Chapter 01 Introduction

1-1
J KMRC/Itasca/International Caving Study (ICS)

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS
1.1.1 General features
The underground mining of minerals involves three general sets of activities:
the development of physical access to the mineralised zone;
the extraction of the ore from the enclosing rock mass; and
the transport of the ore to processing facilities on the mine surface.

This general process requires the development of three main types of underground excavation:
permanent access and service openings or components of the mine infrastructure;
stope access and service openings, or stope development; and
ore sources or stopes through which the ore is removed from its in situ setting.

The set of stopes generated during ore extraction by underground mass mining methods usually
constitute the largest excavations formed during the overall mining process. This means that their zones
of influence are relatively large compared to those of virtually all other mine openings (Brady and
Brown, 1993). The method by which the stopes are supported in order to maintain their fitness for
purpose then becomes a major consideration in mining method selection and mine design. Indeed, it is
usually on the basis of whether or not stopes are supported, and if so how, that underground mining
methods are classified (eg Hamrin, 1982).

1.1.2 Classification of underground mining methods
Most systems of classifying underground mining methods are based on methods of supporting the
stopes. As Rossouw and Fourie (1996) have argued, the classification of underground mining methods
is not as straightforward as might be supposed. In order to overcome some of the perceived difficulties
with existing systems, they proposed a three-dimensional presentation which takes into account three
forms of support - natural (pillars), artificial (fill) and none (caving). However, Roussow and Fouries
presentation is quite complex and has not found widespread use. The essential features to be considered
1-2 Chapter 1 - Introduction

are the relations between the method of working, the key orebody properties defining the applicability
of that method and the country rock mass properties that are essential to sustain the method (Brady and
Brown, 1993).

Figure 1.1 shows one version of a common approach to underground mining method classification. Not
all methods of mining currently employed are shown on this diagram (eg bench stoping) but they could
be added if required. The unsupported or caving methods of mining seek to induce mass failure of, and
large displacements in, the country rock which will necessarily behave as a discontinuum. At the other
end of the spectrum, the supported methods seek to maintain the integrity and elastic response of the
country rock and to strictly limit its displacement.

Figure 1.1 Classification of underground mining methods
(Brady and Brown, 1993)

As shown in Figure 1.1, the unsupported or caving methods of mining include block (and panel) caving,
sublevel caving and longwall methods. In the longwall method applied to coal mining, the mineral
(coal) is extracted mechanically and the overlying strata cave under the influence of redistributed
stresses and gravitational forces. The longwall methods used to mine the deep, flat dipping, tabular
gold reefs in South Africa are sometimes classified as caving methods (eg Brady and Brown, 1983)
although the mechanism by which the overlying rock displaces to fill the void created by the extraction
of the ore usually involves elastic displacement of the rock on the release of extremely high stresses
rather than, or as well as, caving per se. In sublevel caving methods, the ore is drilled and blasted and
drawn following which the surrounding waste rock caves naturally. In the block and panel caving
methods with which this report is concerned, both the ore and the overlying rock cave under the
influence of gravity and the redistributed in situ stresses once the orebody has been undercut. In these
methods, in particular, the caving and caved ore and waste rock behave as discontinuous materials.
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1-3

1.2 BLOCK AND PANEL CAVING
1.2.1 Outline of the method
Figure 1.2 illustrates the general features of the block caving method. In this method, the full orebody
or an approximately equidimensional block of ore is undercut fully to initiate caving. The undercut
zone is drilled and blasted progressively and some broken ore is drawn off to create a void into which
initial caving of the overlying ore can take place. As more broken ore is drawn progressively following
cave initiation, the cave propagates upwards through the orebody or block until the overlying rock also
caves and surface subsidence occurs. The mechanisms by which caving takes place under the influence
of redistributed stresses and/or gravity will be outlined in Section 1.2.2.

Figure 1.2 General illustration of the block caving method
(Hamrin, 1982)

The broken ore is removed through the production or extraction level developed below the undercut
level and connected to it by drawbells through which the ore gravitates to drawpoints on the extraction
level. In most current block caving operations, the broken ore is removed from the drawpoints by Load-
Haul-Dump (LHD) vehicles although some still use the more traditional gravity - based grizzly or
slusher systems as discussed in Section 1.2.3. From the extraction level, the ore is transported to the
haulage level and out of the mine, sometimes following underground crushing.


Block caving may be used in massive orebodies which have large, regular footprints and either dip
steeply or are of large vertical extent. It is a low cost mining method which is capable of automation to
produce an underground rock factory (eg Tota, 1997). However, it is capital intensive requiring
considerable investment in infrastructure and development before production can commence.
Historically, block caving was used for massive, low strength and usually low grade orebodies which
produced fine fragmentation (Lewis and Clark, 1964). Where mining is to be mechanised, the low
strength of the rock mass can place limitations on the practicable sizes of the extraction level
excavations. Furthermore, finely fragmented ore can chimney when drawn requiring the drawbells to
be closely spaced so that undrawn pillars of broken ore do not form (Ward, 1981). These factors
place limitations on the sizes of the equipment that can be used. Accordingly, there is now a tendency
for the method to be used in stronger orebodies which produce coarser fragmentation than did the
traditional applications of the method. This enables more widely spaced drawpoints and larger
equipment to be used.

Panel caving and other variants of the general method such as inclined drawpoint caving (Laubscher
and Esterhuizen, 1994) and front caving, operate on the same principles as block caving. In panel
caving, the orebody or mining block is not undercut fully initially but, rather, a panel or strip of the
orebody is undercut and allowed to cave. Development, undercutting and mining of the subsequent
panels then follow some distance behind the first panel as illustrated in Figure 1.3. As a result, the cave
front moves across the block or orebody at a constant angle to the direction of advance of the undercut.
Examples of the application of this method will be given in Section 1.3 below.

Figure 1.3 Mechanised panel caving, Henderson Mine
(Doepken, 1982)


Many of the larger orebodies being mined by the caving method in fact use panel caving although the
more generic term block caving may sometimes be used to describe them. Generally in this report, the
term block caving will be used as a generic rather than as a specific term so that the discussion will
usually apply to panel caving as well.

1.2.2 Basic caving mechanics
It must be expected that any unsupported rock mass will cave if it is undercut to a sufficient extent. As
has been noted earlier, caving occurs as a result of two major influences gravity and the stresses
induced in the crown or back of the undercut or cave. The mechanisms by which caving occurs will
depend on the relationships between the induced stresses, the strength of the rock mass and the
geometry and strengths of the discontinuities in the rock mass. Much accumulated experience supports
the contention of Kendorski (1978) that the successful initiation and propagation of caving requires the
presence of a well-developed, low-dip discontinuity set. The structure most favourable for caving has
been found to be one in which a low-dip discontinuity set is augmented by two steeply dipping sets
which provide conditions suitable for the vertical displacement of blocks of rock (eg Mahtab et al,
1973).

If the compressive tangential stresses induced in the crown of the undercut or cave are low, or tend to be
tensile, blocks of rock may become free to fall under the influence of gravity or to slide on inclined
discontinuities. These conditions may occur when the horizontal in situ stresses are low or where
boundary slots or previous mining have relieved the stresses or redistributed them away from the block
or panel being mined. Even under these circumstances, it is sometimes possible for a self-supporting
arch to develop in the crown of the cave, especially if an appropriate draw control strategy is not in
place.

Some of the mechanisms by which caving and arching may occur under these low lateral stress
conditions are illustrated by the simple and idealised distinct element simulation shown in Figure 1.4.
Each pair of drawings in Figure 1.4 represent the geometric configuration of the blocks and the
interblock contact force vectors at different stages in the progressive caving of the mass. Note that two
apparently independent arches form where high levels of inter-block force traverse the mass. The upper
arch is stronger and is sustained longer than the lower arch but both fail eventually by slip at the rigid
abutments.


Figure 1.4 Idealised distinct element simulation of block caving
(after Voegele et al, 1978)

At the other extreme, when the induced tangential stresses are high compared with the compressive and
shear strengths of the rock mass and the shear strengths of the discontinuities, failure may occur at or
near the boundary of the rock mass and blocks or slabs of rock may become free to fall under the
influence of gravity. Under these circumstances, the dominant mechanisms of failure are brittle fracture
of the intact rock and slip on discontinuities, especially those that are flat dipping (eg Heslop and
Laubscher, 1981). This form of caving is sometimes referred to as stress caving.


Duplancic and Brady (1999) used a seismic monitoring system to study the early stages of caving at the
Northparkes Mine, New South Wales, Australia. From the data collected and analysed, they developed
the conceptual model of caving for this case shown in Figure 1.5. The model contains five regions
described by Duplancic and Brady (1999) in the following terms:

1. Caved zone. This region consists of rock blocks which have fallen from the cave back. Material in
the caved zone provides support to the walls of the cave.

2. Air gap. During continuous caving, the height of the air gap is a function of the extraction rate of
the material from the caved zone.

3. Zone of discontinuous deformation. This region no longer provides support to the overlying rock
mass. Large-scale displacements of rock occur in this area, which is where disintegration of the
rock mass occurs. No seismicity is recorded from within this region. The zone was estimated to
extend 15m outside the boundary of the cave crown.

4. Seismogenic zone. An active seismic front occurs due to slip on joints and brittle failure of rock.
This behaviour is due to changing stress conditions caused by the advancing undercut and progress
of the cave.

5. Surrounding rock mass. Elastic deformation occurs in the rock mass ahead of the seismic front
and surrounding the cave.

Figure 1.5 Conceptual model of caving
(Duplancic and Brady, 1999)


Duplancic and Bradys observations at Northparkes confirm the previous general finding that for
boundary collapse to occur, a flat lying discontinuity set is required to act as a release mechanism.

A third general case must be considered. If the horizontal in situ stresses and the tangential stresses
induced in the crown of the undercut or cave are high enough to develop clamping forces which inhibit
gravity-induced caving, but are not high compared with the compressive strength of the rock mass,
caving may be inhibited and a stable arch may develop. Under these circumstances, some form of cave
induction may be required to weaken the rock mass, relieve the tangential stresses or induce slip on
discontinuities (eg Kendrick, 1970; van As and J effrey, 2000).

A different mechanism from those discussed so far is involved in subsidence caving in which a large
mass of rock subsides rapidly as a result of shear failure on the vertical or near-vertical boundaries of a
block. For this to occur the normal (horizontal) stresses developed on the vertical boundaries of the
block, or the shear strength of the interface, must be so low that the total shear resistance developed is
unable to resist the vertical force due to the weight of the block. For such a failure to have catastrophic
consequences, there would need to exist a large mined-out void into which the caving mass could fall.
This circumstance would not arise in a block or panel cave if the draw control strategy used did not
allow a significant air gap to develop below the cave back.

Once continuous caving has been initiated, the rate of production from the block or panel will depend
on the rate at which the cave propagates following draw and the creation of a small air void into which
caved material may fall. In practice this rate of caving will depend on the rate of undercutting, the
quality of the rock mass and the magnitude of the induced stresses. As will be discussed in Chapter 5,
the direction of undercutting with respect to the in situ stress orientation is also important.

Estimated caving rates for a number of mines are summarised Table 1.1.

Table 1.1 Estimated caving rates

Operation Quoted Rate of Caving (mm per day)
CODELCO El Teniente Sub 6 panel cave 200 to 300
CODELCO Esmeralda panel cave 125
De Beers Koffiefontein (TKB Kimberlite) 200 to 400
De Beers Premier Mine (TKB Kimberlite) 100 to 1200
De Beers Premier Mine (HYB Kimberlite) 60 to 250
Henderson Mine 270
Northparkes E26 Lift 1 block cave 110 to 380 (pre inducement)



Under steady-state production conditions, the average rate of draw will be a function of the rate of
natural caving and the bulking factor of the caved ore. Drawing of the difference between the in situ
volume following each caving episode will ensure that cave propagation is controlled and an excessive
air-gap does not develop.

1.2.3 History of Block Caving
The precursor of the modern block caving method of mining was developed in the iron ore mines of the
Menominee Ranges, Michigan, USA in the late nineteenth century. The Pewabic Mine was the first to
use a form of block caving from which other methods developed (Peele, 1941). In the Pewabic method,
blocks of ore approximately 60-75 m long, 30-40 m high and the full width of the deposit (60 m) were
caved in one operation. An unusual feature of the method from a modern perspective is the fact that the
ore was handled by shovelling in drifts driven and kept open within the caved mass (Peele, 1941).

Variations of the Pewabic method were soon developed at other iron ore mines in Michigan and from
the early part of the twentieth century in the copper mines in western USA. Before evolving to the use
of full block caving, many mines initially used combined methods involving, for example, shrinkage
stoping and caving methods for the subsequent mining of the pillars between the primary stopes. Peele
(1941) gives several examples of these combined methods.

A good example of the early application of a full block caving method is provided by the Miami Copper
Companys mine in Arizona. Descriptions provided by Peele (1941) and Lewis and Clark (1964), and
the diagram shown in Figure 1.6, are based on a paper by McLennan (1930). The flat lying orebody of
considerable lateral extent varied in thickness to more than 60 m and was over- and under-lain by waste.
Early mining was by top-slicing but this was replaced by shrinkage stoping with sub-level caving of the
pillars and, in the 1920s, by block caving. Initially, caving practice involved undercutting and caving
the orebody across its entire width of 150-200 m, starting at one end and retreating along the length of
the orebody. This approach was unsuccessful and later practice was to cave and draw alternate 45m
wide panels across the entire orebody. When the waste rock had settled into the original panels and
compacted, the pillar panels were caved. This method was satisfactory for moderate thicknesses of ore
averaging 60 m but was modified to true block caving where thicknesses were 90 m or more.



Figure 1.6 Block caving, Miami Mine
(Lewis and Clark, 1964)

The original caving blocks of the thicker ore were 45 by 90 m in plan as shown in Figure 1.6.
Experience showed that 45 m square blocks gave better results and this block size became the standard.
The order of mining was such that a block being mined would be entirely surrounded by either solid ore
or mined-out blocks in which the capping had settled until it was quite compact (Lewis and Clark,
1964). As shown in Figure 1.6, the Miami mine used a gravity system of ore transfer to the haulage
level incorporating grizzlies.

By the 1920s and 30s, block caving methods were being used in a wide range of mines exploiting
massive, weak orebodies. During this period, the method was introduced, for example, at the King Mine
which mined asbestos in Quebec, Canada, the Climax Mine mining molybdenum in Colorado, USA and
the copper mines in Chile (Peele, 1941).

South Africas first kimberlite diamond pipe was discovered at Kimberley in 1870 a few years after the
discovery of alluvial diamonds at Hopetown. The early mining of this and other kimberlite pipes was
by surface methods. An initial attempt at underground mining from 1884 was unsuccessful, largely
because of the uncooperative attitudes of the many claim holders (Owen and Guest, 1994). The
consolidation of the pre-existing companies into De Beers Consolidated Mines in 1888 provided the
impetus for the successful introduction of underground mining at Kimberley from 1890. A complex
mining method known as chambering was used until it was replaced progressively from the late 1950s

to the early 1970s (Hartley, 1981). Peele (1941) describes this method as a combination of shrinkage
stoping and sub-level caving.

A visit to North America in the early 1950s convinced De Beers mine managers of the potential of the
block caving method for mining the diamondiferous pipes (Gallagher and Loftus, 1960). After an
experimental block cave had been mined successfully at the Bultfontein Mine it was decided to
introduce block caving on a large scale at several of the De Beers mines. The first mine to change fully
from chambering to block caving was J agersfontein where the transition was completed in 1958
(Gallagher and Loftus, 1960).

As Owen and Guest (1994) describe, a number of different mining methods including sub-level caving,
vertical crater retreat and benching have been used at the various De Beers mines but variants of block
caving remain the main group of methods used currently. A feature of the evolution of the current
mining methods is that not all methods introduced were successful initially and mining plans often had
to be revised. Mechanised panel caving was introduced at the Premier Mine from 1990 (Bartlett, 1992).
Mining operations at Premier are summarised in Section 1.3.3 below.

As has been indicated above, ore has been drawn throughout much of the history of block and panel
cave mining by gravity or slusher methods. In 1981, Pillar (1981) listed a wide range of well-known
caving mines as then using the slusher method. The availability of LHD equipment from the 1960s has
provided the potential for the introduction of mechanised and trackless cave mining, especially for the
more coarsely fragmenting and stronger ores in which the necessary large extraction level openings can
be developed and maintained. From the 1980s, many of the major caving mines have introduced
mechanised methods (see Table 1.2) although gravity systems are still used, particularly in the weaker
ores. Examples of modern mechanised methods are given in Section 1.3.



Table 1.2 Examples of current caving operations

Mine Country Type Ore Type Annual
Tonnage
Northparkes
E26 Lift 1
Australia Block Copper-Gold 4 Mt/y
Freeport IOZ Indonesia Block; LHD Copper-Gold 7 Mt/y
Palabora South Africa Block; LHD Copper 10 Mt/y
CODELCO
El Teniente Div.
Chile Panel; LHD Copper 35 Mt/y

CODELCO
Andina Div.
Chile Panel; LHD
Grizzly
Copper 16 Mt/y
CODELCO
Salvador
Chile Panel; LHD Copper 2.5 Mt/y
Premier Mines South Africa Panel; LHD Diamond 3 Mt/y
Henderson USA Panel; LHD Molybdenum 6 Mt/y
Philex Philippines Grizzly; LHD
Shabanie Zimbabwe Retreating brow chrysotile
Tongkuangyu China Block; LHD Copper 4 Mt/y
San Manuel USA Grizzly; Block Copper

1.3 BLOCK AND PANEL CAVING OPERATIONS
1.3.1 Overview
Because they are mass mining methods having low production costs, block and panel caving methods
are currently important sources of mineral production on a world scale. Laubscher (1994) estimated
that, at that time, these methods accounted for a total ore production of approximately 370,000 tonnes
per day. Because of the high productivity of caving methods and the potential that they offer for
mechanisation and reduced labour costs, there is a current tendency in the industrially advanced nations,
in particular, to apply block caving to stronger orebodies than those to which the method has been
applied in the past. This brings with it particular challenges in predicting cavability, an issue to be
introduced in Section 1.4.1 and explored in detail in Chapter 3. Block caving is also being considered
for the underground mining of some major orebodies previously mined by large open pits. Significant
examples of this development are the Bingham Canyon mine in Utah, USA (Carter and Russell, 2000)
and the Palabora mine in the Republic of South Africa (Calder et al, 2000).

Table 1.1 lists many of the worlds major block and panel caving operations in the year 2000. The list
is intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive. Because of a paucity of accessible data, cave
mining operations in some countries such as China and the countries of the former USSR are not well

represented in Table 1.1. Further details of the operations listed in the table and of some others are
included in the electronic database CaveBase to be introduced in Section 1.3.5. Three of the major
mines listed in Table 1.1 El Teniente, Premier and Henderson - are described in the subsequent sub-
sections as important but differing examples of modern cave mining practice. These descriptions may
use some terms that have not been defined so far and which may not be familiar to some readers. In
these cases, reference should be made to that part of the report in which the term is introduced in more
detail.

1.3.2 El Teniente Mine, Chile
El Teniente is a division of CODELCO-Chile, Chiles Government-owned copper mining company.
The mine is located 130 km southeast of Santiago in the foothills of the Andes mountains. With
production of about 100,000 tonnes per day, El Teniente is the worlds largest block or panel caving
mine.

The large copper porphyry orebody which was discovered in 1760, reaches a depth of more than 1 km
below surface and almost completely surrounds a roughly 800-1000 m diameter circular breccia pipe
known as the Braden Pipe. The orebody has a radial extent of between 400 and 800 m from the
perimeter of the pipe. The major items of mine infrastructure are conveniently located within the
breccia pipe. Figure 1.7 shows a schematic view of the several levels in the El Teniente mine. The
early block caving production level, Teniente 1, is located some 650 m above the main access level,
Teniente 8, which is at an elevation of 1983 m.

After simple and irregular open pit mining of the near-surface secondary enriched ore, underground
mining began in 1906 using overhand stoping and room and pillar methods. From 1940, a traditional
gravity flow block caving method was successfully introduced (Kvapil et al, 1989). The secondary ore
was weak, fragmented readily and was well suited to mining by block caving. However, the quantity of
the secondary ore decreases with depth so that from about 1982, mining has been increasingly in the
lower grade and stronger primary ore. The primary ore is an andesite which contains pockets of even
stronger diorite and dacite. Mechanised panel caving using LHDs was introduced on the Teniente 4
level (at 2347 m) in 1982 (Alvial, 1992).



Figure 1.7 Schematic representation of levels, El Teniente Mine
(Kvapil et al, 1989)

A major factor influencing the mining of the El Teniente orebody, particularly at increasing depth in the
primary ore, has been the existence of extremely high lateral in situ stresses associated with the nearby
subduction zone in which the Pacific plate is thrust under the edge of the South American plate.
Rockbursts were first experienced on the Teniente 4 level in 1976 (Alvial, 1992) and have been a
continuing problem since mechanised mining using advance undercutting began in the stronger and
stiffer primary ore.

El Teniente now uses mainly mechanised panel caving but there is still some production from areas
which use other forms of caving (Yanez et al, 2000). Accounts of successive stages in the evolution of
cave mining methods at El Teniente are given by Ovalle (1981), Kvapil et al (1989), Alvial (1992),
Moyano and Vienne (1993), Rojas, Molina et al (2000) and Yanez et al (2000). The following
description of recent mining at El Teniente draws on the accounts Moyano and Vienne (1993) and
Yanez et al (2000).

As has been noted, mechanised panel caving of the primary ore was introduced on the Teniente 4 level
in 1982. An advance undercutting method was used with the undercut being mined ahead of the
excavation of the drawpoints on the otherwise previously developed extraction level below. (Details of
the meaning and implications of advance undercutting and related terms are given in Chapter 5). In the

traditional El Teniente panel caving method, the undercut level was located 18 m above the extraction
level and the undercut drifts were 3.6 by 3.6 m on 30 m centres. Over time the height of the undercut
has been progressively reduced from 16.6 m in 1987 to 10.6 m in 1998 (Yanez et al, 2000).

The extraction level layout developed at El Teniente is illustrated in Figure 1.8 for the Teniente Sub 6
level. The advance undercut sequence used until recently exposed the pre-constructed extraction level
to high levels of abutment stress as the undercut advanced overhead. This resulted in damage to the
extraction level pillars and, in some instances, to severe rockbursts associated with the high horizontal
stresses and local geological features (Moyano and Vienne, 1993; Rojas Cavieres et al, 2000). A series
of major rockbursts on the Teniente Sub 6 level starting in J anuary 1990 soon after it came into
production, caused production to be stopped temporarily and the approach to mining revised. The
measures introduced from 1994 to successfully control the incidence and severity of rockbursts on the
Sub 6 level included reducing the height of the column of intact rock above the undercut level, ensuring
an even spatial and temporal rate of extraction, mining at a slow rate especially initially, using only
remotely controlled production equipment from 1995 and using the results of seismic and other
monitoring to guide production planning. In 2000, the production rate of Teniente Sub 6 was about
10,000 tonnes per day and the undercutting rate was about 12,000 m
2
per year (Rojas, Cavieres et al,
2000).

Figure 1.8 Extraction level layout, Sub 6 level, El Teniente Mine
(Moyano and Vienne, 1993)

From 1992 a pre-undercut panel caving method was tested at El Teniente. In 1997 the method was
brought into production on the new Esmeralda section on the Teniente Sub 5 level. In this method, the
undercut level is developed and then blasted in advance of the development of the extraction level and
formation of the drawbells. Thus, all extraction level development and construction takes place in a de-
stressed zone below the mined undercut. The undercut drifts are 3.6 by 3.6 m on 15 m centres. Initial
development on the extraction level is kept 22.5 m behind the undercut, and full construction on the
extraction level occurs 45 to 60 m behind the undercut (see Figure 1.9). Experience and the results of

extensive monitoring of the condition of the pillars and the extraction level installations, clearly
demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach (Rojas, Molina et al, 2000; Yanez et al 2000). In early
2000, the average production from the Esmeralda section was 12,500 tonnes per day with a planned
peak of 15,000 tonnes per day. The pre-undercut method was also being used on the Teniente 3 Isla
section.

Figure 1.9 Comparison of conventional panel caving and pre-undercut
activity sequences, El Teniente Mine (after Rojas, Molina et al, 2000)

1.3.3 Premier Diamond Mine, South Africa
The Premier Diamond Mine is situated 45 km to the east-north-east of Pretoria, Republic of South
Africa. It exploits the Premier Pipe, the largest of South Africas kimberlite pipes having a surface area
of 32 hectares. The Premier Pipe is unique geologically in that it is intersected by a 75m thick, shallow-
dipping gabbro sill which cuts through the pipe at depths of between 380 and 510m below surface
(Bartlett, 1992). Figure 1.10 shows a diagrammatic vertical section and plan of the geology and of the
recent and planned mining blocks.

PRE UNDERCUT


Figure 1.10 Diagrammatic section and plan, Premier Diamond Mine
(Bartlett and Croll, 2000)

Open pit mining commenced at Premier in 1902. With the increasing depth of mining, underground
mining started in 1948, initially by open benching. Following the successful implementation of the
block caving method at other De Beers mines at Kimberley and J agersfontein as outlined in Section
1.2.3, block caving was introduced at Premier in the early 1970s. Four separate caves using a grizzly
system feeding slusher drifts were operated above the gabbro sill on the western side of the mine. A
total of 85 million tonnes of ore was produced from these caves (Bartlett, 1992).

Mining below the sill started in 1979 using an open stoping method. This method was unsuccessful and
was replaced by block caving. Cave mining using LHDs to transport the ore from the drawpoints to ore
passes started in 1990 in the BA5 mining block on the 630 m level on the western side of the mine (see

Figure 1.10). A second cave was established in 1996 in the BB1E block at a depth of 732 m in weaker
ore on the eastern side of the pipe. Possible future mining of the C-cut (see Figure 1.10) would involve
the exploitation of 170 million tonnes of ore by caving methods with a production level 1000 m or more
below surface (Bartlett and Croll, 2000). The remainder of this Section will discuss recent and planned
caving operations at Premier as reported by Bartlett and Croll (2000). Accounts of the earlier stages of
cave mining at Premier are given by Owen (1981), Bartlett (1992) and Owen and Guest (1994).

Mining of the BA5 block was planned as a panel retreat caving operation with a post undercut mining
sequence. With this sequence, mining of the undercut would occur after the extraction level
development had been completed. Undercut drifts were developed directly above the extraction drifts
on 30m centres. The block was undercut by drilling and blasting 120m long by 30m wide and 20m high
slots at right angles to the directions of the undercut and extraction level drifts. As undercut rings were
blasted, broken ore dropped directly into the pre-developed drawbells.

As the undercut area approached that required for the onset of caving, the levels of stress on both the
undercut and extraction levels increased. On the undercut level, it became increasingly difficult to drill,
charge and blast the long holes and the rate of undercutting slowed. On the extraction level, shotcrete
linings were extensively damaged by the abutment stresses associated with the now slow moving
undercut. Footwall heave was widespread, damaging concreted roadways and disrupting production.
When continuous caving was established, the stress levels stabilised but an extensive program of
extraction level support and rehabilitation was required to ensure safety and uninterrupted production.
The rate of caving was slower than planned and a large and potentially dangerous air gap developed.
The caving process was compromised by the presence of the overlying, strong gabbro sill.

The difficulties continued as the panel retreated to the east. It was then decided to adopt an advance
undercut mining sequence in which only the production drift and drawpoint breakaways were developed
and partly supported ahead of the mining of the undercut overhead. The height of the undercut was also
reduced. As the zone below the advancing undercut became de-stressed, development of the extraction
level, including the concreting of roadways and the application of a shotcrete lining, was completed.
The adoption of these measures allowed undercutting to proceed at the planned rate, support and
rehabilitation requirements to be reduced and production targets to be met.

The lessons learned from the BA5 block were applied in planning the mining of the BB1E block (see
Figure 1.10) as a panel retreat cave with an advance undercut mining sequence. Table 1.2 shows a
comparison of the design and operational parameters of the BA5 and BB1E blocks. As Bartlett and
Croll (2000) explain, some difficulties were experienced in the BB1E block, particularly in the early
stages of undercutting and cave establishment. However, once the cave was fully established and the
undercut could be advanced at the planned rate, satisfactory results were achieved. Experience with the
BB1E block shows that successful caving at this depth requires detailed planning, the timely availability
of resources, and careful implementation and control of the entire mining process. Maintaining the
planned schedule to avoid the compaction of broken ore provided a particular challenge in this case.


The C-cut mining block is being planned with a pre-undercut mining sequence to avoid extensive and
possibly unsustainable damage to the extraction level at a depth of more than 1000 m. As a
consequence, the mining sequence in the existing BB1E mining block is being changed to gain
operational experience with this method in which the undercut is fully developed before the extraction
level. The height of the cave is planned to be between 350 and 450 m compared with a maximum of
164 m in BB1E (see Table 1.2). New mine infrastructure is being installed to support mining of the C-
cut, including two new shafts from surface and a new processing plant. The mine is being designed to
extract and process 9 million tonnes of ore annually by 2008 (Bartlett and Croll, 2000).

1.3.4 Henderson Mine, Colorado, USA
The Henderson mine is located 80 km to the west of Denver, Colorado, USA and 3170 m above sea
level on the eastern side of the Continental Divide. The top of the molybdenite orebody lies more than
1000 m below the peak of Red Mountain and the lowest excavation is at a depth of 1600 m making
Henderson one of the deepest caving operations in the world. The deposit is elliptical in plan with axes
of 670 and 910 m. As is illustrated in Figure 1.11, the ore is transported by conveyor from a crusher
complex on the 7065 level at an elevation of 2153 m to the mill site 25 km away on the western side of
the Continental Divide. This discussion of the Henderson Mine is drawn from the paper by Rech et al
(2000). Earlier accounts of aspects of the operation are provided by Brumleve and Maier (1981),
Doepken (1982) and Rech et al (1992).

Figure 1.11 General section, Henderson Mine
(Rech et al, 2000)

Henderson commenced operation in 1976 as a mechanised panel cave with rail haulage from the 7500
level at an elevation of 2286 m. Figure 1.3 illustrates the original panel caving method. Approximately
90 million tonnes of ore were produced from the 8100 level (at 2469 m) from 1976 to 1991. In 1992,
the 7700 level (at 2347 m) was brought into production and by the year 2000 had produced more than
45 million tonnes of ore. A particular feature of the operation of the Henderson mine is that during its

life, the world molybdenum market has experienced several phases of over- and under-supply with the
result that the mines production rates have had to vary accordingly. This has required flexible planning
and operation of the mine.

The next production level to come into operation will be the 7225 level located 145 m below the 7700
level at an elevation of 2202 m. As is shown in Figure 1.11, the eastern section of the orebody has not
been exploited from either the 8100 or the 7700 level. Columns of ore up to 244 m high will become
accessible on the eastern side from the 7225 level (Rech et al, 2000).

Figure 1.12 shows a typical isometric section of the recent configuration of the operating section of the
mine on the 7700 or 2347 m level. The undercut level at 2364 m is developed with 3.7 by 3.7 m drifts
on 24.4 m centres. Future undercut drift spacing will be 30.5 m. From the undercut drifts, rings of both
short and long holes are drilled on 2 m centres to mine the undercut and the drawbells simultaneously.
Panels are 8 to 12 production drifts (244 to 366 m) in width.

Figure 1.12 General isometric view, mechanised panel caving, Henderson Mine
(Rech et al, 2000)


Figure 1.13 shows a plan view of the drawpoint and production drift layout used on the extraction level
located 17 m below the undercut level. The entry angles of 56 degrees are the sharpest that can be used
with the current 7 m
3
LHDs. Drawpoints are concrete lined and are fitted with steel wear plates to
protect the openings from degradation over their production lives. The roadways and drawpoint floors
are lined with a 0.3 m thickness of concrete which permits effective clean-up and reduces tyre wear.

There is a ventilation level at 2333 m through which intake and exhaust air is transported on separate
horizons. The truck haulage level at 2153 m consists of 6 by 6 m haulage drifts that provide access of
the 72.6 tonne side dumping trucks to centre loading chutes at the bottoms of the ore passes. The trucks
transport the ore to the gyratory crusher dump on this level.

Figure 1.13 Extraction level plan, Henderson Mine
(Rech et al, 2000)

The sequence in which the development of this series of openings takes place must be well planned and
coordinated. Figure 1.14 shows the general two year sequence in the development of a panel at
Henderson.



Figure 1.14 Development sequence, Henderson Mine
(Rech et al, 2000)

1.3.5 CaveBase
A significant outcome of the International Caving Study is an interactive, computerised knowledge base
system known as CaveBase. This system serves as both a readily accessible source of information
about cave mining generally and as an evaluation tool for prospective cave mining projects. The three
modules in CaveBase will be described briefly in turn. A detailed account of CaveBase is given in
Chapter 8.

Knowledge Base
The knowledge base module consists of two sub-modules:

The Block Cave Manual is an authoritative, updateable source of information on block caving
principles and practice prepared initially by Dr Dennis Laubscher and subsequently edited and up-
dated by others. The Manual is structured as a series of concise articles on particular caving topics
with hypertext links being provided through a list of pre-defined key words.

The bibliography is a searchable library of information on block caving and closely related topics
assembled from the world-wide literature. The set of key words used in the Block Cave Manual
provides hypertext links within the system.


Project data
The active project data module provides a structured framework for the registration, processing and
interpretation of a range data on new, existing or previous cave mining projects. The data may be
updated and enhanced as a project is developed from the pre-feasibility to the design and construction
stages and finally to commissioning and operation. The data templates and structures are the same as
those used elsewhere in CaveBase, enabling direct linkages to be made with other modules. When the
project stage is complete, the data may be archived and updated throughout the life of the operation.

Evaluation of block caving
A risk evaluation module known as CaveRisk is a tool developed to assist project and design teams to
evaluate systematically the risks involved in a proposed cave mining project taking into account the
experience gained in a range of other operations. The risks associated with cave mining are outlined
and an introduction to risk evaluation given in Section 1.4 below. Detailed accounts of these topics and
of CaveRisk are given in Chapter 9.

1.4 RISK IN CAVE MINING
1.4.1 Risk factors
Decisions to exploit a particular orebody by block or panel caving methods, the design of caving mines
and the mining operations themselves involve risks of a number of types. Some of these risks have been
referred to in the descriptions of cave mining operations given in Section 1.3 above. Detailed analyses
of some of the major risk factors are given in subsequent chapters. Accounts of the risks associated
with cave mining have been given recently by Heslop (2000) and Summers (2000a & b). The following
is an indicative but not exhaustive list of some of the risk factors requiring consideration at various
stages in a cave mining project:

adequacy of the geological data used in making estimates of the structure, shape, size and grade of
the orebody;

adequacy of the geotechnical data available about the orebody and country rock masses including
major structures, discontinuities, rock properties, in situ stresses and groundwater hydrology. These
data are used in making assessments of cavability, cave initiation and propagation, fragmentation,
caving performance, excavation stability and dilution;

cavability assessment usually involving a prediction of the hydraulic radius (area / perimeter) of the
undercut at which caving will initiate for a rock mass having given or estimated geotechnical
characteristics;

cave propagation which is the ability of the cave to continue to propagate once caving has been
initiated. Cave propagation depends on a number of factors including the undercut design, the rate

of undercutting, the stresses induced on the boundaries and above the cave, the orebody structure
and its geotechnical characteristics, and the draw control strategy employed. Because of the capital
intensive, non-selective and relatively inflexible nature of caving methods of mining, the inability to
initiate or sustain caving is one of the greatest risks faced in cave mining;

the degree of fragmentation of the ore occurring as a result of the caving process. This factor
influences drawpoint spacing and design, equipment selection and performance, the occurrence of
hangups and the need for secondary breakage in the drawpoints, the need for underground
crushers and the productivity of the cave;

caving performance reflects the achievement or otherwise of the planned rate of cave propagation,
rate of production, degree of fragmentation, ore grades and recovery;

excavation stability refers to the stability over the design life and the need for support or
reinforcement of mine excavations including undercut drifts, extraction level excavations, drawbells
and items of mine infrastructure. As has been illustrated by the examples given in Section 1.3,
excavation stability can depend not only on the geotechnical properties of the rock masses involved
and the in situ stress field, but also on factors such as the three-dimensional mine layout, the relative
timings of certain development and mining activities and the rate of undercutting;

major hazards including excavation collapses, rockbursts, air blasts, mud rushes and water and
slurry inflows;

environmental risks broadly defined involving issues such as the mines influence on surface water
and groundwater, the treatment and disposal of mine wastes, influence on flora and fauna habitats,
surface subsidence effects, land rights and archaeological issues and other areas of community
concern; and

risks to profitability arising from factors such as changes to cost structures, industrial relations,
variations in metal prices and currency values and local political instability.

1.4.2 Introduction to risk assessment
Techniques known as risk analysis, risk assessment and risk management are now applied to a wide
range of engineering and other undertakings. In the present context, our concern is with the assessment
and management of the risks associated with the adoption and operation of a particular mining method.
A useful generalised definition of risk assessment is that given by the UK Engineering Council:

Risk assessment is a structured process which identifies both the likelihood and extent of adverse
consequences arising from a given activity.

Engineering decisions of the type being considered here are subject to a number of uncertainties, the
manifestation of which can result in the failure of a project to meet its objectives in full or in part.
These uncertainties can be considered to be of two general types:


what we know we dont know, or parameter uncertainty; and

what we dont know we dont know, or conceptual uncertainty.

Parameter uncertainty is the easier of these two types of uncertainty to account for in engineering
procedures. Use of the long established concept of a factor of safety is a commonly used method of
attempting to account for parameter uncertainty. Probabilistic methods are also used as an alternative
approach to addressing the same issue, particularly in geotechnical engineering (eg Christian et al,
1994; Pine, 1992). Conceptual uncertainty or uncertainty about how particular sets of conditions will
develop and their eventual outcomes, is usually of greater concern and more difficult to address. A risk
assessment and management approach seeks to understand the sources of risk associated with a given
project or design, to evaluate their consequences and to put in place procedures to manage those risks.
Implementing risk assessment and management processes is especially important in the early stages of a
potential cave mining project when critical decisions about the adoption of a particular mining method,
layout and excavation sequence are being made.

In this report, and particularly in Chapter 9, a series of definitions associated with the assessment of risk
will be used. Some of these definitions will be introduced here.

Hazard - a potential occurrence or condition that could lead to injury, delay, economic loss or damage
to the environment.

Risk the product of the probability of occurrence of a hazard and the magnitude of the consequences
of the occurrence.

Risk analysis a structured process that identifies both the likelihood and the consequences of hazards
arising from a given activity or facility.

Risk evaluation the appraisal of the significance of a given quantitative (or, when acceptable,
qualitative) measure of risk.

Risk assessment comparison of the results of a risk analysis with risk acceptance criteria or other
decision parameters.

Risk management the process by which decisions are made to accept known risks or the
implementation of actions to reduce unacceptable risks to acceptable levels.

The application of these concepts and processes to caving methods of mining using CaveBase is
discussed in Chapter 9. In CaveBase, five principal forms of risk are considered cavability,
fragmentation, caving performance, excavation stability and major hazards. Each of these issues has
been raised in Section 1.4.1 and will be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters.

Chapter 01 Introduction

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Chapter 01 Introduction

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1-1

J KMRC/Itasca/International Caving Study (ICS)

Potrebbero piacerti anche