GEM4D Comparing Hydraulic Radius and Radius Factor

Comparing
Hydraulic Radius (HR) and Effective Radius Factor (ERF)
Frans Basson
The Stability Graph Method is an empirical assessment tool to help predict the stability of large
unsupported openings and was conceived by Ken Mathews and co‐workers (Mathews et al., 1981). The
original concept was subsequently calibrated by Potvin (1989) and modified by Nickson (1992). In this
method, a stability number (N’) is plotted against the Hydraulic Radius of a stope. The stability number is
calculated from the Q’ number that defines the rock mass quality and various factors that could impact
the stability of walls, such as stress, structural orientations, and gravity. Even though limited in
application, the Stability Graph Method has proved a useful design tool for stope exposures during
feasibility studies of non‐entry stopes.

This discussion focuses on two shape factors that define void exposure in underground openings. The
first is the Hydraulic Radius (HR) typically used in the Stability Graph Method. The second is the Effective
Radius Factor (ERF), which is more flexible and can solve complex geometries. (Andrews and Barsanti,
2008)

1. Hydraulic Radius (HR) overview
The Hydraulic Radius is calculated by dividing the area of the stope by its perimeter. Hydraulic Radius is
well suited to two‐dimensional rectangular surfaces. Complex stope geometries, for example when
island pillars are created, cannot easily be calculated (Milne and Pakalnis, 1997). Figure 1 shows the
Hydraulic Radius calculation of a stope hangingwall.

Figure 1: HR calculation of a stope hangingwall
2. Effective Radius Factor (ERF) overview
When an exposure factor is required for irregular shapes, ERF is more flexible, and the calculation can be
automated with computer code. The ERF measures the distance from a point located on the backs to
the nearest abutment, pillar or brow. These measurements are taken at a specified radial angular
interval, such as every 5°. The ERF is then calculated using the equation:
0.5
𝐸𝑅𝐹
1 ∑ 1
𝑛 𝑟
where n = number of measurements and rθ = distance to an abutment, pillar or brow. Figure 2 shows the
Effective Radius Factor calculation of an irregular stope roof.

ERF will have a maximum value towards the centre of the open void and the ERF‐values decrease
towards the edges. The maximum ERF value calculated for a surface is defined as the Radius Factor (RF)
value. ERF allows the effect of pillars to be taken into account and can be used with irregular shaped
stope backs and brows and development intersections. (Pakalnis et al., 1996)

Figure 2: An irregular stope roof showing the calculated Effective Radius Factor value (Milne, 1997).
The maximum ERF value for a surface is defined as the Radius Factor (RF) value and usually corresponds
closely to the Hydraulic Radius. However, the relation between the two terms varies with the surface
geometry. Figure 3 shows the relation between HR and the RF with varying length to width ratios. In
some circumstances, the maximum ERF value can be used instead of HR for empirical stability design;
however, care must be taken to ensure the discrepancy between the two terms is not significant.
(Milne, 1997).

Figure 3: Comparison of HR and RF (Milne et al., 1996)
3. Calculate ERF using GEM4D
In GEM4D, ERF can be calculated on a flat plane or an undulating warped surface. The flat plane
calculation is done as shown in Figure 2, and the undulating surface calculation is done similarly but
tangentially to the warped surface orientation at the calculation points.

3.1 Calculate ERF on flat planes of any orientation
Load a development or stope mesh and create a clipping through the data at the desired orientation.
The standard clipping options could be used, or activate the Clipping widget by checking "Right panel =>
Clipping => Clipping widget" and drag the dynamic plane edges with the mouse across the data
boundaries. The arrow on the plane can rotate the plane orientation and use "Full scene" and "Data
only" options to change the boundaries of the clipping plane.

Do the ERF‐calculation with "Ribbon => Mesh => Export files => Mesh info as CSV => Radius Factor (ERF)
on grid plane" and select “Yes” from the pop‐up box shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: ERF‐results from a development intersection evaluation
This function then creates a CSV‐file with the required information. Load the created file with "Ribbon
=> Marker => Load files => Text (CSV)".

When interpolating the values to the mesh, use "Left panel => Marker => Iso‐surface and Colour
mapping => Settings => Interpolation method => Nearest neighbour", and select an appropriate
"Search radius"‐value. For this application, the search radius should be larger than the distance between
the data and mesh.

Be careful when selecting the distance between the regular grid points, as a close spacing combined
with a large mesh will take some time to solve. The results could be displayed in various ways, as shown
in Figure 5.

Figure 5: ERF‐results from a development intersection evaluation
3.2 Calculate ERF on undulating surfaces
Flat surfaces are not always appropriate, for example, when a stoping horizon is undulating. The
calculation process still works the same as for flat planes, except that a warped surface is first created
through the stope centroids with “Ribbon => Marker => Marker actions => Surface => Warped surface”.
Do the ERF‐calculation with "Ribbon => Mesh => Export files => Mesh info as CSV => Radius Factor (ERF)
on grid plane" and select “No” from the pop‐up box shown in Figure 4.
Figure 6 shows the ERF results for an undulating stoping surface where random waste pillars are
planned. Additional pillars or pillar readjustments are required in the dark red areas.

Figure 6: ERF‐results from a non‐planar stoping horizon
References
1. Andrews, P.G. and Barsanti, B.J. (2008). Results of the Radius Factor Stability Assessment
Method for Design and Pillar Extraction at the Conqueror Mine, St Ives Gold Mine. SHIRMS
2008.
2. Mathews, K.E., Hoek, E., Wyllie, D.C. and Stewart, S.B.V. (1981) Prediction of stable excavations
for mining at depth below 1000 meters in hard rock. CANMET Report DSS Serial No. OSQ80‐
00081, DSS File No. 17SQ.23440‐0‐9020, Ottawa, Dept. Energy, Mines and Resources, p. 39.
3. Milne, D.M. (1997) Underground Design and Deformation based on surface geometry. PhD
thesis, The University of British Columbia.
4. Milne, D.M. and Pakalnis, R. (1997) Theory behind empirical design techniques. Proceedings
12th colloque en controle de terrain, Assoc. Min, Québec.
5. Nickson, S. (1992) Cable support guidelines for underground hard rock mine operations.
Master’s Thesis, University of British Columbia.
6. Pakalnis, R., Nickson, S., Lunder, P., Clark, L., Milne, D. and Mah, P. (1996) Empirical Methods for
the Design of Mine Structures. Proceedings 11th colloque en controle de terrain, Assoc. Min,
Québec.
7. Potvin, Y., Hudyma, M.R. and Miller, H.D.S. (1989) Design guidelines for open stope support. CIM
Bulletin, 82, (926), pp. 53–62.

GEM4D Comparing Hydraulic Radius and Radius Factor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEM4D Comparing Hydraulic Radius and Radius Factor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEM4D Comparing Hydraulic Radius and Radius Factor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparing

You might also like