Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003

LOW WALL INSTABILITIES IN COAL MINES IN INDONESIA

FROM A GEOTECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE
Simon Ballantyne, David Nolan and Muliadi Merry
Golder Associates, Jakarta

ABSTRACT
Indonesian coal mines are at a critical stage of development. There are
large commercial and political pressures to extend existing mines to greater
depths than originally planned, so as to extend their life because of the difficulty
of starting up new operations. Deepening of mines, particularly those mines
with steeply dipping seams presents significant geotechnical and
hydrogeological challenges. Already there have been low wall failures, which
have had a serious impact on production in a number of mines in Kalimantan.
This paper addresses the issues which can lead to low wall failure by first
setting out relevant investigation methods to identify the failure triggers.
Alternative design methods to accommodate the potential failure mechanisms
are considered, and practical ways of implementing the design requirements
are then discussed. Groundwater pressures and both intact rock and rock
interface strength are key elements in low wall stability. Methods of quantifying
and monitoring these parameters are covered.
1.

INTRODUCTION

This paper discusses the potential reasons for coal mine low wall
instability and outlines how the probability of instability can be reduced, which
may allow established coal mines to be developed to greater depths.
Due to the difficulty of starting up new operations, many coal mines in
Indonesia are required to extend their existing mines deeper than originally
planned in order to achieve coal production targets. With greater depths,
geotechnical properties resisting instability tend to remain unchanged, while
properties driving instability only increase. By measuring the increase and
knowing the factors resisting instability, strategies for balancing the resulting
forces can be developed and transformed into practical ways of keeping the low
way stable.
Low wall failure represents a critical hazard that mines often overlook.
As many as 4 mines in Kalimantan have experienced significant low wall
problems since 2002.
This paper discusses both the geotechnical and hydrogeological
conditions that can combine to create the hazard of low wall failure.
The paper then looks at methods of evaluating the ground conditions and
emphasises the critical step that is often missed in mine geotechnics;
1

Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003

translating data into practical ways of controlling risk or development costs in

the coal mine.
2. WHY LOW WALL FAILURES HAPPEN
2.1. Mechanisms of Failure
The practical control of potential low wall failure is dependant on either
reducing the driving forces, or increasing resisting forces. But what forces? To
determine these we need to consider possible failure mechanisms
Low wall failures in Kalimantan have been recorded on slopes as flat as
28 degrees from horisontal and at wall heights of only 50 to 60 m in the same
pit where the highwall is standing at twice the inclination. High walls in
Kalimantan are often developed at overall slopes of 50 to 60 degrees from
horisontal and over heights in the order of 150 m.
Most coal measure rocks in Kalimantan are layered sequences of low
strength mudstones, often weakly cemented sandstones and medium strength
coal. Sandstones are sometimes well cemented and sometimes distributed as
channel deposits cut through the other layered rocks. In general, faulting is low
in Kalimantan and the rock mass is only slightly to moderately fractured.
The strength of the coal measure rock mass is usually higher in the
direction across bedding compared with in the direction parallel with bedding.
The permeability of the coal measure rock mass is usually far greater
along the layering than across it. This anisotropy means that highwalls tend to
de-water naturally (as they are cut across the bedding), while low walls do not.
The low wall is analogous to a retaining wall without drain holes.
Because the low wall is usually cut parallel to rock layering, and the
highwall is cut across the layering, the reason for poor stability conditions on
low walls before highwalls is due to 2 main factors:
1) Pore water cannot drain freely into the mine excavation across the
mudstone layers in the low wall. The elevated pore water pressures can
exert massive forces against low permeability layers parallel to the low wall
and literally move the layer upwards due to buoyancy. The water pressures
also act to reduce the friction component of shear strength along potential
failure surfaces. Highwalls drain more freely and pressures are lower.
2) The larger part of the failure path within the low wall can be developed
parallel to the layering in the rock which is the weak direction. Highwall
failures mostly cut across the layering, presenting larger resistance to
movement.
The slide mechanism may likely comprise one of two possible
mechanisms (refer Figures 1 and 2 below):
1)
Hydraulic lifting of the relatively impermeable mudstone layer off more
permeable sandstone, development of layer parallel stresses in the
mudstone and shear at the toe of the mudstone (Figure 1).
2)
Hydraulic lifting of the relatively impermeable mudstone layer off the
more permeable massive sandstone, buckling failure of the mudstone layer,
2

Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003

and then shear failure of the remaining mudstone layer due to removal of toe
support (Figure 2).
The resistance to lift off offered by the mudstone layer would be
dependent on the thickness and density of the mudstone layer and the tensile
strength between the mudstone and the underlying sandstones. Once lift off
had occurred, the entire length of the mudstone layer would develop stresses
parallel to the inclination of the layer as self load would only be supported along
the inclined layer and into the pit floor.

Mudstone Layer

Figure 1
Failure Sequence Possibility 1
1. Hydraulic lift off (dotted arrows)
2. Layer parallel stresses increase in
the mudstone (dashed arrow)
3. Stresses cause shear failure at the
most highly stressed zone the toe
breakout (solid arrow)

Mudstone Layer

Figure 2
Failure Sequence Possibility 2
1. Hydraulic pressure (dotted arrows)
2. Buckling failure of the mudstone layer
(line showing exaggerated
deformation profile).
3. Shear failure of the mudstone due to
removal of toe support (solid arrow).

Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003

2.2. Forces Involved

The stability of the low wall is in a state of balance between the driving
forces and the resisting forces these are outlined below:
Forces driving low wall failure

Forces resisting low wall failure

Force derived from groundwater

pressure

Force available from adhesion

between layering.

Force from the component of the

weight of the low wall acting in the
downslope direction (dependant on
height and inclination of low wall).

Force from the component of the

weight of the low wall acting across
the layering (dependant on height
and inclination).
Force developed from shear
resistance between layers and
across layers (at breakout areas in
toe)

These forces are discussed below:

Groundwater pressures
Depending on the rock material and mass permeability, natural drainage
may occur within the low wall as the pit floor becomes deeper, and
consequently, the water pressures within the low wall will be lowered.
If depressurisation by mining alone does not occur, then the ratio between
overburden pressure available in the low wall and water pressure within the low
wall increases. Simplistically, when this ratio drops below 1, failure will occur.
Therefore, there is some critical ratio between thickness of the coal
measure rocks and the height of elevated water from the floor of the pit. The
overburden pressure that needs to be considered is related to the depth to
impermeable layers within the low wall. The component of weight represented
by this depth that acts across (normal to) the layering develops the pressure
that needs to balance the water pressure.
Both the confining pressure from the overburden and the water pressure
are simple parameters to calculate and measure in the coal mine.
Rock interface strength
For groundwater pressures to lift off low wall layers due to buoyancy
alone, the groundwater pressure must first overcome the tensile strength
between layers. Based on simple Mohr-Columb theory, the force required to do
this is represented by the cohesion available between the layers.
4

Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003

Sandstones in Kalimantan pits are often only weakly cemented and

strengths in tension in the order of only 1 or 2 kPa.
Sheared surfaces are often evident between layers in coal measure
rocks in Kalimantan and also represent very low strengths in lift off mechanisms
of separation.
The shear strength at the interface between layers cannot be afforded
large components due to cohesion and should be modeled using a fairly straight
failure envelope.
Rock interface strength can be easily measured in the mine.
Rock strength in breakout areas (across bedding)
Low wall failures seem kinematically attracted to the direction parallel
with bedding, although must break out through the bedding at some stage so
that the failure surface can daylight into the pit.
The resistance to failure travelling across the layering in the rock mass is
dependent on the rock material strength in this direction as well as any affect
from structure within the rock mass.
In many mines in Kalimantan, two joint sets exist normal to the layering
and form a trelice pattern when the layers are viewed flat. In the low wall
configuration, these joints are inclined so that they dip back into the wall. If
breakout failure in the low wall were to exploit these joints, then initial
displacement would need to be upwards.
Faulting parallel to these joints sets is apparent in some mines in
Kalimantan and may represent a lower strength and more persistent surface for
failure breakout.
At least 2 mines in kalimantan show an upwards movement of coal at the
toe of low wall areas that have moved. It seems possible therefore, that the
rock mass strength is influenced by these joints and that these represent paths
of lower resistance (despite the unfavorable kinematics) compared with
breakout through intact rock mass.
Typical mudstone rocks in Kalimantan are in the order of from 1 to 3 MPa
in Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS). Sandstones vary from having no
compressive strength to around 15 MPa in areas of high cementation. Coal
material is around 15 to 30 MPa, although is typically cleated, which
significantly reduces available mass strengths.
Rock strength across the bedding can be measured in the mine.
3.

HOW CAN WE STOP LOW WALL FAILURES FROM HAPPENING?

3.1. Coordination
If the groundwater pressure, overburden pressure, layer interface
strength and rock strength are all easy to measure, and most coal mines do
some form of geotechnical investigation, then why do low wall failures occur?

Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003

The answer is probably due to the way in which the existing investigation
data is analysed and used to come up with recommendations that can be
incorporated practically into mine design and operation.
Often, a mines idea of geotechnical investigation is to drill a couple of
holes and take some samples to send to a lab. Basing a mine design on this
information is risky business either the mine will be developed conservatively,
or it will fall down and there is only a fine line in between.
In many cases, mine design is then left to the contractor, who will
develop a feel for the ground and optimise the stripping ratio based on that feel.
This approach is better than taking 2 samples for UCS tests.
The best approach may be to combine a real investigation and analyses
program with practical feedback from the contractor during mining. Truly a mind
boggling scenario in Indonesia or any country.
3.2. Ground Investigation
The ground investigation should be staged to remain cost sensitive to the
early (no capital) stage of development. Logging of existing core to get a feel
for rock mass and material strengths may be a good start. Some preliminary
analyses based on the existing geological model is also a fast and low cost
(high return) task that should be carried out at the Pre-Feasibility Stage. As a
result of these analyses it is critical to define potential mechanisms of failure.
These are easy to define and will probably involve almost every one in the
book. At least they are being addressed and start to reduce the list of
surprises at late stages of development.
At the Feasibility stage, specific geotechnical drilling should be carried
out. No matter how costly, the investigation team should push for full coring
the only substitute to this is perhaps a fully exposed highwall although even
then the low wall materials cant be seen. Against a groundswell of opposition,
the coring should continue below the coal and well into the footwall. A good
guide is to extend the hole to half the proposed depth of the pit below the
footwall (this is roughly a critical depth at which groundwater pressures may
overcome overburden pressures).
The objective of the coring is to characterise the various layers (and
variation in layers) in terms of geotechnical properties. Weak layers or
interfaces need to be identified, structure needs to be identified and mapped
out. Permeability of the rock mass in all directions is critical. For this reason
the development of a 3D model within the footwall can often be worthwhile.
The objective of the drilling is not to make a hole it is so that the core
can be characterised and documented in a language that can be interpreted by
the engineer. Only then can the information gained from the drilling be used to
help keep the mine from falling in. The word drilling should really be replaced
by the word logging when used in relation to geotechnical investigations.
Samples should also be taken from diamond core for later laboratory
testing. these samples should be representative of layers that can be mapped
out in section (and along the pit) and more than one per unit should be taken.

Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003

the samples must be removed from the splits immediately and protected to
maintain original conditions.
Laboratory testing should comprise determination of bulk density,
unconfined compressive strength and perhaps some direct shear testing along
existing discontinuities within the core.
Real analyses can begin at this stage. Use of anisotropic modeling,
Hoek-Brown rock strength parameters and piezometric heads in specific layers
can avoid over-conservative results. Pit design parameters should be provided
as relationships between probability of failure and slope angle / height.
Enough drilling should have been carried out by the Bankable feasibility
stage to provide a high level of confidence to be developed in the modeling.
Analyses should be evolved to a stage to a high level of confidence in design.
During production, inpit mapping should be maintained by experienced
geotechnical personnel. Monitoring for cracking must be carried out. Good
coordination should exist between the mining contractor, the geotechnical
personnel and the pit designer.
If failures occur, then these should be used to calibrate existing models
and should provide a basis for possible pit design revision or mine sequencing
revision.
A design for ground investigation and coordination is provided in the
attached table.
3.3. Practical Solutions for Low Wall Problems
Knowing the factors that cause low wall failures is not enough to stop
them. In order to reduce the risk of low wall problems, we need to find practical
ways of increasing resisting forces and decreasing driving forces. If the opposite
happens, then stability is reduced.
Almost invariably the low wall will be developed parallel with the bedding.
If the bedding is undercut, then layer parallel stresses are relieved and shear
resistances along the layer interface are tested against the downslope weight of
the block. In Kalimantan (as in any place), undercutting of layers in the low wall
does happen. If this cut is not taken back up to the crest, then the layer will
often slide.
Perhaps the simplest and most cost effective method of decreasing
factors that cause sliding is to provide drainage to the low wall. Drilling into the
wall is becoming more popular in Kalimantan and high groundwater pressures
are nearly always found in the floor. Depressurisation can offer a much reduced
cost option to unloading options however, how many and how deep? These
questions can be predicted from first principals during feasibility level work, but
really need to be reassessed based on the results of measurements made
during mining.
Piezometers need to be installed behind the footwall and far enough
back from the crest of the footwall to demonstrate that water pressures behind
the base of the low wall are less than available overburden pressures left in the
low wall (much, much less).

Prosiding Seminar Sehari Kemantapan Lereng di Pertambangan Indonesia III, Bandung, 16 Juni 2003

There is no substitute for piezometer installations by not installing

these there can be no confirmation that the depressurisation work is having any
affect. It may be that drain holes are going unnecessarily deep worse still, not
deep enough.
There is optimisation to be achieved with drilling costs versus borehole
diameter. The inclination of the drilling is most efficient when orientated
perpendicular to the layering,
Often a pattern of drain holes in the footwall will cause pressures to
bleed out over time. Typical rates are in the order of from 1 to 4 m of head loss
per week. Therefore, the dewatering schedule should be combined with the
mining schedule to optimise the ratio between residual pressure head and
overburden pressure. If the mining happens at a vertical rate greater than the
rate of depressurisation, then the level of stability is lowered.
Unfortunately, mine sequencing is often regarded as sacred and totally
inflexible. It must be, this is where the money comes from. However, the winwin solution between low wall stability and production must be found to ensure
the longevity of the mine and the protection of the resource.
6.

CONCLUSION

Both geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions behind the low wall are
the key elements in low wall stability. Low wall stability is primarily due to
elevated groundwater pressures overcoming the combination of overburden
pressure, adhesion between rock layers and a break out resistance at the toe of
the low wall. These elements are in a balance that swings towards failure as
the depth of the pit increases. The elements are simple to quantify through a
process of experienced-based visual inspection, field investigations and
laboratory testing programs.
Geotechnical analyses can model the stability balance with depth and
factors can be changed in an effort to swing the balance away from instability.
The results of the geotechnical analyses must be turned into practical
recommendations that the designer can apply and the contractor can carry out
before low wall stability can be increased.
7.

REFERENCES

1. Bieniawski, Z. T. 1984. Rock Mechanics Design in Mining and Tunneling. A.

A. Balkema, Boston.
2. Cavers, D. S. 1981. Simple Methods to Analyse Buckling of Rock Slopes.
Rock Mechanics 14, New York.
3. Golder Associates 2002. Low Wall Stability Review. Jakarta (unpublished
report).
4. Golder Associates 2003. Low Wall Stability Assessment. Jakarta
(unpublished report).
5. Goodman, R. E. 1976. Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous
Rocks. Westing Publishing, San Francisco.
8