1

Bench - inter-ramp - overall: A guide to statistically designing a rock slope

James I. Mathis
Zostrich Geotechnical
110 W. 6
th
Ave. #180
Ellensburg, WA 98926 USA
e-mail: zostrich@zostrich.com


ABSTRACT


The proper design and evaluation of the catch bench angle, inter-ramp slope angle,
and overall slope angle, individually as well as in combination, are required for successful
excavation and economic optimization of a rock slope. In many slopes at least one, if not
more, of the above controlling angles are essentially ignored, resulting in a slope properly
designed for one facet of the excavation but ignoring the other components. Bench face
angles can be accurately described statistically utilizing engineering predictions from the
rock mass discontinuity network and discontinuity shear strengths. Together with the
required bench width, the bench controlled inter-ramp angle is determined. Inter-ramp
angles can be accurately determined by careful construction of a structural geologic model,
noting location and orientations of discrete intermediate and large planes of weakness for
the excavation in question. The location and orientation of the overall slope is dependent
upon the slope as determined by the bench controlled inter-ramp angle and the stability
controlled inter-ramp angle. Given advances in data collection and analytical techniques
and continuing moves to increase mining safety while simultaneously attempting to
minimize excavation costs, the only possible way to truly optimize slopes is through
rigorous analytical methods combined with probabilistic techniques.

2
tan
-1
(15m/(8m+(15m/tan(70))) = 48
tan
-1
(150m/(33m+(150m/tan(48))) = 42
INTRODUCTION


A rock slope consists of up to three stability controlled slope components. These
are bench face angle, inter-ramp angle, and overall slope angle (Figure 1). Depending on
the situation, these can be excavation specified or maximum attainable angles. It is,
however, critical that the interaction of each of these components is incorporated in the
resulting slope design.
Lets clarify this interaction. Assume an open pit mine with a substantial overall
slope height. Now, assume a bench height of 15m, a required catch bench width of 8m
with a stability determined face angle of 70. Assume the inter-ramp slope has been
determined to be acceptably stable at an angle of 55 with a ramp width of 33m and a
mean height of 150m. Structural considerations determine that the overall slope shall not
exceed an angle of 44.
What to all these numbers tell us? Well, in order to maintain the required catch
bench angle, the inter-ramp angle cannot exceed the geometrical constraints imposed by
the bench geometry. In this case, the bench determined inter-ramp angle is:
(1)
Now, it is obvious that the bench controlled inter-ramp angle (48) is less than the
angle at which the inter-ramp slope has been determined to be stable (55), thus the slope
must be designed to accommodate the required bench geometry.
How about the inter-ramp versus overall slope? The inter-ramp angle cannot
exceed 48, as noted above. If the ramp width is added, the overall slope, as dictated by
inter-ramp constraints is:
(2)
The overall slope was determined to be sufficiently stable at 44. Yet, the bench
geometry dictates the inter-ramp angle. This angle, together with the inter-ramp height
and the required ramp width impose an overall slope angle of 42. Therefore, the bench
geometry, for this specific case, dictates the overall slope angle as well.
Of course, some variables can be modified. Bench height can at times be
adjusted, as can excavation methods (especially blasting), ramp widths can be adjusted
based on equipment selection, artificial support may be contemplated, etc. In fact, a
multitude of possibilities exist to adjust the individual components of the slope geometry.
Still, in order to reach that point one must first understand how one engineers each of the
critical slope components: bench, inter-ramp, and overall slope angles.

3

Figure 1 - Bench controlled inter-ramp angle, inter-ramp angle, and overall slope angle

CATCH BENCH DESIGN


The catch bench consists of a bench face and a catch bench. A bench face is the
vertical to intermediate dipping wall created in rock by excavation actions (Figure 2).
This wall, or face, will also have the added component of a "bench". This bench, located
at the base of the rock face, will be an area reserved for catching (restraining) rocks that
detach from the excavated face, thus the term bench face or the face above the bench.
What is bench face design? A basic definition would be the engineering design
of a rock face above a bench such that the general standing, stable angle of the face is
quantified. This should incorporate at a minimum the input parameters listed in Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Anatomy of a bench design

4
For a standard bench design, this information is then compiled and the
following conducted:
Identify potential failure modes;
Determine the population of potential structural orientations that may occasion
bench failure;
Calculate the stability of the structurally defined failure blocks by standard
kinematic analysis;
Adjust the bench face angle until an appropriate safety factor is realized against
sliding and/or;
Calculate potential reinforcement for the sliding blocks, if required;
Determine the requisite bench width to retain failed rock from the bench face.

Yet, a variety of questions arise with this standard design. Amongst these are:
Most benches are drilled and blasted vertically. To what minimum angle will the
bench fail to and how much material will fall from the crest?
What is the distribution of face angles and how will this distribution of face
angles affect the bench catch width design?
How was the variability of the shear strengths incorporated in the analysis?
What is the impact of the discontinuity length and spacing on the face angle and
what is the sensitivity of the design to these parameters?
What would the impact be of utilizing the entire structural orientation distribution
instead of point values?
How much backbreak can be eliminated by drilling angle holes and is it
warranted?

Catch bench face angle design, as conducted by this author, utilizes a rock fabric
simulation to determine bench face angle reliability (2). Discontinuity spatial
characteristics obtained from a rigorous sampling method and obtained either from
physical or photogrammetric mapping are simulated in a three dimensional, Monte Carlo
generated, discontinuity model (Figure 3). The three dimensional model is then cut by a
simulated bench face and statistical failure analyses of wedge and plane shear failures are
conducted on the daylighting features that transect the bench crest. This provides not
only the bench face angle distribution as a function of bench height, but also provides a
large number of simulated face profiles for analysis and allows for the effect of an
excavated face angle of something less than 90.
Rock fall is analyzed using simulated face profiles to determine/verify the
required bench width to accommodate rock fall. Note that rock fall described herein is
material physically falling to the bench, not volumetric failure accumulation as
considered by some engineers.

5

Figure 3 - Persistence modeling of structures for bench scale analysis
Of course, the analysis incorporates known structural domains (areas of similar
geologic structure including lithologic variations), variations in face orientation (design
sectors), and the complete discontinuity shear strength distribution (peak and residual) in
the design. Blasting effects are accommodated as adjustments in the discontinuity spatial
characteristics. At times, rock reinforcement may be considered to modify the bench face
angle distribution.
Once the bench face angles distributions are defined, the reliability of the bench
face angle is utilized for selection of the design bench geometry. The face angle
reliability can vary from 70% for areas not often frequented by man or machine to values
>90% for areas where bench failure may substantially impact operations or potentially
endanger personnel. For open pit mines a reliability of 80% appears to be somewhat
standard as this appears to contain most rock that escapes a single bench.
Face angles at the chosen reliability, and segregated by external effects (excellent
vs. poor excavation techniques, etc.) are compiled into a table. This table includes the
structural domain and design sector (face orientation). Note that this table can also
include varying bench height and catch bench width. A geometrically constrained bench
controlled inter-ramp angle, as noted in the introduction to this article, is then calculated.
Note that the described methodology answers all of the questions posed above,
including the effect of discontinuity length (persistence) and center density (spacing).
Note further these questions can only be answered using probabilistic techniques.
One of the aforementioned points, discontinuity persistence, is absolutely critical
to proper face angle design. As can be seen in Figure 4, discontinuities that are assumed
to be continuous through the bench will not honor the rock mass. Continuous structures
would result in a bench face angle that would not change as a function of bench height.
Of course, this is not the case, as double and triple benches are nearly always steeper than
single benches due to the interaction of discontinuity persistence occasioning failures as
they transect the bench crest. Thus, only a method honoring the mapped discontinuity

6
persistence will provide an accurate estimate for bench face design if the discontinuity
persistence is substantially less than the bench height. This variation in bench face
angles is demonstrated for a 10m and 20m bench height utilizing the program Z-Fabric
(Zostrich Geotechnical) (Figure 5).
Experience has shown that it is always prudent, as well as good engineering, to
validate any slope design. Verification of bench scale performance utilizing the above
described methodology has been conducted using a multitude of individual face profiles
obtained from surveying as well as photogrammetric techniques. One of the advantages
of utilizing photogrammetric techniques is that the entire imaged slope is available for
face profiling to compare with the analytical bench face and slope angles. While some
blind areas may exist due to camera location, the accuracy of the slope topography is far
superior to that obtained by any other easily applied methodology. The verification
process allows one to detect errors in discontinuity data collection, failure mode analysis,
and blasting practices such that the bench design may be refined.

Figure 4 - effect of discontinuity persistence as a function of bench height

Figure 5 - comparison of bench face distributions as a function of bench height

7
INTER-RAMP DESIGN


As was discussed previously, bench scale design is, for most part, predicated on
relatively simple failure modes with low applied stresses on the sliding surfaces. The
controlling geologic structures (rock fabric) can be dealt with statistically as has been
done above.
However, inter-ramp slope design is more much complex, incorporating
intermediate faults, rock fabric, and at times, rock mass strength characteristics. Due to
this varying height of the inter-ramp slope, the required slope analyzes can fall anywhere
between fabric stability analyzes for benches and the individual failure analyzes required
for overall slope stability.

The inter-ramp portion of a pit slope is that slope between:

The crest of the excavation and any intermediate ramp;
Between two sections of ramp, or;
The ramp and the base of the excavation
A term that has come into common usage in the last few years is stack height or
the continuous vertical stack of benches that will maintain stability given specific
design parameters and engineering analyses. This term is essentially synonymous with
the inter-ramp height as it is specifically addressed in inter-ramp design as slope height.
Stability of the inter-ramp slope is generally still, as for benches, controlled by
relatively simple structural failure modes. Yet, when attempting to proceed utilizing
similar logic as for bench design, two major problems immediately arise:
Stability constraints. The frequency, continuity, and location of the geologic
structures that may control any potential inter-ramp scale failures must be defined
for analysis. The output of potential number of failures together with their
associated size, defined not only by the expected number but a probable range, is
available only through statistical analysis.
Economic constraints. Unlike bench design, the operator must decide when an
inter-ramp scale failure occasions economic impact on the operation. Other than
the obvious safety concerns, which must be addressed, this latter actually dictates
the inter-ramp slope angle chosen for design. Again, as the input to any economic
analysis of this sort requires a range of failure occurrences and volumes this will
only lend meaningful results through probabilistic stability analyses.
Stability constraints

Inter-ramp stability analyses examine the stability of potential failure geometries
greater than one bench up to, and including, the entire inter-ramp height. As noted

8
previously, the inter-ramp height can at times be the entire rock slope, at which point the
inter-ramp is equivalent to the overall slope.
Similar input values are required as for bench design (Figure 2) with the
substitution of the inter-ramp height and bearing for the equivalent bench values.
Adjustments may be required in the discontinuity shear strengths, as fault values may be
required. Assessments of rock mass strength values may be required as well.
One of the greatest differences between inter-ramp and bench design is that
equivalent structure defining the failure geometry must generally be greater than the
height of the bench in persistence. However, such structures are difficult if not
impossible to map as a single feature as they traverse multiple benches in an existing pit
or transect outcrop in natural terrain prior to mining. Extrapolation of fabric mapping
data for such analysis is possible but somewhat unproven. Further, some assessment of
the feature density (spacing) must be provided as well. At present, geologic structural
interpretation is required to fulfill this requirement.
The requisite structural interpretation is extensive requiring pit wall/outcrop
mapping of continuous structures and intermediate faults, drillhole interpretation of
faults/broken zones, and a comprehensive assessment of the entire structural picture (3).
Note this is not a standard geologic interpretation, but has been developed as a function
of advances in photogrammetric and modeling software. This provides the structural
underlay for geotechnical assessment (Figure 6).
For a pushback, or additional excavation immediately behind an existing wall or
outcrop, the mapped structures together with their physical characteristics can be
projected directly onto the wall. Multiple failure geometries can be analyzed together
with exterior influences such as water and blasting. This allows slope geometries to be
adjusted, rock mass strength influence assessed, and potential rock reinforcement
considered. Such an analysis indirectly addresses persistence as the projection of the
geologic structures is not large given their persistence. This is the preferred inter-ramp
slope design environment. Note that the related stability analyses, even for discrete
structures, utilize the shear strength distributions on the defining structural features. In
addition, as noted above, variations in water level, statistical representations of release
structures, etc. can and should be included in the design if they exhibit a demonstrable
effect.
Alternatively, where the design slope is substantially behind the mapping slope or
in areas where no structural projections may be made, the designer is forced to utilize
statistical representations of structural populations. The orientation distribution for the
design structure population is relatively simple to obtain, either by projection of fabric
mapping data, analysis of major features, or both. However, two critical parameters for
the stability analyses are persistence and density (spacing).
Density (spacing): The spacing of the major geologic structures impacting inter-
ramp stability can be obtained from analysis of the local structural interpretation,

9
as can be the variation of this spacing (Figure 6). Both can be utilized for
predictive models. It has been observed by this author that the periodicity of
interpreted major structures within a geologic mass appears to be essentially
normally distributed. This contradicts with the multitude of distributions
proposed for rock fabric spacing (periodicity). More research is needed in this
area as such assumptions have a substantial impact on the slope design, especially
in terms of failure probability.
Continuity (persistence): It is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately assess
continuity for major structures that do not exhibit direct exposure on a rock face.
In this case, while assessments may be made of the continuity, it is by no means
certain these assessments are accurate. As was noted above, the direct impact of
utilizing infinitely persistent bench scale (fabric) features was expressly
discouraged as it had a demonstrably detrimental effect on the accuracy of the
bench face angles. In that case the persistence of the fabric features could be
obtained relatively simply. For the inter-ramp case, this may not be possible
(although it has been done for some larger scale exposures). Thus, for this
specific case where there is a lack of information, an estimate may be made of the
mean and variation of the persistence of the feature or an infinite persistence
determined that honors the density (spacing) of the discontinuity set.
One of the interesting facets of analyzing inter-ramp stability in the fashion
described above is that the release planes for failures can be analyzed in both a discrete
and probabilistic fashion. The greater the persistence and the number of the required
release planes to define a kinematically viable failure block, the smaller the probability
that block will actually exist (Figure 7).
For analytical purposes, the ramp, crest, or toe of an inter-ramp slope section provide
obvious, pre-defined release planes. This is similar to the previously discussed bench
geometry where the structures defining the failure block were required to transect the
crest in order for a viable failure block to be defined.

Figure 6 - Interpreted major structure paralleling a design pit wall

10

Figure 7 - Effect of multiple structural intersections on probability of failure geometry
occurrence
The rapid change in wall curvature at a pit bottom (Figure 8), or a nose
developed in a pit wall can also be analyzed statistically. Where these two special slope
cases have often been described as being more, or less, stable because of degrees of
freedom of motion that is only partially true. As the plan curvature of the slope wall
increases, it is more difficult to create a viable geometry as the release structures must be
found in a specific locale and have a substantial, and increasing, persistence for a viable
failure block to be defined. Alternatively, for a nose, the requirements for persistence and
location of the release structures are substantially reduced. These can both be addressed
analytically, using probabilistic methods, with the aforementioned interpretative
structural work thus improving slope stability assessments.
Economic constraints
An inter-ramp slope analysis, if conducted using statistical methods, will be either
expressed as a probability of failure, the expected number of failures, or both. The
location and extent of the failure will have some economic impact on the operation.
For example, if the inter-ramp scale failure is on a slope where it will have little
impact either on mining operations, traffic, or facilities, then the economic impact of
inter-ramp failure is minimal. The probability of failure can likely be quite high without
substantial economic consequences.
However, if the design inter-ramp slope is below a haul road to the bottom of a
pit with no alternative methods for access if the ramp is obliterated by failure, the failure
is an end of mine life event with large economic consequences. In this situation, the
probability of failure, including the accuracy of the failure estimate, must be carefully
considered. Slope angles may be flattened to account for this risk in specific portions of
the pit specifically to address this factor.

11

Figure 8 - Effect of structure persistence for inter-ramp failures as a function of slope
geometry
All inter-ramp slope failures carry an impact on operation. Thus, inter-ramp slope
designs should always consider not only the stability of the slope, but the impact on
operations if the slope is to fail. This can only be done with techniques specifically
addressing the volume and probability of slope failure. Many operations fail to consider
this in their design rendering them exposed to risks which should have been assessed
during slope design.
Inter-ramp designs are conducted as are bench designs, with accommodation of
structural domains, lithologic bounds, design sectors, etc. Existing inter-ramp slopes can
be back analyzed and compared to theoretical values. Of course this is more difficult than
for benches as the number of inter-ramp failures will provide a less reliable sample than
multiple benches provide. However, such an analysis is certainly worthwhile, especially
as any failures provide information not only regarding potential failure geometries in
future walls but on the shear strength of the features/zones involved.


COMPARISON OF BENCH AND INTER-RAMP SLOPE ANGLES


As was noted in the introduction, the geometry of the bench width and the bench
face can determine the inter-ramp slope angle. The inter-ramp angle may not only be
dictated by simple stability analyses, as the probability of failure coupled with any
economic consequences of failure can have a profound impact on the design angle for the
inter-ramp.
The comparison of the bench determined inter-ramp angle with the inter-ramp
determined economically stable angle is still required as both criteria must be met. The
necessary criterion for acceptance is the shallower of the two slope angles.

12
Once these values have been determined for all structural domains and slope
angles, the slope should be re-optimized. This may result in substantial slope translation
from the original design if those estimates were in error.
However, this design stage provides for an optimization and accommodation of
individual geologic structures and structural zones that may actually improve the slope.
For example, as seen in Figure 6, the structural interpretation indicates the design slope
falls along a major structure. However, stepping the slope back slightly into the wall
behind the structure allows a portion of the slope to be excavated steeper than the
original design allowed as the rock fabric has been accommodated in the bench design.
Whether this is economic is unknown, but it certainly should be compared against
reducing the slope angle in front of the existing structure. Similar analyses should be
made regarding changes in wall orientation, bench height, ramp location, etc. Economic
benefits of such result analyses/combinations/adjustments can be substantial. In order to
realize such benefits, active participation of a knowledgeable geotechnical engineer who
recognizes potential opportunities and pitfalls is required in the planning process.


OVERALL SLOPE DESIGN


Of the three stability controlled slope components, the overall slope is generally
the simplest in terms of conceptual framing and analysis.
This comment is not made without considered examination of its implications.
Let us examine what we have already conducted to arrive at the overall slope design:
The overall slope design should only be conducted after the bench and inter-ramp
designs have been conducted, with final interactions of both considered. Thus,
slopes have been adjusted to reflect inter-ramp and bench stability concerns,
including major structures and zones of low rock mass strength.
Inter-ramp design requires a detailed structural geologic interpretation for the
inter-ramp areas. As these encompass the entire design pit, a detailed structural
model is available for the overall slope design.
Thus, a piecewise stable slope has been designed, with the location of these individual
slope components being generally correct spatially. In other words, there is no real
guesswork as to final location of the slope compared to overall wall failure geometries.
The complete structural and lithologic model for the design slope is then examined for
potential failure geometries. It makes no difference as to the analytical methods utilized,
as these are dependent upon the failure modes and stresses involved. As long as the
designer incorporates the uncertainty in the model within the analytical process, the
probability of failure for any portion of the design pit may be calculated. This variability
is, of course, more easily accommodated in simpler models as compared to three-
dimensional numeric models. Even in the latter case, the structural and strength
variability can, and must, be incorporated in the final analysis.

13
Again, economics come into play. In the case of mining, if an overall slope fails resulting
in pit closure three years into a five year mine life, the economic results may be
devastating. Yet, if a structural zone that substantially increases the probability of overall
slope failure is only exposed in the last 6 months of the 5 year mine life, and steeper
slopes can be maintained for the preceding 4.5 years by not exposing the critical
structure, it may be that the cost savings are worth the increased risk near the end of mine
life.
In other words, as for the inter-ramp slopes, the simple stability of the rock slopes at a
fixed point in time may not be the driving design factor. Economics must also be
included.

CONCLUSION

One may argue that this is not the way most rock slopes are currently designed. In
fact, for an open pit mine the geotechnical engineer is often asked for the overall stable
slope angle. Bench face and inter-ramp angles are then back calculated from that angle.
While this can be done at times, and approximate overall slope angles may be utilized to
generally locate the pit extents and depth this is the reverse of this authors approach.
The methodology for determining the influence of slope components on each
other is not the only concept that may appear upside down. As was demonstrated
throughout the article, many analyses simply cannot be conducted without the use of
probabilistic techniques. This includes not only bench design, where all the components
of the discontinuity spatial characteristics, including persistence, are analyzed in
conjunction with the discontinuity shear strength distribution, but also inter-ramp and
overall design, where the probability of discontinuity density (spacing) and persistence
comes into play not only for the main sliding plane but associated failure release planes.
Economics are a critical, and generally understated, portion of slope design.
Again, these can generally only be addressed with probabilistic failure analyses and the
associated distribution of the probability of failure occurrence and volume. In order to
truly optimize the slope, economics must be included.

REFERENCES

1.Mathis, J.I. (1988) "Development and verification of a three-dimensional rock joint
model". Doctoral Thesis 1988:63 D, University of Lule, Sweden, May.
2.Mathis, J.I. (2002) "Bench face design in rock". http://www.edumine.com
3.Mathis, J.I. (2007): Pit slope design and structural analysis at the Jericho diamond
mine utilizing digital photogrammetry, Slope Stability 2007, Perth, W. Australia,
Sept, 2007, pp93-104