Journals →  Gornyi Zhurnal →  2023 →  #6 →  Back

ArticleName Initial data analysis in geomechanical modeling of Skalisty–Gluboky Mine within the limits of high-grade ore body S-6 of Oktyabrsky deposit
ArticleAuthor Soluyanov N. O., Tsymbalov A. A., Kuzmin S. V., Davydov A. A.

NorNickel Technical Services LLC, Saint-Petersburg, Russia:

N. O. Soluyanov, Chief Geomechanic,


NorNickels’ Polar Division, Norilsk, Russia:
A. A. Tsymbalov, Deputy Director of Mining Practice


Siberian Coal Energy Company, Moscow, Russia:
S. V. Kuzmin, Research Manager in Geomechanics, Mine Planning Directorate, Candidate of Engineering Sciences


NN Development LLC, Moscow, Russia:
A. A. Davydov, Head of Skalisty Mine Integrated Design and Development Office


A geomechanical model of a mineral deposit is a block model including the data on lithology, strength properties and geomechanical characteristics of rock mass. The source information of modeling is the rock mass structure and lithology characteristics, the core description and lab-scale testing of rock samples. At the stage of the source data analysis, it is important to interpret the input data correctly toward the proper rock mass quality rating, to delineate geomechanical domains within a mine field and to determine the weighted values of rock mass properties within the limits of the domains. The proposed joint alteration number algorithm and dendrogram of correlation between the Barton and Bieniawski systems of rock mass classification allow the correct and unambiguous interpretation of the core analysis data for the assessment of the basic properties of rock mass. The method of the weighted categories in delineation of geomechanical domains enables composing core sampling intervals into larger intervals, which makes it possible to delineate large and solid and geomechanically consistent areas in rock mass while preserving the statistical distribution of geomechanical characteristics within the limits of the delineated domains for the purposes of the probabilistic and variographic analysis. The nonlinear weighted evaluation procedure for the equivalent values of a rating allows finding the most representative value in a geomechanical domain and provides a reliable specifics of the stability characteristic of rock mass.
The authors wish to appreciate participation of the members of the Center for Geodynamic Safety, NorNickel’s Polar Division in these studies, namely, V. P. Marusyuk, Director, M. P. Sergunin, Head of a department, and Leading Specialists A. A. Bazin and A. K. Ustinov.

keywords Geomechanical model, rock mass quality ratings, geomechanical domain, geomechanical assessment procedure, rock mass jointing, Hoek–Brown criterion

1. Using the Q-system. Rock Mass classification and support design : Handbook. Oslo : NGI, 2015. 54 p.
2. Bieniawski Z. T. Engineering Classification of Jointed Rock Masses. Transactions of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers. 1973. Vol. 15, No. 12. pp. 335–344.
3. Ester M., Kriegel H.-P., Sander J., Xiaowei Xu. A Density-Based Algorithm for Discovering Clusters in Large Spatial Databases with Noise. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Menlo Park : AAAI Press, 1996. pp. 226–231.
4. Schubert E., Sander J., Ester M., Kriegel H.-P., Xiaowei Xu. DBSCAN Revisited, Revisited: Why and How You Should (Still) Use DBSCAN. ACM Transactions on Database Systems. 2017. Vol. 42, No. 3. DOI: 10.1145/3068335
5. Hoek E., Carter T. G., Diederichs M. S. Quantification of the Geological Strength Index Chart. 47th U.S. Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium. San Francisco, 2013.
6. Hutchinson D. J., Diederichs M. S. Cablebolting in Underground Mines. Vancouver : BiTech Publishers Ltd., 1996. 416 p.
7. Hoek E., Brown E. T. Empirical Strength Criterion for Rock Masses. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. 1990. Vol. 106. pp. 1013–1035.
8. Hoek E., Carranza-Torres C., Corkum B. Hoek–Brown failure criterion—2002 Edition. Mining and Tunnelling Innovation and Opportunity : Proceedings of the 5th North American Rock Mechanics Symposium and the 17th Tunnelling Association of Canada Conference. Toronto : University of Toronto, 2002. Vol. 1. pp. 267–273.
9. Biryuchev I. V., Makarov A. B., Usov A. A. Geomechanical model of underground mine. Part I. Creation. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2020. No. 1. pp. 42–48. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2020.01.08
10. Biryuchev I. V., Makarov A. B., Usov A. A. Geomechanical model of underground mine. Part II. Application. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2020. No. 2. pp. 35–44. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2020.02.04
11. Hoek E., Brown E. T. The Hoek–Brown failure criterion and GSI—2018 edition. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. 2019. Vol. 11, No. 3. pp. 445–463.
12. Jianping Zuo, Jiayi Shen. The Hoek–Brown Failure criterion – From theory to application. Singapore : Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd., 2020. 225 p.
13. Hossein Rafiei Renani, Ming Cai. Forty-Year Review of the Hoek–Brown Failure Criterion for Jointed Rock Masses. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering. 2022. Vol. 55, Iss. 1. pp. 439–461.
14. Marysyuk V. P., Sabyanin G. V., Andreev A. A., Vasiliev D. A. Stress assessment in deeplevel stoping in Talnakh mines. Gornyi Zhurnal. 2020. No. 6. pp. 17–22. DOI: 10.17580/gzh.2020.06.02
15. Gospodarikov A. P., Trofimov A. V., Kirkin A. P. Evaluation of deformation characteristics of brittle rocks beyond the limit of strength in the mode of uniaxial servohydraulic loading. Journal of Mining Institute. 2022. Vol. 256. pp. 539–548. DOI: 10.31897/PMI.2022.87
16. Moldovan D. V., Chernobay V. I., Sokolov S. T., Bazhenova A. V. Design concepts for explosion products locking in chamber. GIAB. 2022. No. 6-2. pp. 5–17.
17. Laubscher D. H. A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock mass in mine design. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 1990. Vol. 90, No. 10. pp. 257–273.
18. Read J., Stacey P. Guidelines for open pit slope design. Collingwood : CSIRO Publishing, 2009. 487 p.

Language of full-text russian
Full content Buy