PILLAR DESIGN IN UNDERGROUND MINING

F.T. Suorineni
MIRARCO/Geomechanics Research Centre
935 Ramsey Lake Road
Sudbury, Canada P3E 2C6
(fsuorineni@mirarco.org)
 PILLAR DESIGN IN UNDERGOUND MINING

ABSTRACT

Pillars are used in various forms in underground mining. For several decades pillar design has
been an issue in both soft and hard rock underground mining. The major use of pillars is in room-and-pillar
type mining. Pillars are critical structures in the production levels of block cave mines. With most mines
leaning towards the use of block caving for ore extraction today, pillar design has become even more
important. Empirical pillar design is popular. The use of numerical modeling is becoming more common in
the design of underground mine pillars. A critical review of both the empirical and numerical modeling
approaches to the design of underground mine pillars reveal some fundamental flaws. In general, pillar
design approaches often assume the pillars are vertical, and are subjected to pure compression. Pillar
failure criteria are then based on this assumption. Most papers on numerical modeling for pillar stability
assessment use vertical pillars. This paper shows that where pillars are not subjected to pure compression
the empirical pillar design approaches are inadequate, and that when using numerical models for the
assessment of pillar performance, more care is needed in the determination of the average pillar stresses.
The practice of relating field scale pillar strength to laboratory scale intact rock strength determined from
conventional laboratory compression tests in empirical design equations is misleading when pillars are
inclined or subjected to compressive and shear stresses. New data is added to the hard rock empirical pillar
stability chart, and it is shown that it is misleading to conclude that failure of pillars with width to height
ratios greater than 2.3 should not be anticipated. New empirical pillar design charts are presented for pillars
at various degrees of inclination for different ko-ratios.

KEYWORDS

Pillar design, underground mining, pure compression, compression and shear

INTRODUCTION

Natural rock pillars are widely used in various forms in underground mining. The primary
application of pillars has been in room-and-pillar method of mining. Room-and-pillar mining is widely
used in coal extraction and for mining metalliferous orebodies that are competent and hosted by strong
rock masses with horizontal to sub-horizontal dips. Pillars are also critical structures in the production
levels of block cave mining. Pillars provide both local (as in room and pillar mining) and regional (as for
barrier and sill pillars) mine support.
Despite the critical role of natural rock mine pillars in underground mining, their design continues
to be a major challenge, and carries with it a lot of uncertainties from various sources. Pillar design
research in coal mines gained momentum following the Coalbrook domino pillar collapse in South Africa
in 1960 that killed 437 workers. The study conducted by Salamon and Munro (1967) as a result of the
disaster led to a power law pillar strength formula that has formed the foundation for pillar design in
underground mines. In hard rock underground mines, research gained momentum after the domino pillar
failure in Elliot Lake Uranium mine in Ontario, Canada. The accompanying study resulted in the so called
Hedley and Grant (1972) hard rock pillar strength equation. The Salamon and Munro (1967) and Hedley
and Grant (1972) equations and their derivatives are still debated in rock engineering for their
appropriateness in the safe and economic design of underground mine pillars.

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

Despite the enormous role of pillars in underground mining, this paper shows that our
understanding of their design and performance is still limited. Because of the ease of use and popularity of
the empirical hard rock pillar design chart developed by Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) in the mining
industry, this paper focuses on its further improvement. First, the paper attempts to answer the question “Is
there a critical pillar width to height ratio beyond which a pillar is indestructible?” Second, is the
laboratory sample compressive strength degrading to field scale pillar strength laws unique and universally
appropriate? Third, is the Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) hard rock pillar design chart adequate for the design
of inclined pillars or pillars that are eccentrically loaded? While there are many more questions to be
answered in underground mine pillar design, it is hoped that answers to these questions will in the interim
further enhance our knowledge in pillar design for the economic and safe extraction of ore.

APPROACH
The current state-of-the-art of underground mine pillar design is reviewed. Empirical pillar
strength equations for coal are examined. The development of hard rock pillar strength equations is then
assessed. What constitutes pillar failure and the various pillar design approaches are evaluated.
In order to investigate the validity of the claim that pillars with W/H ratio greater than 2 are
indestructible the literature is searched for evidence of performance of pillars with W/H≥2. To assess the
validity of the pillar stability chart for the design of inclined or pillars loaded in compression and shear,
numerical modelling is conducted. First, the numerical model is calibrated against known case histories.
Second, the calibrated model is used to simulate pillars at various inclinations in given far field stress states
based on different ko ratios.

STATE-OF-THE-ART OF UNDERGROUND MINE PILLAR DESIGN

Safe and economic pillar design requires adequate determination of the expected load that the
pillar is expected to carry and the strength of the pillar to give an acceptable extraction ratio and factor of
safety. Safe and economic extraction ratios are usually in the range 50 to 75%, even though higher
percentages have been reported elsewhere. Pillar load (σs) is commonly calculated from the tributary area
method introduced by Bunting (1912) (Equation 1):

γZ (1)
σs = [(W + b)(L + b)]
WL
where γ is the unit weight of overburden rock, Z is the depth of mining, W is the pillar width, L is pillar
length and b is the width of the opening.
Pillar stress and pillar strength are used synonymously, and confused with pillar factor of safety
by some authors as in Babcock, Morgan, and Haramy (1981), Elmo and Stead (2010), and Kaiser et al.
(2011), and can be misleading in the interpretation of pillar performance. Intuitively, average pillar stress
should decrease with increasing W/H ratio while pillar strength should increase with W/H. The
implication of a decreasing pillar stress with increasing pillar strength (i.e. w/h) is that for a given factor of
safety, higher pillar stresses are needed as w/h increases. These concepts are schematically represented in
Figure 1.
Several authors (Coates, 1966; Crouch & Fairhurst, 1973) have argued that the tributary area
method is overly conservative, and is not directly applicable to inclined seams or orebodies (Hoek &
Brown, 1980; Coates, 1981; Pariseau, 1982; Foroughi & Vutukuri, 1998). Unrug (1991) notes that the
tributary area approach is satisfactory for depths within 250 m below surface but become inadequate at
greater depths. At greater depths the pillar loads obtained from tributary area theory are too large to be
consistent with practical mining experience.
Bieniawski (1981) states that the tributary area approach for calculating average pillar stresses is
safe because of its conservative nature, simple for practical rock engineering, and hence commonly
employed in pillar design. Numerical modelling can be used today for more accurate pillar stress
determination with reliable input data. Thus, most research in pillar design is focused on determining
adequate pillar strength rather than pillar load. Therefore, the challenge in pillar design is in the
determination of pillar strength. This conclusion is reflected in the several proposed pillar strength
equations in use today (Table 1 and Table 2) and further evidenced by the several reviews of pillar strength
equations such as by Logie and Matheson (1983), Babcock et al. (1981); Unrug (1981), Bieniawski (1981),
Galvin, Hebblewhte and Salamon (1999); Madden (1991), Ozbay, Ryder and Jager (1995); Madden,
Canbulat and York (1998); Kendorski (2007), Mark (2008), Merwe (2003), Watson, Kuiipers and Stacey
(2010); and Malan and Napier (2011).

Figure 1 – Schematic representation of the pillar strength, pillar stress and factor of safety relationship

Coal pillar design strength

While the focus of this paper is on hard rock underground mine pillar design, it is considered
imperative to examine coal pillar design equations to bring to perspective the root source and implication
of hard rock pillar design approaches. Table 1 is a summary of the evolution of coal pillar strength design
equations. These formulae are derived from laboratory tests, field tests, a combination of laboratory and
field tests, and data from in situ performance of pillars. Table 1 also shows that the factor of safety applied
to pillar design is dependent on the confidence level placed on the design equation. The generalized form
of the design equations in Table 1 is given by Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) in Equation 18.

(18)
 W α 
σ p = k  A + B β

 H 

where k is the strength constant related to the pillar intact rock, and A and B, are empirical constants; W
and H are minimum side length of pillar and pillar height respectively. α and β are empirical constants
depending on rock type, fabric and mineralogy. Where Equation (18) is derived from laboratory test data,
size effect must be accounted for in k, while for equations derived from full scale field tests the size effect
is set to unity. Equation 18 erroneously assumes pillar length has no effect on pillar strength,
The biggest difference in Equations (1) to (17) and which has been a source of confusion in pillar
design is on the definition of the size correction factor (k). The laboratory cube sample size considered as
representative of the coal mass strength in Equations (1) to (17), and used to determine k varies from 50
mm as in Equation (7) to 1.5 m as in Equation (8), and partly accounts for the differences in pillar strengths
in the equations for a given coal and pillar shape.
While many researchers (Vicat, 1833; Rice 1929; Gaddy, 1956; Evans & Pomeroy, 1958; Johns,
1966; Pratt, Black, Brown & Brace, 1972; Wagner, 1974; Bieniawski & Heerden, 1975; Wang, 1977) have
investigated the effect of sample size on coal strength, the most exhaustive study reported to date for coal
is that by Bieniawski (1967). Pratt et al. (1972) provides a comprehensive study for size effect in hard
rocks. Figure 2 is a summary of the size effect studies. The figure shows that there is a certain sample size
above which the strength of a cube remains constant, and that this sample size depends on the rock type.
Bieniawski concluded a 1.5-m cube side length of coal sample was representative of the coal mass in situ
strength, while for hard rock such as diorite, Pratt et al. (1972) shows 1-m cube side length is sufficient.

Table 1 - Summary of pillar strength formulae (See references for details of equations)
Equation Equation Factor of References
number safety
2 [
σ = σ 0.778 + 0.222 w h
p c ( )] - Johnson (1897)
3 - Carpenter (1901)
σp = k h
4 σ p = 1000[0.70 + 0.30(b1 h )] 2.5 Bunting (1912)
5 - Greenwald,
σp = k W H
Howarth and
Hartman (1939)
6 σ p = 2800[W 0.5 H 5 6 ] - Greenwald,
Howarth and
Hartman (1941)
7a σ p = σ c [0.778 + 0.222(w h )] 2 to 4 Obert and Duvall
(1946)
7b Same as 7a but σc determined from 1.5-m side length 1.5 - 2 Modified Obert and
cubes instead of 250 mm as in 7a. Duvall (1967)
8 1.8-2.2 Holland-Gaddy
σp = k wh (1964)

k = σc D
9a [ ]
1100 w 0.16 h 0.55 w < 60 inches - Bieniawski (1967,
1969)
9b σ p = 400 + 200[w h] w > 60 inches -
9c
σ p = [0.64 + 0.36(w h )]α Bieniawski (1981)

10a σ p = σ C [W 0.46 H 0.66 ] 1.31-1.88 Salamon and

Munro (1967)
10b  0.46  H p  
0.66 1.31-1.88 Modified Salamon
σ p = σ C (W p Ws )  H s  
and Munro (1967)
  
10c { [
σ p = kV −0.0667 R 0.5933 0.5933 ε (R R0 )ε − 1 + 1
0
] } Salamon (1982)

11 σ p = σ c + σ 3 tan β Wilson (1972)

12  Hardy and Agapito
 
0.951
0.597  H p
σ p = σ Cs (W p Ws )  H s  
(1975)
  
13
σ p = a[1 H ] + b[W H ]2 1.5 Wardell (1976)

14 σ p = σ c [0.78 + 0.22(w h )] Wang et al. (1977)

15
σ p = σ C [0.64 + 0.36(W H )]α 1.5 Bieniawski
(1981/83)
16
σ p = k H 0.50 W H [ ] 0.50 Hustrulid and
Swanson (1981)
k = σ c D 0.50
17 Complex. See reference for details. Agapito and Hardy
(1982)
 Uniaxial compressive strength
100

Iron ore

(MPa)
Diorite
10

Coal

1
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Cube side length (m)
Figure 2 – Variation of rock strength with
cube side length for various rock types
(redrawn from Bieniawski, 1981)

When the coal pillar strength equations in Table 1are plotted against pillar W/H ratio, they all tend
to be concave approaching a horizontal asymptotic value at higher W/H ratios except for those by Wardell
(1976), Bieniawski (1981) and Salamon (1982) that tend to be convex and asymptotic to W/H ratios of
about 6.5 and 11 respectively. These three equations imply that a pillar becomes indestructible when the
W/H ratio exceeds 6.5 or 10. Wardell (1976) equation is not a function of size and shape as the other
equations. The Bieniawski (1981) pillar strength equation is a combination of South African and United
States coal with different fabrics and strengths and consists of laboratory and field data. The Bieniawski
(1981) strength equation is a step function which may indicate the combination of two different data sets.
There is no field data to support Bieniawski (1981) and Salamon (1982) convex pillar strength functions
that have zero or positive upward curvatures, contrary to Ryder and Jager (2002). Additionally, Salamon
(1982) equation is based on the concept of effective pillar width by Wagner (1974) for square and long rib
pillars. Malan and Napier (2011), caution that the effective pillar width concept may be overestimating the
strengthening effect of very long pillars. Babcock et al. (1981) note that the assumption of a vertical coal
pillar in a flat coal seam being "infinitely" strong is misleading. They argue that such a conclusion is based
on laboratory testing of samples between steel platens in which the strength of the steel platens and not of
the coal is determined. They conclude that there is no correlation of such test results to mining conditions.
The conclusion of pillar indestructibility due to confinement is not also supported by Mogi’s (Mogi, 1966)
law that rock material behavior changes from brittle to ductile when the major principal stress (σ1) is
approximately equal to 3.14 times the minimum (confining) stress (σ3). Finally, Ozbay et al. (1995) note
that even though it is often assumed that pillars with W/H ratios greater than or equal to 5 cannot fail in an
unstable manner, spalling and bursting of such pillars is reported.

Hard Rock Pillars

The design of hard rock pillars (Table 2) is adopted from the pillar strength equations in Table 1
for coal. The Salamon and Munro (1967) coal pillar strength equation was adopted by Hedley and Grant
(1972) (Equation 19) for hard rock pillar design, and has since been used for hard rock pillar design in
South Africa (Malan & Napier, 2011) and elsewhere. Malan and Napier (2011) question the validity of the
Hedley and Grant (1972) equation and its relevance to South African hard rock mines. They argue that the
equation was based on a large number of assumptions that are not valid for South Africa hard rock mines.
Ozbay et al. (1995) conclude that strength of squat pillars is under estimated by the Hedley and Grant
(1972) hard rock pillar strength equation.
In Equations (19) to (27), the coefficients (k) of the functions represent pillar rock mass strengths,
which are some fractions (η) of the pillar intact material uniaxial compressive strengths (σc) that can be
expressed as in Equation 26. The values of η are included in Table 2, and ranges between 0.11 and 0.78.
Malan and Napier (2011) state that k values usually range between 1/3 to 2/3 of the uniaxial strength of the
pillar intact material in South Africa. In the pillar strength equations as shown in Equation (26), η=A=1 if
σc is determined from a representative rock mass volume of coal (1.5-m cube side length) or hard rock (1-
m cube side length).

k = ησ c (26)

Table 3 - Summary of hard rock pillar design equations

Equation Equation σc Rock type Reference η
number (MPa)
19 [
179 W 0.5 H 0.75 ] 230 Quartzite Hedley and
Grant (1972)
0.78

20 Hoek and
σ 1 = σ 3 + mσ cσ 3 + sσ c2 Brown (1980)
21 [
133 W 0.5 H 0.75 ] 230 Quartzite Hedley,
Roxburgh and
0.58

Muppalaneni
(1984)
22 [
0.46
65 W H 0.66
] 94 Metasediments Kimmelmann,
Hyde and ,
0.69

Madgwick
(1984)
23 35.4[0.778 + 0.222 (W H )] 100 Limestone Krauland and 0.35
Soder (1987)
24 0.42σ c W H[ ] - Canadian Shield Potvin, Hudyma 0.42
and Miller
(1989)
25 74[0.778 + 0.222 (W H )] 240 Limestone/Skarn Sjöberg (1992) 0.31
26 σ 1 = σ 3 + sσ c Martin (1993) 0.11
27 0.44σ c [0.68 + 0.52κ ] - Hard rocks Lunder and 0.44
Pakalnis (1997)

Pillar Failure

What constitutes pillar failure in the literature is ambiguous. First, it depends on the empirical
pillar strength equation used as reflected in Table 1 by the different factors of safety associated with the
various equations. Peng (1978) identified two types of pillar failure as the ultimate strength and progressive
failure criteria.
Lunder (1994) describes different pillar stability states used by various Canadian hard rock mines
(Figure 3). According to Peng (1978) Class 5 in Figure 2 is failure (ultimate), and Class 2 to 5 is failure
(progressive). The US Mine Health and Safety Act No. 51 consider Class 2 in Figure 3 (initiation of
failure) as failure. Lunder and Pakalnis (1997), classify the stability states in Figure 3 as follows: Class 1 –
Stable; Class 2 to 4 – Unstable, and Class 5 – Failed. Hence, based on the stability states in Figure 3, and
what is considered by various sources as failure, it is clear that there is no universal definition or criterion
for pillar failure. In this paper, the Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) definition of pillar stability states (i.e. stable
(Class 1), unstable (Class 2-4) and failed (Class 5)) is adopted.

Pillar Design Approaches

Traditional pillar design consists of comparing pillar strengths (Table 1 and Table 2) with the
expected pillar stress from the tributary area method to determine whether a design is acceptable or not
depending on the resultant factor of safety. Acceptable factors of safety range from 1.1 to 2 depending on
pillar function and life span.
 Numerical modeling has become popular for use in pillar design and overcomes the limitations of
the tributary area method for pillar stress determination at depths greater than 250 m. However, the
question of obtaining reliable input data for numerical models make their output suspect, if uncalibrated.
Also, most mining camps are unlikely to use numerical models on routine basis since they require a
significant level of expertise in both model construction and interpretation of results.
The use of empirical design charts, has become popular, and seems to replace the use of the
empirical pillar design equations and numerical modelling because of their ease of use. The stability graph
method for open stope design (Mathews, Hoek, Wyllie & Stewart, 1981) championed the use of empirical
design charts in mining. The empirical pillar design chart was initially introduced by Hudyma (1988) for
the design of open stope rib pillars in hard rock underground mines. It is a plot of the normalized pillar
average stress with the pillar intact material uniaxial compressive strength against the pillar width to height
ratio. Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) used the concept for the design of all hard rock underground mine pillars
(Figure 4), and it has become popular around the world for underground mine pillar design.
The Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) pillar design chart (Figure 4) accounts for the effect of the
strengthening effect of pillars due to confinement as the pillar width to height ratio increases. The
importance of confinement on pillar stability (Equation 25) has been noted by others (Wilson, 1972;
Wagner, 1980; Bieniawski, 1981). Esterhuizen, Dolinar and Ellenberger (2010) developed a similar
empirical pillar design chart for United States stone mines, in which zones of risk of pillar failure are
identified based on the database limit experience.
From Figure 1, the curves described in Figure 4 as factor of safety curves are simply curves
separating stable from unstable pillars (FS=1.4) and failed from unstable pillars (FS=1) and have nothing
to do with factor of safety. At best, the curves are descriptions of pillar strength behavior with increasing
W/H ratio.

0.7
FS=1
Average Pillar Stress (Ps)/UCS

0.6

0.5
FS=1.4
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Pillar Width to Height Ratio (W/H)

Failed Unstable Stable

Figure 3 – Pillar stability states in Canadian Figure 4 – Pillar stability chart (Reproduced from Lunder
hard rock mines (redrawn from Lunder, 1994) & Pakalnis, 1997)

LIMITATTIONS AND PROBLEMS IN CURRENT PILLAR DESIGN APPROACHES

The empirical pillar strength equations are based on room-and-pillar coal mines, and therefore
cannot be applied outside that mining method. Equations (1) to (25) assume a vertical pillar orientation and
symmetric axial loading based on the assumption that the coal or orebody is horizontal.
The literature shows limited research on the stability of pillars subjected to both compression and
shear stresses. Hoek and Brown (1980) note that in the case of inclined orebodies the stress distributions
are no longer symmetrical about a vertical line through the centre of the pillar, and the shear stresses
parallel to the dip of the orebody give rise to asymmetrical stress distributions, and that the case is worst
when the excavations are close to surface and are influenced by stress gradients due to gravitational
loading. They concluded that the pattern of failure propagation in an inclined orebody is still unknown.
Coates (1981, Pariseau (1982) and Foroughi and Vutukuri (1998) investigated the stability of
inclined pillars. By use of numerical modelling Coates (1981) showed that stress distribution in inclined
pillars is not uniform and suggested a change in shape to achieve a more favourable stress distribution.
Pariseau (1982) presented approximations of the tributary area approach for determining inclined pillar
loads based on extraction ratio, and concluded that the proposed seam/orebody extraction ratio formulae
are as adequate for pillars in dipping seams as is the well known flat seam extraction ratio formula.
Foroughi and Vutukuri (1998) suggest that to reduce the stresses in an inclined pillar it may be necessary to
leave the pillar at an angle deviated from the normal axis to stratification.
It is unclear at which pillar width to height ratio pillars become indestructible, and even doubtful
if the idea of pillar indestructibility is well founded. The empirical pillar strength equations assume that the
pillar, roof and floor are all made of similarly competent materials. Where roof and floor are softer than the
pillar, there exist a potential for pillar roof punching and or floor heave (Brady & Brown, 2004, Unrug,
1991). Also, if there is a weak plane in the pillar, the pillar will fail in shear at a stress level less than the
pillar material strength.
Laboratory cube strengths are degraded to pillar strengths in the empirical pillar strength
equations. The crushing strength of a cube in pure compression cannot be downgraded to inclined pillar
strength. Hence, where the orebody or coal deposit is not horizontal and therefore pillars not vertical, the
pillar loads and cube strength are not representative of the pillar conditions, and there is urgent need to
determine inclined uniaxial compressive strengths of rocks (Figure 5).
The pillar strength formulae use cube sizes ranging from 50 mm to 1500 mm to determine
representative rock mass strength. Some authors (e.g. Hustrulid and Swanson, 1981), also inadequately
generalize the representative cube size for all rock or coal types. Figure 2 shows that cube size for
determining representative rock mass strength is dependent on the coal or rock fabric and mineralogy.
The Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) hard rock pillar design chart comprise of various pillar types both
in geometry and function (Figure 6). It also does not discriminate between vertical and inclined pillars. The
curves described as factors of safety of 1 and 1.4 are just lines separating unstable and failed, and stable
and unstable pillars whose safety levels are difficult to estimate. Unfortunately, recent studies have focused
on criticizing these curves for not showing the indestructible nature of pillars with WH ratios >2.

Figure 5 – Pure compression uniaxial compression tests Figure 6 – Pillar geometries included in Lunder
(A) and (C) compared with combined compression and and Pakalnis (1997) database (Reproduced from
shear tests (B) and (D) (reproduced from Kvapil, Beaza Lunder 1994)
& Flores, 1987)

ARE PILLARS WITH W/H>2 INDESTRUCTIBLE?

The Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) database is limited to pillar W/H ratios of less than 3, with failed
and unstable pillar W/H ratios limited to less than 2.2. The fact that failed and unstable pillars do not exist
above W/H>2.2 is only a consequence of the database limit, and should not be interpreted as being
evidence of pillars being indestructible above this W/H ratio.
As already indicated in previous sections, the conclusion that pillars with W/H rations greater than
2 are in destructible has not been proven by field evidence. The conclusion is drawn from laboratory test
data that are highly influenced by sample end constraints. Other factors such as time, structural defects and
roof and floor stiffness relative to pillar material stiffness have not been considered.
Evidence from Campbell Red Lake Mine provided in Hedley (1992) when included in the Lunder
and Pakalnis (1997) pillar design chart shows that pillars with W/H ratios greater than 2 can fail either by
static spalling or dynamically in the form of pillar bursts (Figure 7). The pillars at Campbell Red Lake
Mine consisted of sill pillars, and boxhole pillars from shrinkage stopping. The pillars are made of
andesite. Figure 7 shows the Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) hard rock pillar design chart with the Campbell
Red Lake pillar performance included. The figure shows that pillars with W/H > 2 can fail by static
spalling or violently in the form of pillar bursts, contrary to the accession that such pillars are
indestructible.

0.9
FS=1

Average Pillar Stress (Ps)/UCS

0.8
Failed
0.7 Unstable
0.6 FS=1.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
Stable
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6
Pillar Width to Height Ratio (W/H)
Failed Unstable Stable
CRL - Pillar burst CRL - Stable CRL - Failed
Figure 7 – Campbell Red Lake Mine data included in Lunder and Pakalins (1997) chart showing pillars
with W/H>2 can fail

EFFECT OF PILLAR COMBINED COMPRESSIVE AND SHEAR LOADING – EFFECT OF

SHEAR LOADING

Maybee (2000) investigated the effect of inclined pillar loading on pillar stability. In the study,
both the pillar orientation and far field stress orientation are changed simultaneously, making it impossible
to identify which factor is responsible for the change in pillar behaviour. The work, however showed that
either pillar orientation in a given stress field or stress rotation for a given pillar inclination or both has a
significant impact on pillar behaviour. This paper explores the effect of combined compression and shear
loading of pillars on the reliability of the empirical pillar design chart by Lunder and Pakalnis (1997) for
the design of such pillars.
In this study, room-and-pillar type pillars were modelled using Phase2 finite element code
(RocScience, 2010) (Figure 8). An extraction ratio of 75% was assumed in all cases, and Figure 9 shows
the various pillar layouts. The pillar core stresses were monitored in the centre of the pillar at mid-height as
shown in Figure 8.
As in previous pillar studies (e.g. Maybee, 2000) the models were first calibrated against the
empirical pillar design chart by Lunder and Pakalnis (1997), as shown in Figure10. Here, the pillar
inclination is varied against a fixed k-ratio and thus avoids the two parameter effect as in Maybee (2000).
The analysis considered various orebody inclinations ranging from 0° to 40°, noting that orebody dip
angles above 45° often require a different mining method. ko-ratios of 1, 1.5 and 2 were considered in the
analysis with ko=1.5 as base case. The results for ko=2 are shown in Figure 11. The effect of ko-ratio on
inclined pillar stability is shown in Figure 12. Figure 13 shows the effect of pillar inclination on pillar
confinement.
 Figure 8 – Phase2 model set up for pillar Figure 9 – Pillar geometries modelled
stress calculation. Black circle is pillar stress
calculation point.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following conclusions are drawn from the study:

(i) The Lunder and Pakalines empirical pillar design chart and empirical strength equations
cannot be directly used for the design of pillars loaded in both compression and shear.
(ii) In pillars loaded in compression and shear there is loss in strength with increasing pillar
inclination and k-ratio.
(iii) In using the empirical pillar design chart by Lunder and Pakalnis (1997), the site k-ratio
and orebody dip must be accounted for.
(iv) There is no field evidence to support the concave asymptotic pillar strength criteria
which indicate pillar indestructibility for W/H >2.
(v) There is inconsistency in the definition of the representative rock mass sample size
applied to the empirical pillar strength equations, and caution is required in using them.
a. For pillars loaded in compression and shear it is inappropriate to use the strength of
a representative rock mass sample strength determined from a cube in pure
compression.
b. The representative sample size for coal is 1.5 m-cube side length and 1 m for hard
rocks. Where possible this sample size should be determined for each rock type.

1.0 1.0 Orebody inclination=0

Stable Orebody inclination=10
Unstable σv σv
Orebody inclination=20
0.8 0.8
Failed σH
σc

σH θ
Pillar stress or strength/σ

θ Orebody inclination=30
σc

FoS=1 FoS=1
Pillar stress/strength/σ

k=1
Orebody inclination=40 Lunder &
Lunder &
Pakalnis (1997) 0.6 Pakalnis (1997)
0.6
FoS=1.4 FoS=1.4

0.4 0.4

0.2
0.2

0.0
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
W/H
W/H
Figure 10 – Calibrated model against Lunder and Figure 11. Effect of pillar inclination on pillar
Pakalnis (1997) chart stability for ko=2
 1.0 0.8
Stable
orebody inlined @ 0
Unstable 0.7
σv orebody inclined @ 10
Failed
0.8 orebody inclined @ 20 σv
k=1
σc

σH 0.6
θ
Pillar stress or strength/σ

k=1.5 Orebody inclined @ 30

FoS=1 θ
σH
k=2 Orebody inclined @ 40
Lunder &
Pakalnis (1997) 0.5 Mogi, 1966
0.6
Ductile
FoS=1.4

σ1
σ 3/σ
0.4 behaviour

0.4
0.3

0.2 Shear
0.2 failure
0.1
Spalling
0.0 dominant
0.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Pillar width to height ratio (W/H)
W/H
Figure 12 – Effect of k-ratio on inclined pillar Figure 13 – Effect of pillar inclination on pillar
stability confinement

(vi) Criticism of the empirical pillar strength equations based on numerical modelling results
may not be justified for the following reasons:
a. The numerical models assume certain ko-ratios which may be different from the
various k-ratios under which the strength equations were developed. It is proven that
different ko-ratios affect pillar stability significantly.
b. The rock mass qualities for the empirical pillar strength equations are in most cases
not duplicated in the numerical models, and can affect the results.
c. There is confusion between pillar strength, pillar stress and factor of safety in most
of the cases criticizing the empirical pillar strength equations. In these papers pillar
strength and pillar stress are incorrectly used synonymously/interchangeably and
compared with factor of safety.
d. The definition of failure in the numerical models and what is used in the empirical
pillar design cases is not the same.

REFERENCES

Babcock, C., Morgan, T. & Haramy, K. (1981). Review of pillar design equations including the effects of
constraint. In Proceedings 1st Conference on Ground Control in Mining (pp. 23-34). West
Virginia, WV: West Virginia University.

Bieniawski, Z.T. (1969). In Situ Large Scale Testing of Coal. In Proc. of Conference on In Situ
Investigations on Solids and Rock (pp. 67-74). Britain: London: British Geotechnical Society.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1981). Improved design of coal pillars for U.S. mining conditions. In First Annual
Conference on Ground Control in Coal (pp. 13-22). Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1983). New design approach for room-and-pillar coal mines in the U.S.A. In Proc. 5th
ISRM Congress on Rock Mechanics (E27-E36). Rotterdam: Balkema.
Bieniawski, Z.T. & Van Heerden, W.L. (1975). The significance of in situ tests on large rock specimens. In
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr, Vol. 12, 101-113.
Bieniawski, Z.T. (1967).CSIR Rept. MEG-598/D. South African Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research.
Brady, B.H.G. & Brown, E.T. (2004). Rock mechanics for underground mining. New York, Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Bunting, D. (1911). Chamber-Pillars in Deep Anthracite-Mines. Transactions A.I.M.E., Vol.. 42, 236–245.
Carpenter, R. C. (1901). Sibley. Journal of Engineering. Vol. XVI, No. 3, p. 105.
Coates, D. F. (1966). Pillar loading - a new hypotheses (Mines Branch Research Reports R168/170/180),
Ottawa: Canada Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
Coates, D. F. (1981). Rock mechanics principles. Ottawa: Mines Branch Monograph 874, Information
Canada.
Crouch, S. L. & Fairhurst, C. (1973). The Mechanics of Coal Mine Bumps (U. S. Bur. Mines Open File
Report 53/73). Pittsburgh: U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Diederichs, M.S., Kaiser P.K. & Eberhardt, E. (2004). Damage initiation and propagation in hard rock
during tunneling and the influence of near-face stress rotation. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 41, 785–812.
Elmo, D. and Stead, D. (2010). An integrated numerical modeling discrete fracture network approach
applied to the characterization of rock mass strength of naturally fractured pillars. Rock Mech.
Rock Eng., Vol. 43, 3–19.
Esterhuizen, G.S., Dolinar, D.R. & Ellenberger, J.L. (2010). Pillar strength in underground stone mines in
the United States. Int J. Rock Mech Mining Sci, doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2010.06.003.
Evans, I. & Pomeroy, C.D. (1958). The Strength of Coal in Uniaxial Compression. In Walton, W.H. (Ed.),
Mechanical properties of Non-metallic Brittle Material (pp. 8-11). Bullerworths: London.
Gaddy, F.L. (1956). A Study of the Ultimate Strength of Coal as Related to the Absolute Size of the
Cubical Specimens Tested. E.,-VPI, Vol. 49, No. 10.
Galvin, J.M., B. K. Hebblewhite, B.K. & Salamon, M.D.G. (1999). University of New South Wales coal
pillar strength determinations for Australian and South African mining conditions. In C. Mark, A.
Keith, A. Heasley, A.T. Iannacchione, & R.J. Tuchman (Eds.), (pp.63-71). Proceedings of the
Second International Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and Design. Pittsburgh: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Pennsylvania.
Greenwald, H. P., Howarth, H.C. & Hartmann, I. (1941). Progress Report: Experiments on Strength of
Small Pillars of Coal in the Pittsburgh Bed (U.S. Bureau of Mines RI 3575). Pittsburgh: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Pennsylvania.
Greenwald, H. P., Howarth, H.C. & Hartmann, I. (1939). Experiments on Strength of Small Pillars of Coal
in the Pittsburgh Bed (USBM Technical Paper 605): Pittsburgh: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Pennsylvania.
Hardy, M. P. & Agapito, F.T. (1975). Pillar Design in Underground Oil Shale Mines. In Proc. 16th U.S.
Symposium on Rock Mechanics (pp. 257–266). New York: American Soc. Civ. Eng.
Hedley, D.G.F. & Grant, F. (1972). Stope and Pillar Design for the Elliot Lake Uranium Mines. Bull Can
Inst Mining Metall, Vol. 65, No. 723, 37-44.
Hedley, D.G.F., Roxburgh, J.W. & Muppalaneni, S.N. (1984). A case history of rockbursts at Elliot Lake.
In Brawner (Ed), Stability in Underground Mining II, pp. 210-234. Vancover: AIME.
Hoek, E. & Brown, E.T. (1980). Underground excavations in rock. London: Inst Min Met, London.
Holland, C. T. (1964). The Strength of Coal in Mine Pillars. In Proc. of the Sixth Symposium on Rock
Mechanics (pp. 450-456). Rolla: University of Missouri.
Hudyma, M. R. (1988). Development of empirical rib pillar design criterion for open stope mining (M.Sc.
Thesis). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Hustrulid, W.A. (1976). A review of coal strength formulas. Rock Mech, Vol. 8:43-50.
Hustrulid, W.A. & Swanson, S.R. (1981). Field Verification of Coal pillar strength prediction formulas
(Bureau of Mines Contract H0242059). Pittsburgh: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Pennsylvania.
Johnson, Materials of Construction, 1897. Cited by Gomerman, Ref. 14.
Kaiser, P.K., Kim, B., Bewick, R.P. & Valley, B. (2011). Rock mass strength at depth and implications for
pillar design. Mining Technology. Vol 120 NO 3, 170 – 179.
Kendorski, F. (2007). Towards an Improved Stone Mine Pillar Design Methodology: Observations from a
Mistake. In 26th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining (pp. 298-303).
Krauland, N. & Soder, P.E. (1987). Determining pillar strength from pillar failure observations. Eng Min J.
Vol. 8:34240.
Kvapil, R. L., Beaza, J. R. & Flores, G. (1989). Block caving at EI Teniente mine, Chile. Instn. Min.
Metall. Vol.98(6): A43-56.
Logie, C.V. & Matheson, G.M. (1982). A critical review of the current state-of-the-art design of mine
pillars. In (C.O. Brawner Ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference of Stability of
Underground Mining (pp. 359-82). Vancouver: AIME, New York.
Lunder, P.J. & Pakalnis, R. (1997). Determination of the strength of hard-rock mine pillars. Bull Can Inst
Min Metall.Vol. 90:5125.
Madden, B.J. (1991). A re-assessment of coal pillar design. J. S.Afr. Instn. Min. Metall. Vol. 91(1), pp27-
37.
Madden, B.J., Canbulat, I. & York, G. (1998). Current South African coal pillar research. The Journal of
the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, January, 7 – 10.
Martin, C. & Maybee, W. G. (2000). The strength of hard-rock pillars. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol.
37(8), 1239–1246.
Martin, C.D. (1994). The strength of massive Lac du Bonnet granite around underground openings (Ph.D.
thesis), University of Manitoba, Manitoba,
Mathews, K.E., Hoek, E., Wyllie, D.C. & Stewart, S.B.V. (1981). Prediction of stable excavation spans at
depths below 1000 m in hard rock mines (CANMET Report, DSS Serial No. OSQ80-00081).
Ottawa: CANMET.
Maybee, W.G. (2000). Pillar design in hard brittle rocks (Master's thesis). School of Engineering,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada.
Mogi, M. (1966). Pressure dependence of rock strength and transition from brittle fracture to ductile flow.
Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute of Japan, Vol. 44, 215-32.
Obert, L. & Duvall, W.I. (1967). Rock mechanics and the design of structures in rock. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ozbay, M.U., Ryder, J.A. & Jager, A.J. (1995). The design of pillar systems as practiced in shallow hard-
rock tabular mines in South Africa. S. African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 7-18.
Pariseau, W.G. (1982). Shear stability of mine pillars in dipping seams. In (R.E. Goodman and F.E. Heuze,
(Eds.), Issues in Rock Mechanics (pp. 1077-1090). NY: SME.
Peng, S. S. (1978). Coal mine ground control. New York: John Wiley.
Potvin, Y., Hudyma, M.R. & Miller, H.D.S. (1989). Design guidelines for open stope support. Bull Can
Min Metall, Vol. 82:53-62.
Pratt, H.R., Black, A.D., Brown, W.S. & Brace, W.R. (1972). The effect of specimen size on the
mechanical properties of unjointed diorite. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Vol. 9, 513-529.
Rice, G. S. (1929. Tests of Sstrength of roof support used in anthracite mines in Pennsylvania. U.S. Bureau
of Mines Bulletin 303.
RocScience (2010). Phase2, ver. 7.0 finite element analysis for excavation (RocScience). Toronto:
RocScience.
Salamon, M.D.G. (1982). Unpublished report to Wankie Colliery.
Salamon, M.D.G. & Munro, A.H. (1967). A study of the strength of coal pillars. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall.
Vol. 68:55-67.
Sjoeberg, J. (1992). Failure modes and pillar behaviour in the Zinkgruvan mine. In Tillerson, J.A.,
Wawersik, W.R. (Eds), Proceedings of 33rd U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Sante Fe (pp.
491250): Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Stacey, T. R. & Page, C.H. (1986). Practical handbook for underground rock mechanics. Clausthal-
Zellerfeld, Germany: Trans Tech Publications.
Suorineni, F.T. & Kaiser, P.K. (2002). Characteristic acoustic properties of sulphide ores and host rocks.
In: Hammah R, Bawden WF, Curran J, Telsnicki M. (Eds), Proceedings of NARMS (p. 403–10).
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Suorineni, F.T., Chinassane, D.R. & Kaiser, P.K. (2009). A procedure for determining rock-type specific
brittle Hoek-Brown parameter “s”. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. Vol. 42:849–881.
van der Merwe, J.N. 1999. New strength formula for coal pillars in South Africa. . In C. Mark, A. Keith, A.
Heasley, A.T. Iannacchione, & R.J. Tuchman (Eds.), (pp.163-171). Proceedings of the Second
International Workshop on Coal Pillar Mechanics and Design. Pittsburgh: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Pennsylvania.
Vicat, L. J. (1833). Researches on physical phenomena which precede and accompany rupture or
deformation of a certain class of solids. Ann. Ponts et Chauss, Part 11.
Von Kimmelmann, M.R., Hyde, B. & Madgwick, R.J. (1984). The use of computer applications at BCL
Limited in planning pillar extraction and design of mining layouts. In Brown, E.T., Hudson, J.A.
(Eds). Proceedings of ISRM Symposium: Design and Performance of Underground Excavations
(p. 53-63). London: British Geotechnical Society.
Von Unrug, K.F. (1991). Reliability of pillar design in coal mines based upon existing state of the art. In
Reliability Production Control in Coal Mines (pp. 285 - 291). Wollongong: University of
Wollongong.
Wagner, H. (1980). Pillar design in coal mines. J S Afr. Inst Min Metall, pp. 37-45.
Wagner, H. (1974). Determination of the complete load deformation characteristics of coal pillars. In Proc.
3rd Int. Congr. Rock Mech. (pp. 1076-81). Denver: ISRM.
Wang, F.D. (1977). In situ coal pillar strength study. In Proceedings of the 18th Symposium on Rock
Mechanic, pp. 2B5-1.
Wardell, K. & Partners (1976). Guidelines for mining near surface waters (U.S. Bureau of Mines -
Contract No. H0252021, Phase 11). Pittsburgh: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Pennsylvania.
Watson, B.P., Kuiipers, J.S. & Stacey, T.R. (2010). Design of Merensky Reef crush pillars. The Journal of
The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 110, 581 – 591.
Wilson, A.H . (1972). An hypothesis concerning pillar stability, Vol. 131(141):409-417.