 200 ft 2.31 thou/div.

4.2 2 150 ft 2.11 thou/div.

4.3 3 120 ft 1.77 thou/div.

4.4 4 66 ft 1.93 thou/div.

 :I IIA XI GNad dV
3IMIV119010Hd
(m)
(à'

OF CONSTRUCTION OF TR IA L S UPPORT INSTA LLA TION

I--
1--.
...j

The Test Site, 2. Upper Bench After Clean Up.

1.

3. Lower Bench After Clean Up, 4. Drilling the Anchor Holes.

 5. Borehole Television Camera. 6. Television Photo of 1/4" x 1/4" Reference Grid.

7. Television Photo of a Joint Parallel to 8. Core from the Same Position as Photo 7,
the Hole Axis. Showing Longitudinal Joint.

,
9. Cable Anchor Assembly - 12 Strand Cable 10. Cable Anchor Assembly - Cutting Strands
Assembled an Site from Individual Strands. to Length.

11. Cable Anchor Assembly- Strand Spacer. 12. Cable Anchor Assembly- Positioning the
Strands on the Spacer.
13. Assembled Cable Showing Spacer in 14. Installing the Cable.
Position and Nose Cone.

15. Stressteel Rod - Female Coupling, 16. Stressteel Rod - Male Coupling,
17. Installing the Stressteel Rod. 18. Mesh Lengths Laid Out and Wired
Together on the Surface,

19. Wiring Mesh Sections Together(Showing 20. Wire-Twisting Device in Use.

Wire- Twist ing Device
21. Wire-Twisting Device in Use. 22. Wire Roll in Position on Top Bench.

23. Wire Roll Anchored Temporarily 24. Wire Mesh Rolled Over Bench Edge.
by Short Bolts.

I a
.
f
 • •

25. Wire Mesh in Position. 26. Wire Mesh in Position.

27. Form Work for Horizontal Concrete 28. Concrete Strain Gauges in Bricks to be
Stringer - Lower Bench. Cast into the Stringer.
 411
"

teMb ....110

.•
S.

,
. .
Cara

29. Concrete Stringer Poured, 30. Form Work for Anchor Pads on Top
Bench and Steel Bar Horizontal Stringer.

31. Extensometer Installations (Top Bench). 32. Extensometer Installations (Lower Bench).
33. Beam and Studs for Surface Displace- 34. Beams and Studs for Surface Displace-
ment Measurements - Lower Bench. ment Measurements - Upper Bench,

M. Dial Gauges Probing Surface Studs. 36. Cable Anchor Tensioning Jack,
37. Strand Attachment to Jack. 38. Load Cell Between Concrete Pad
and Tensioning Jack,

39. Cone and Wedge to Lock Cable. 40. Use of a Chair to Release Cone and
Wedge Lock,

N a
 •

41.Cable Tensioned and Locked. 42. Stressteel Anchor and Load Cell-

43. Completed Installation-Lower Bench.

 128

a
APPENDIX IX: CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF TRIAL INSTALLATION

Job and Itemization Total

1. Site preparation

2. Anchor hole drilling

H size 229 ft at $10.97/ft $2510.00

NX casing 167 ft at $11.20/ft $1870.00

Sub total $4380.00 $4380.00

3. Wire Mesh

Materials 8400 sq ft of 66-44 mesh

at $6.35/100 sq ft $533.00

200 lbs No. 9 annealed galvanized

wire at $15.32/100 lbs. $ 31.00

Labour Total labour 237 man-hours

approximately split into:

137 man hours at helper's rate,

assumed $2.50/hour $343.00

100 man hours at tradesman's

rate, assumed $3.10/hour $310.00

To cover fringe benefits, overheads

add 15% to labour costs $ 98.00

Equipment Front end loader 7'-à. hours

. (at $10/hour including operator) $ 75.00

Mobile crane 1 hour

(at $10/hour including operator) $ 10.00

Sub total $1/100.00 $1400.00

 129

4. Steel Rod Stringer Beam and Abutments

Total
Forming and steel work

Labour, 50 man-hours (25 hrs at 2.50 +

25 hours at 3.10 + 15% overhead, fringe
benefits, etc). $161.00

Reinforcing for steel abutments $ 16.00

5 No. 11 A432 steel bars 56 ft long

(5.313 lbs/ft) at $142.00/ton +
tax + freight
[5 x 56 x 5.313 = 1490 lbs = 0.67 tons =
$95 not including tax and freight] $ 95.00

Forming materials $ 30.00

Concrete work
m
Labour, 10 man-hours [5 hrs at $2.50/hr,
5 at 3.10/hr + 15%1 $ 32.00

Class 4000 concrete,31/2 cu yds at $22.30

cu yd $ 78.00

Positioning of rods and fastening rods to

Wire mesh

Labour, 32 man-hours [16 at 2.50/hr,

16 at 3.10/hr + 15%] $103.00

Sub total $515.00 $515.00

5. Concrete Stringer Beam and Abutments

Forming and steel work

Labour, 61 man-hours (31 at 2.50,

30 at 3.10 + 15%) $196.00

e 6 No. 10 A432 bars (56 ft long at 4.303 lbs/

ft; $140/ton)
6 x 56 x 4.303 = 1445 lbs = 0.65 tons at
$140/ton $ 91.00

Reinforcing steel $ 20.00

Forming materials $ 50.00

 130

Concrete Work Total

Labour, 15 man-hours (7 at 2.50 + 7 at 3.10

+ 15%) $ 48.00

Class 4000 concrete, 12 cu yds at 22.30/cu yd $268.00

Sub total $673.00 $673.00

6. Anchors

Type 1. 12/0.5 tendons

Total labour 3 anchors,3n hours

(at 3.10/hour + 15%) $113.00

Fixed cost for 3 anchors

(14t $40.37per anchor) $122.00

Total footage = 40 + 120 + 205 =

365 ft at 1.20/ft $438.00

Type 2. 1 3/4 stressteel bars

Total labour 1 hour (at 3.10 + 15%) $ 3.60

Fixed cost per anchor,1 anchor at 19.04 $ 19.04

Total footage, 62 ft at 1.82/ft $113.00

2 couplings (at 20-ft intervals) at

7.80/coupling $ 15.60

Sub total $824.24 $824.00

7. Grouting of Anchors

Labour 4 holes at 6 man hourS/hole = 24 man-

hours (at 3.10 + 15%) $ 86.00

Grouting mixture at $5.00 per hole, 4 holes $ 20.00 r

Equipment rental 1 week,$60 month $ 15.00

Sub total $121.00 $121.00

 131

a
8. Tensioning Anchors
Total
Type 1. 12/0.5 tendon

Labour, 3 man-hours/cable x 3 cables =

9 man-hours at 3.10 hr + 15% $ 32.00

Jack and pump rental (assume 1 week

minimum charge) at $75/week $ 75.00

Type 2. 1 3/8 stressteel rod

Labour, 1½ man-hours/rod = 11/2 hours

at 3.10 + 15% 5.35

Jack and pump rental (assume 1 week

minimum chdrge) at $50/week $ 50.00

Sub total $162.35 $162.00

9. Final grouting of the Cables

Labour, 12 man-hours at 3.10 + 15% $ 41.50

al
Grouting cement,161/2 bags at 2.50 $ 41.25

Mixer and pump rental (assume 1 week

minimum, $60/month) $ 15.00

Sub total $ 97.75 98.00

TOTAL $8173.00
 132

APPENDIX X: PLATE LOAD TESTS

As mentioned in the text, the operation of tensioning the cable

anchors against the concrete anchor pads is, in effect, a plate load test.

It was therefore decided to measure the surface displacement of the ground

around the pads during several cycles of loading on each pad prior to final

tensioning of the anchor. In this manner a measure of the modulus of the

surface rock could be obtained.

The displacements of the surface rock were measured at various

distances from the anchor pads by probing steel studs set 6 inches into the

surface rock at various distances from the anchor pads. These studs were

probed by means of dial gauges attached to a rectangular aluminum beam which

in turn was supported by a rigid foundation comprising a steel beam cast in

concrete at approximately 8 ft from the anchor pads. It was assumed that the

support 8 ft away was outside the influence of the load on the rock. Figure

A.10.1 illustrates this arrangement and Photographs 33, 34 and 35 in

Appendix VIII show the arrangement in the field.

Whilst it was planned to carry out these tests on all four anchor

pads,in fact only two were successfully completed. It was found that the displace-

ment base set up around the 55-ft hole was not stable and in consequence

erratic dial gauges readings were obtained. Tests at this site were therefore

discontinued. The 195-ft cable produced problems in load cycling. Whilst it

was possible to load the cable during the up cycle satisfactorily, the stretch

of this long cable was such that the ram extension was fully used up and the

cable had to be locked, the rani retracted and then loading recommenced half-

way up the loading cycle. This readjustment of the ram during the cycle
 LOAD APPLIED BY CABLE

STUDS SET 6" IN SURFACE

(APPROX.8"APART)

///// /-- i' l,///

ACJWI:

r
MIILMIW IT,
le
ALUMIN UM BEAM DIAL GAUGES PROBING STUDS

BEAM SUPPORT,
CONCRETE ANCHOR PAD
STEEL SET IN CONCRETE

Figure A10.1. Plate load test arrangement.

 134

produced problems during the down cycle, as it was found to be very difficult

to unlock the cable for relaxation in the middle of the down cycle. A ram with

a longer extension was not available; thus,this test was discontinued after

one complete load application and a reduction to half level. The cable was then

loaded to its final tension. This completion of only 3/4 of a load cycle was

insufficient to make it worthwhile interpreting the results.

However, three load cycles were successfully completed on the 33-ft

cable and on the 110 ft cable. These results are now presented and interpreted.

Figure A 10.2 shows typical load-deformation plots for the first pins on either

side of the concrete "plate", for each of the three load cycles. It is seen

that there is a considerable irrecoverable displacement during the first cycle,

due to closing of joint and fissures, etc. Thereafter the second and third

cycles are fairly repeatable. From these graphs for all the measuring studs,

the displacements were plotted against their distance from the loading point

for three load levels at 100,000 lbs, 200,000 lbs, and 300,000 lbs. Figure A10.3

shows these displacements for the first cycle, and for the mean values of

the second and third cycles, for the tests at the 33-ft cable site. The rock

modulus was estimated in the following manner.

If it is assumed that the concrete bearing pad is circular, with

radius R (actually it was rectangular so that a circle of equivalent area was

assumed), that this footing is rigid,and that V is the Poisson's ratio, then it

has been shown (9) that the displacement of the surface at any point at radius

r (r > R) is given by:

Q(1-V2 ) Sin
d -
ITRE

where E is the Young's modulus and Q is the applied load.

 R 8

LEGEND
—X-- I st cycle
- - -0- - 2nd cycle
3rd cycle
400 r 33-ft cable: No.I load cell 400 33-ft cable: No.I load cell
Pin I left Pin 2 right
I strand of cable broke
3501- 350

X 101 /)(x b
/ /
/ t1
/ . „e, / 1

300 300 / I
/ 4
•e
0 •
/ I •
; i• 1:
LBS

1, /

LBS
I 1 1 t '
250 / ? 4 250 r 4
3

0
/ X 0 .-
.

3
/ :1 / f .
CABL E L O ADx10

4 ir 1

CABL E L OADx10
/
0 °1 ,
200E / / i 200 / x ■eF F—.
/ î) (.0
i • ln
0
i
i
41
:I•• f
I
I
0
/
/
.
•
-
I
I
150E- f / 1 150
4.

o/
/
,.. I I
0
0
/ A/ I
/ •/ /
1001- / / 100 / 4 /
/ .
o • e • 1
/ in:

501- /
A
I
I..
:
(i.- i
,
X
4,
,
_„- 20 minute wait,
between cycles
50
/ ••

,
,
o
i

•
••••

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
-3
DISPLACEMENT x 10-3 IN. DISPLACEMENT x10 1N.

Figure A10.2. Displacements during plate load test cycles.

 INCHES INCHES
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
, _
- -0—
••■ 10+

/ 7 _ , .- --o
0 """•,4e.s 20+ ...-
cr)
30- =
(_)
40- 0
LEGEND re) i / 0
50- I
0
_
• 100,000 LBS
60-
■■■ •• • 200,000 LBS 1
1 70 1 33-ft cable -1st cycle
O 300,000 LBS 1
80
E = (1-30 ± 0-61) x10 5 p.s.i. i.e. ±47%

INCHES INCHES
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

---- -0-- CD
- -.e I0
-"ce- —
Cr. ----
(19
/ ""
20 /' 0

x10 -3 IN CH ES
\
\ \ 30

40

50
POINTS INDICATE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

LINES INDICATE THEORY ASSUMING y.0-33 60

33-ft cable -2nd a 3rd cycles
AND MODULUS AS INDICATED. 70

80
E= (2.32 ± 0.58) x 10 5 p.s.i. i.e.± 25°70

Figure A10.3. Surface displacements during plate load testing„ 33-ft cable site.
 137

Hence from this equation, assuming V = 0.33, the Young's modulus

E was calculated for each point at radius r for each of the three applied

loads,using the measured deflection d at that point. Table A10.1 gives the

results of these calculations for the first load cycle and for the mean dis-

placements from the second and third load cycles. It is seen from this table

that a relatively wide range of moduli are derived from these calculations.

There is a tendency for the high value of modulus to be derived from the low

values of measured displacement. Since these displacements would be the most

-3
in error, all moduli calculated from displacements of less than 5 x 10

inches were ignored and the remainder were averaged. These average values so

obtained were:

5
for the first cycle: E - 1.30 + 0.61 x 10 psi
a
5
for the second and third cycles: E = 2.32 + 0.58x 10 psi

Using these values of the modulus, the displacements for all points under each

of the 3 loads were calculated and have been plotted as solid lines in

Figure A10.3. It is seen that these values give reasonable overall agreement

with the measured displacement.

Figure A10.4 gives the similar results for the 100-ft cable site.

In this case no displacements were recorded on the right-hand side of the

plate,due to a large joint intervening between the plate and the first stud.

In this case the values of E determined were:

5
1st cycle: E - (1.27 + 0.45) x 10 psi

2nd and 3rd cycles: E (1.92 + 0.35) x 10 5 psi

 TABLE A10.1: CALCULATION OF MODULUS FROM PLATE LOAD DISPLACEMENTS

(a) •

33 ft cable: Load cell No. 1. R = 12.25 inches = 0.33

LOAD = 100,000 lbs. LOAD = 200,000 lbs. LOAD = 300,000 lbs.

Pin No. r inches Measured dx10 - in. Calculated Ex10 5 psi Measured dx10 -3 in Calculated Ex10 5psi* Measured dx10 -3 in Calculated Ex10 5 psi*

5L 51.75 0 - o -- o -
4L 42.5 2.5 2.71 5 2.71 6 3.38
3L 33.25 7 1.25 12 1.47 15 1.74
2L 27.75 10.5 1.00 20 1.06 25 1.27
1L 21.25 14 1.04 26 1.13 35.5 1.24
1R 21.50 16.5 0.85 34 0.82 46.5 0.90
2R - 29.50 14 0.71 28.5 0.70 39 0.87
3R 37.75 6 1.28 15 1.02 20 1.15
4R 45.25 4.5 1.41 9.5 1..33 . 13 1.45
5R 53:50 4.0 1.33 7.5 1.42 11 1.45
..
-3 5
1st cycle. Mean Modulus (when d > 5 x 10 in) = (1.30 + 0.61) x 10 psi; coefficient of variation = 477

(13 )
33 ft cable: Load cell No. 1. R = 12.25 inches 0.33

LOAD = 100,000 lbs: LOAD = 200,000 lbs. LOAD = 300,000 lbs.

-3 5 -3 5 -3 5 .
Pin No. r inches Measured dx10 in. . Calculated Ex10 psi* Ie M asured dx10 in. I calculated Ex10 psi * Measured dx10 in. Calculated Ex10 psi -
I .

41. 42,5 1.5 13.6

3L 33.25 0.5 1.74 3.5 4.99 7 3.74
2L 27.75 1 1.06 7 3.01 11.5 2.76
iL 21.25 4 . 3.65 13 2..25 20 2.19
1R 21.50 7 2.00 16 1.75 22 1.91
2R 29.50 . 4 2.4S 11 1.80 16 1.86
3R 37.75 2.5 3.07 7.5 2.04 10.5 2.19
4R 45,25 3.5 3.62 7 2.71

-3 5 -s
2nd & 3rd cycles: Mean Modulus (when d > 5 x 10 in.) = (2.32 + 0.58) x 10 p i; coefficient of variation =± 2551.

/ -1
* Calculated from E -
Q(1-y7 ) Sin (R, r)
nRd

a
• ,

À, •Ir
 (

tor
• 1 le

INCH ES INCHES
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

,
- 10
—

— --

e '`\‘
20 7 —

.so 30i
\

80 1 E= (1.27±0.45)x10 5 p.s.i. i.e.±.35.2 °/0

INCHES - INCHES
60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
I _ , F r r

—0—
10+ ■•••••

20 — /
cn
w
\ \ 30 i
u
\\ \ Z /
40 _
1 rn / NO DISPLACEMENTS OCCUR ON RIGHT
1 50— 10 /
1 — HAND SIDE.
1 x I
60
110-ft cable —2nd a 3rd cycles
70+

80+
E = (1-92 0.25) x 10 5 p.s.i. i.e. ±I8-5%

Figure A10.4. Surface displacements during plate load testing - 110-ft cable site.
 140

Table A10.2 summarizes these results. Since the 1st cycle results
L

include a considerable influence due to irrecoverable displacement, it is

thought that the average of the 2nd and 3rd cycles from each set of results

gives the best approximation to the in-situ rock modulus:

This value is (2.12 + 0.51) x 10 5 psi. Coefficient of variation

. 424%.

The modulus of laboratory specimens of granite from this mine is

6
approximately 9 x 10 psi. Thus, it is seen that the modulus of the surface

rock is very much less than would be determined from laboratory measurements.

TABLE A10.2: MODULI DETERMINED FOR SURFACE LOADING AND DISPLACEMENT MEASUREMENTS •

Test 1st Loading Mean 2nd and 3rd

Cable Cycle Loading Cycles

5
33 ft E = (1.30 _+ 0.1)
6 x 10 psi + 0.58) x 10 5 psi
E = (2.32 _

55 ft E not determined - displacement Base unstable - erratic readings

5 5
110 ft E = (1.27 _
+ 0.45) x 10 psi E = (1.92 _
+ 0.35) x 10 psi

195 ft Only one cycle conducted due

to inability to unlock cable
for relaxation.

MEAN E = (2.12 + 0.51) x 10 5 psi

In-Situ Rock Mass Modulus = 2.12 x 10

5 6
psi + (0.51 x 10 ) i.e. + 247e
 141

APPENDIX XI: ONTARIO HYDRO DOWN-HOLE TELEVISION CAMERA: AN ASSESSMENT.

The slope stability project included logging of the anchor

holes by down-hole viewing. Four holes were surveyed with the Ontario

Hydro television camera. The purpose was to look at the rock mass that

was to be anchored in situ and to assess the value of the camera as a tool to

obtain information on discontinuities in the rock mass.

The television camera was designed to fit into NX (3-inch diameter)

drill holes. Since the anchor holes were drilled with H casing (31/2-inch dia-

meter),eccentric spacer rings were required to locate the camera the proper

distance from the wall of the hole. Through the use of a mirror and different

light sources, the camera can be adjusted to view straight ahead (i.e. down the

hole) or at right anglesto the hole axis. Down-the-hole viewing was unsuccess-

ful in this trial mainly because of the larger diameter of the holes. The field

of view, perpendicular to the hole axis, covers about 1/3 of the circumference

or an area 2 inches (axial) by 3.6 inches (radial). This area is seen at

about 2X enlargement on the viewing screen.

Resolution of the image is affected by clarity of the water, colour

contrast, and shape of the object viewed. Clear water is an absolute necessity.

The anchor holes had not been washed sufficiently; motion of the camera caused

a suspension of fine sediment to cloud the image. When clear water conditions

prevail, linear features with high colour contrast can be observed to a minimum.

width of 1/100 inch. Surface relief (i.e. open fractures, loose grains, etc.)

is visually enhanced by the oblique light source. Distortion of the image is

illustrated in Figure A11.1 which shows the television image of a 1/4 - inch grid.
 142

Positioning of the camera in the hole is a very important factor in

the application of this logging technique. Axial distance was measured by the

number of rods in the hole; rotational position was taken as the midpoint

between limits of slack on the marked rods. The individual rods are 3 feet

. '. ', ., Ca • ■,.:. 6,,,a,..:••••■••••• ,^ "'''' r....- '

t+ 1
i
a/ .4 • ''... \
,...,......... ....-- ..-^4 '' ..-
«''e•-..."..."•-•1*a-,..).:.4,.......
: e :'•
5 3•,
1 ' . -..............- ,•-•*--
, , ,, . ............. --
e .•
f ber,: laere.aaelrereocr.,-,-11a,...-Feneadereg.0
.,_ , ........
!

•
bcrree.i.,gaa.m.arrafflort."FiWere
;

'-"riaanr ei: eteatmawvwnaLl

Figure A11.1. Measurements of slack in rod couplings.

in length and are equipped with a very secure and easily engaged coupling.

Since the viewing was done in sub-horizontal holes, the rotational and axial

friction on the camera and the rods was at a maximum. Measurements of slack

in the couplings are summarized in Table A11.1. As the camera was pushed into

the hole, the trailing cable was taped to the rods about every 15 feet. This

explains the significant difference of the axial slack per coupling observed

TABLE A11.1
Slack in Rod Couplings
(

Axial Rotational
Per coupling 1/8" 10°

Per 100 ft of rods 21/2" 400 °

(33 couplings)
o
Average per coupling 1/16" 12
 143

a and the average slack over 33 couplings. The rotational slack became quite

evident as viewing progressed in one of the deeper holes. On the screen,

small sand-size grains could be seen rolling down the side and coming to rest

on the bottom at the same time the operator pushing the camera was sure that

the camera was facing up. Positioning errors due to axial and rotational slack

in the couplings could be reduced by attaching a tape measure to the camera

and by mounting some dip- or trend-measuring device. Both methods have been

used with the Ontario Hydro television camera in vertical holes. The accuracy

obtained, however, is unknown.

The data necessary for a geologic investigation differ markedly

from those required for fabric analysis. A geologic investigation is concerned

)
with the spatial distribution of lithologic units, whereas fabric analysis

deals with the discontinuities in the rock mass. The data required for fabric

analysis are: size, surface morphology and orientation of individual discon-

tinuities, and density and grouping of fracture sets.

Information obtained from down-hole viewing is limited to:

lithology - only on a broad comparative basis;

orientation - provided that positioning errors are minimized;

density and grouping - only if the fracture set is not sub-

parallel to the axis of the hole.

In addition, television logging allows us to view the opening of discontinuities

in situ. Surface morphology cannot be determined. In comparison, core logging

gives excellent data on surface morphology of discontinuities and lithology;

information about the density and grouping of fractures is again limited by

the relative position between drill hole and fractures.

 144

If the fabric of a rock mass is to be analyzed from drill-hole

information, television and core logging have to be combined, or oriented core

has to be extracted. Television logging, alone, is not sufficient to obtain

the data necessary for a geologic investigation or fabric analysis.

a'
 145

APPENDIX XII: INSTRUMENTATION COSTS

Table Al2.1

ITEM UNIT COST TOTAL COST

. Load Cells

Manufacture of 5 load cells (I spare),

500,000-lb capacity $500 2,500.00

. Extensometers

Manufacture of 4 multiwire extensometer

heads $900 3,600.00
Manùfacture of 16 borehole anchors $ 30 480.00
Diamond drilling of extensometer holes:
(a) 211 drill hours (drill & crew of two) $13.50/hour 2,848.50
(b) Demobilization $1.00/mile 431.00
(c) Setting and diamond bit replacement
costs 1,903.20
Total diamond drilling costs = $5182.70 for
823 ft BX drilling
Average cost = $6.43/ft

. Television Survey

Contract for television viewing of cable anchor

holes,including photography, living expenses
for crew, insurance, etc. 1,809.50

. Concrete gauges

Purchase 12 concrete strain gauges $ 24.00 288.00

. Plate load tests

Purchase 24 dial gauges $ 15.00 360.00

Purchase 8 aluminum beams 14.00 112.00

. Cable, junction boxes and readout equipment

1000 ft 11 pair cable 261.00

500 ft 9 conductor cable 122.00
500 ft 5 conductor cable 67.00
Junction boxes, switch box, terminal strips,etc. 125.40
d,
Multi-bank switch 70.00
Cable connections and plugs(submersion-proof 980.00
type)
à Manufacture of telephone for cable checking 200.00
Vibrating wire read-out unit,type PC101 1775.00
Galvanometric potentiometer read-out unit 370.00

TOTAL 18,302.60

KB:DFC:MG/br
21
y\ept
p
LtioLieel