RISK MANAGEMENT IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

AND OPEN PIT MINE PLANNING

O K H STEFFEN Pr. Eng.
INTRODUCTION
Engineering is commonly considered to be an exact science as structures have
been created for the purpose of inhabiting space in a safe environment, utilizing
materials that are created for defined purposes. In the geotechnical field there is
less certainty as materials are developed from nature and different approaches
are required to quantify geotechnical data. Numerous models for predicting the
geotechnical properties have been proposed as follows:
1946, Terzaghis Rock Load classification for steel arch-supported
tunnels;
1964, Don Deere, initiated the original RQD concept of providing a
numeric for different quality of rock masses, based on drilled core;
Laubscher, RMR : Rock Mass Rating was developed to determine the
cave-ability of the rock mass subject to a Hydraulic radius;
Bieniawski, RQD: Rock Quality Designation developed from drilled cores
and rock exposures at the CSIR in South Africa;
Barton, Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, NGI for Tunnelling Quality
Index or Q value;
Hoek-Brown, GSI: Geological Strength Index, allowing for different
geological and structural environments.
STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY, GRADINGS
Bayes theorem provides an insight to the approach required when data
uncertainty is questioned. A typical example of this approach is estimating the
quantity of structural data required to provide an acceptable level of confidence,
i.e. at what spacings should boreholes be drilled to provide an acceptable level of
confidence in the estimation of structural complexity. Figure 1 is an attempt to

classify drilling requirements from experience of numerous case histories for low,
medium, and highly complex structural geology. This approach will be modified
with time and additional subdivisions will be developed by continuously adding
real data.

Fig 1 - Degree of structural complexity related to data requirements

The same question arises: how much data is required to obtain the required
confidence in the structural models. In hard rock slopes, structures are the
dominant factor in engineering safe slopes. For this reason an attempt has been
made to classify the level of structural complexity, followed by an appropriate
level of data confidence. This table is a first pass at classification and should be
considered as work in progress. What is required is real data from many different
sites to compile a comprehensive data base of information versus success and
failures. While experienced geologists may consider this as bread and butter

fodder, their input is required to avoid repeating the learning curve from scratch,
and instead start from an advanced knowledge base.
Data quality definition:
Achieving an acceptable standard of data quantity and quality is the
ultimate aim for proceeding with engineering design. The current basis
for the required standards is presented in the figure below.
Bayes Theorem: In essence, Bayes theorem suggests that when more
data is added without changing the value of the result, then sufficient
information has been provided for a reliable outcome. This only applies
after all attributes have been considered.
Bayes theorem
demonstrates how posterior outcome B alters the prior assessment of
A:
P[A I B] = P[A]{Additional Knowledge}
Parameters are Expected Value E[R] and Variance V[R]. Identify the difference
between variances of known parameters and uncertainties in feature
occurrences.
There is a great need for the development of the model in Fig 1 to provide
guidance in the approach to developing a reliable model for the quantifying of
data reliability. This topic has generated much interest and is the prime topic of
studies being undertaken by a number of research programs. The objective is to
define the data requirements related to different levels of structural complexity.
The approach developed in the case of Resource and Reserve Estimation is a
guide that could easily be adapted to the data requirements for determining the
reliability of the structural complexity.
CLASSIFICATION OF CONFIDENCE IN DATA
This concept has been developed in the theory of grade estimations using
sophisticated kriging techniques and others.

INCREASE LEVEL OF
GEOLOGICAL
KNOWLEDGE AND CONFIDENCE
THEREIN

CLASSIFICATION OF
CONFIDENCE LEVELS
RESOURCES

RESERVES

INFERRED

POSSIBLE

INDICATED

PROBABLE

MEASURED

PROVEN

GEOTECHNICAL, MINING, ECONOMIC, METALURGICAL, MARKETING,

ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL FACTORS MAY
CAUSE MATERIAL TO MOVE BETWEEN RESOURCES AND RESERVES

Fig 2 - Standard methodology for classifying confidence levels in grade estimations

A distinction is made in terms of viable economic value as Reserves and total

mineralised content as Resources. Only Proven and Probable categories are
considered as Reserves, and the possible category as potential value to be
confirmed by additional evaluation. All parameters listed in Fig 2 need to comply
with the classification by a competent person in his/her opinion, based on data
available.
CONFIDENCE CATEGORIES FOR SLOPE DESIGN
Possible slope angles:

Based on experience in similar rocks;

Rock mass classification;
Reasonable inference of geological conditions;
Apply kinematic slope design procedures.

Probable slope angles:

Data allows reasonable assumptions for continuity of stratigraphic and
lithological units;
All major features and joint sets identified;
Some structural mapping will have been carried out with estimates of
joint frequencies, lengths and condition;
Some testing of rock and joint surfaces;
Groundwater based on water intersection in exploration holes with a
few piezometer holes;
Data will allow simplified design models to allow sensitivity analyses;
Slope design using kinematic as well as numerical modelling;
Define factor of safety criterion.
Proven slope angles:
High confidence in continuity of stratigraphic, lithological units and
major features is confirmed;
Structural fabric extrapolated with high confidence;
Strength of structures tested to provide for reliable statistics;
Laboratory testing of rock strengths to a high level of confidence for all
different rock types;
Sufficient piezometer installations to determine the ground water
compartments and water pressure monitoring;
Slope displacement monitoring using radar and/or robotic prism
systems;
Kinematic and numerical slope design models as appropriate, including
parameter variability;
Risk evaluation of potential slope failures.
The development process of moving from the initial stages of Possible, to
Probable and finally Proven design, can be demonstrated in Fig 3 below.

Fig 3 - Development phases from conceptual to bankable feasibility study

With relatively little data available at conceptual stage of the design process, the
likely range of slope angles will be widely spread as shown in the red range of
Fig 3. As more data becomes available during the Pre-feasibility stage the spread
of data reduces, and finally in the bankable feasibility stage a further reduction in
the data spread provides sufficient reliability for the planning at feasibility
standards.
A similar interpretation can be presented as shown in Fig 4 below, where the
same data is shown in the spread of the variances to a single PoF (probability of
failure) value for the different data distributions. Fig 4 demonstrates the
variability of the FoS from 1.6 to 1.2, purely due to the volume of data available.
This simple exercise demonstrates the requirements of data volumes to improve
economics and reliability.

Fig 4 - FoS reduces from 1.6 to 1.2 for the same PoF of 5%, due to improved data

VOLUME VARIANCE CHARACTERISTICS

Fig 5 below demonstrates the volume variance characteristics for typical sample
data on different properties of an iron ore deposit. Of interest is the trend
analysis for the majority of iron elements at a very gradual conversion, while in
the case of the outlier element there is a very slow rate of conversion resulting in
a large residual variance.
Such variances result in the need for increased volumes of exposed ore to allow
an acceptable blend of ore to the mill. Blending beds are an integral part of the
management to control the quality of ore delivered to consumer clients.

Fig 5 - Data obtained from blast hole drilling, demonstrating the Volume/Variance
relationships

ASSESSING RELIABILITY OF OPEN PIT MINE PLANNING

Many factors in surface mining operations contribute to non-delivery of the
promise as presented in the mine plan. The advance of mine planning computer
models has provided the engineers the opportunities to investigate numerous
options within a short time frame. The challenge is to match the computer
output to an executable mining operation. Experience is essential in forming the
link between the mine plan and the practical execution in the ground.
This presentation will discuss the pit falls that embrace assumptions made in the
plan, the NPV expectations from the owners, the practical execution, the risks
associated with slope in-stability and social and environmental impacts.
Risk definition and quantification
Risk = Probability (event) x (consequence)

The ultimate impact relates to the final consequence, which represents the
perceived risk. Different levels of risk are identified in the following discussion.
Mine planning
A typical structure for an open pit mine risk valuation is presented in Fig 6 below.
Risks can be estimated for each of the boxes within the branches and are
accumulated into the TOP FAULT. Deterministic data can provide real
information while subjective judgement is also required to determine acceptable
risk profiles.

Fig 6 Typical construct of a high level risk analysis

Each of the above components can be assessed in detail as shown in Fig 6 below.
In this case, the mine planning risks are addressed in terms of geological,
geotechnical, mine layouts, as well as operating risks. In addition, QA/QC, the
macro economic impact, PR and HR components provide control mechanisms
within the planning programs for risk management.

Fig 7 - Risk components of the mining plan

RISK EVALUATION
The first level of risk evaluation is the well-developed qualitative risk matrix
shown in Fig 8. The impact on the vertical scale (Million Rand) presents a cost in
South African Rands and the likelihood of an event is presented on the horizontal
scale in percentage terms.

Fig 8 - Qualitative risk matrix

The above risk matrix is a subjective process in terms of the 5 x 5 matrix, of

impact versus likelihood. This process is universally accepted as a guide to assess
risks. In addition to the qualitative assessment, a quantitative approach has been
adopted in many critical decisions which impact directly on safety and economics.
It has become standard practice that quantitative risk evaluation follows the
qualitative model and thereby moderates both approaches to an acceptable
outcome.
Figures 9 to 12 show the development of a quantitative valuation of risk applied
to a case history. This model was developed by Luis Fernando Contreras of SRK
Consulting, and has become standard practice in improving the value add to the
design process.
Different slope angles were chosen and evaluated in terms of risk and
consequences, expressed quantitatively. The base case was selected for differing
hanging wall and footwall, in increments of 50 each as illustrated in Fig 9.

Fig 9 - Slope geometry of alternative design options for risk analyses

Fig 10 - Different pit development profiles are developed over time

Typical mining profiles are developed for each alternate mine geometry for every
second year as indicated. The life of mine boundary curve represents the
cumulative impact of the likelihood of events and consequential costs, expressed
in NPV terms.
Fig 11 below, provides the alternative outcomes for the different options for
slope angles developed in the mine design. These determinants are then
evaluated in NPV terms, but could equally be determined on an annualized
operating cost basis, instead of the NPV parameter.

Fig 11 - The boundary curves developed for the different slope angles into NPV

Different values of risk can be determined as shown in Fig 12 below. Cost

associated with risk acceptance has been determined ranging from 50% to 90%
likelihood, as shown in the lower diagram. These costs are expressed relative to
the NPV. These costs have then been applied to the value created by the mine
design. The zero risk option is represented in the upper curve as NPV without
risk. Adjustments are then made to allow for the cost of risk as per the lower
graph, resulting in the more realistic valuation as indicated in the upper graph
including the risk component.
These models have been developed in a number of case studies and have resulted
in more realistic outcomes than previously used models of gut feel or subjective
estimates.

Fig 12 - Value and Risk relative to NPV

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS
Competitive designs for the same orebody development have invariably
resulted in improved results of efficiency, costs and safety. With the
numerous design packages available today, competitive designs should
be based on the following paramenters:
Mining layouts for ore exposure,
Drilling and blasting techniques and advanced technologies, e.g presplit benches with high standard of QA/QC.
Dual ramp layouts to provide alternative access in case of obstruction
and bench failures

 Ore routes separated from waste haulage routes

In pit space risk for suitable and safe working environments
Pushback strategy excludeing outer limit ramp systems
Geotechnical design.
Geotechnical designs are probably the highest risk parameter in open pit
operations, as steeper slopes results in lower costs and a quantified risk
analysis is essential. Blast damage of slopes can be hazardous and dual
access should always be available.
Geotechnical data gathering should be an ongoing process to improve
data reliability to provide optimal designs. Ground water conditions
should be identified for it is the only parameter which can be controlled
by drainage.
Risk integration of geotechnical and operating standards should always
be a high priority of mine management. Implementation of the required
standards frequently is ignored and awareness should be recorded
diligently House keeping is an integral part of ensuring sound standards
which develops into a total responsibility of all personnel.
Slope monitoring has become a standard procedure in predicting failure
potential and should be reported regularly. In spite of all the technology
that assists in monitoring potential failures, there are still cases of
surprise and unexpected slope failures.