Benchmarking Final Report

ICS-II, Task 4
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A

TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO
UNDERGROUND MINING

Main Activity 1:
BENCHMARKING REPORT
Prepared by
German Flores
Antonio Karzulovic
December 2002

C O N T E N T S

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. BENCHMARKING 2
3. DATA PROCESSING 4
4. GENERAL DATA 7
5. GEOTECHNICAL DATA 9
5.1. STRUCTURES 9
5.2. ROCK MASS 9
5.3. STRESS ENVIRONMENT 18
5.4. HYDROGEOLOGY 18
5.5. GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE 22
6. MINE DESIGN DATA 25
6.1. SLOPE GEOMETRY 25
6.2. MINE ACCESSES 25
6.3. BLOCK HEIGHT AND FOOTPRINT 30
6.4. CAVING INITIATION 32
6.5. UNDERCUT LEVEL 35
6.6. EXTRACTION LEVEL 35
6.7. SUPPORT 43
6.8. MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM 47
7. MINE OPERATION DATA 48
8. GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING DATA 51
9. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS DATA 53
9.1. COLLAPSES 53
9.2. ROCKBURSTS 56
9.3. SUBSIDENCE 61
9.4. WATER INFLOWS AND MUDRUSHES 68
9.5. HANGUPS 71
9.6. FINAL COMMENTS 73
10. CONCLUSIONS 76
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 78
12. REFERENCES 79
Appendix A: GENERAL DATA ON MINES VISITED
Appendix B: BENCHMARKING SURVEYS
Appendix C: DATABASE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the next 10 to 15 years several mines are considering a transition from open pit to underground
cave mining. These include: Argyle Diamond Mine, Bingham Canyon, Chuquicamata, Grasberg,
WMC Mount Keith and Newcrest Telfer. Considering this fact, the ICS-II included Task 4 with the
goal of providing the project sponsors with practical geotechnical guidelines to develop the transi-
tion from open pit to underground cave mining.
To achieve this objective, the following main activities have been considered: Benchmarking, Geo-
technical Guidelines, worked Example and Final Report. Currently, and according to the program
approved at the ICS-II Meeting of October 2001, in Santiago, only the first activity, BENCHMARK-
ING, has been developed and it is presented in this report.
The benchmarking study was planned and developed according to a program aimed to optimize
data collection:
1. SURVEY DESIGN: This was the first task to be completed. In order to facilitate data collec-
tion, an Excel spreadsheet was designed, and e-mailed to the targeted mines also willing
to provide information.
2. MINE VISITING: 17 mines were selected to be visited and relevant information was ob-
tained. The selection criterion was mines which have developed, or are planning to develop,
a transition from open pit to underground mining, and also other mines (open pits and un-
derground) that could provide relevant information.
3. ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION: a comprehensive survey of the available technical lit-
erature was done in order to collect supplementary data. This allows the inclusion of data on
88 additional mines; nevertheless, in most of the cases, the additional data does not include
all the features considered in the benchmarking survey.
4. DATA PROCESSING: The collected data was analyzed in order to develop histograms and,
where possible, correlations showing the current practices and trends of underground mining
by caving methods. When enough data was available the relative frequency of the different
parameters was computed, and when the available data was limited, the relative importance
of the different parameters was assessed.
5. BENCHMARKING REPORT: All of the above mentioned, and the conclusions and
recommendations resulting from this benchmarking are presented in this report.
The interpretation of the data collected in this benchmarking has allowed to define the current
trends and practices of the underground mining by caving methods. These have been summarized
as histograms and/or curves to facilitate their use by the sponsors of ICS-II, especially during the
early stages of a new mining project.
One of the main results of this study is shown in the following Table which summarizes the current
trends for the most relevant design parameters used at the caving mine operations.
Finally it must be noted that all the results presented in this report will be used as a starting basis
for the development of geotechnical guidelines for a transition from open pit to underground mining,
which corresponds to the second main activity of Task 4, and includes the following subjects:
1. CAVING PROPAGATION
2. SUBSIDENCE
3. CROWN-PILLAR
4. WATER INFLOWS

TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR A BLOCK/PANEL CAVING MINE
Mine Design Parameter Typical Value Comments
Rock Mass Quality 50 RMR < 60 If RMR > 60 rock mass cavability must be evaluated carefully.
Acces Decline
Currently 70% of mines prefer declines, and 20% declines and shafts as
mine access.
Block Height 210 m This typical block height could vary 20%.
< 50000 m
2
30000 m
2

50000 a 100000 m
2
75000 m
2

Footprint
Area
> 100000 m
2
170000 m
2

These typical areas could vary +20%. It is recommended to use equal or
larger areas, but not smaller than the typical values. Also, square areas are
better than the rectangular ones.
Area 10000 m
2
Smaller areas are not recommended, specially in massive rock masses.
Shape Square Internal corners must be avoided (e.g. a L shaped area).
Measures to Facilitate Slot Is highly recommended to facilitate cave initiation.
Caving
Initiation
Hydraulic Radius 20 to 30 m Avoid being close to the limit in Laubschers chart.
Spacing 15 m This is the current practice.
Height 4 m
D
r
i
f
t
s

Width 4 m
Could be increased but not decreased.
Undercut Height 8 m Could vary, but be careful if using small undercutting heights.
U
n
d
e
r
c
u
t

L
e
v
e
l

Undercut Rate 2100 m
2
/month
Could be increased but be careful with induced seismicity, specially if in a
high stress environment.
Crown-Pillar Thickness 17 m Could vary 20% (measured from floor UCL to floor EXT).
Spacing 30 m Could vary from 26 to 36 m.
Height 4 m
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

L
e
v
e
l

D
r
i
f
t
s

Width 4 m
Draw Points
Influence Area 225 m
2
Could vary from 169 to 324 m
2
.
Draw Rates 0.20 m/day
This is an average value. Typically lower values are used at the beginning
of caving, and higher values are used when over 30% of the block height
has been extracted.
Capacity 11 ton It could vary 20%.
LHD
Equipment
Traming Distance 140 m Smaller tramming distances are preferable.
Powder Factor 400 grm/ton For undercutting blasting. It could vary 20%.
Oversize Limit 1.8 to 2.0 m
3
It could vary 20%.
RMR < 70 > 45
Subsidence
RMR > 70 > 60
is the break angle defining the mean inclination of the crater walls.
Geotechnical Hazards
The project must take account that collapses, rockbursts, subsidence, water inflows and
mudrushes, and hangups could occur
Instrumentation & Monitoring
The most common monitoring systems include displacements and seismicity. It is re-
commended to include a seismic monitoring system, specially in massive hard rock and/or
high stress environments..
(1) These typical values are intended only for the pre-feasibility stage of a mining project.
(2) RMR values are for Laubschers 1990 system.

ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING

1

1. INTRODUCTION
Several mines are considering a transition from open pit to underground cave mining, in the mid to
long term. These include: Argyle Diamond Mine, Bingham Canyon, Chuquicamata, Grasberg,
WMC Mount Keith and Newcrest Telfer. Considering this fact, the ICS-II included Task 4 with the
goal of providing the project sponsors with practical geotechnical guidelines to develop the transi-
tion from open pit to underground cave mining.
To achieve this objective, the following has been considered:
1. BENCHMARKING, to collect data from mines which have developed, or are planning to de-
velop, a transition from open pit to underground mining, and also from other mines (open pits
or underground) that could provide relevant information for this research. The collected data
was supplemented by a comprehensive review of the available technical literature.
2. GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES, to develop practical methodologies to deal with the key is-
sues arising in a transition from open pit to underground cave mining. These guidelines will
address the following subjects: Caving Propagation, Subsidence, Crown/Buffer-Pillar, and
Water Inflows.
3. WORKED EXAMPLE, to illustrate the use of these geotechnical guidelines by applying them
to a real case example: Chuquicamata Mine.
4. FINAL REPORT, to include the results of the benchmarking, the geotechnical guidelines,
and the worked example in a self-contained technical report.
Currently, and according to the program approved at the ICS-II Meeting of October 2001, in Santi-
ago, only the first activity, BENCHMARKING, has been developed and it is presented in this report.

2

2. BENCHMARKING
The benchmarking study was planned and developed according to a program aimed to optimize
data collection:
6. SURVEY DESIGN: This was the first task to be completed. In order to facilitate data collec-
tion, an Excel spreadsheet was designed, and e-mailed to the targeted mines also willing
to provide information. These spreadsheets are included, with the data collected, in Appen-
dix B.
7. MINE VISITING: 17 mines were selected to be visited and relevant information was ob-
tained. The selection criterion was mines which have developed, or are planning to develop,
a transition from open pit to underground mining, and also other mines (open pits and un-
derground) that could provide relevant information. Table 2.1 summarizes the mines that
were visited, and in Appendix A general information on these mines is presented.
8. ADDITIONAL DATA COLLECTION: a comprehensive survey of the available technical lit-
erature was done in order to collect supplementary data. This allows the inclusion of data on
88 additional mines; nevertheless, in most of the cases, the additional data does not include
all the features considered in the benchmarking survey.
9. DATA PROCESSING: The collected data was analyzed in order to develop histograms and,
where possible, correlations showing the current practices and trends of underground mining
by caving methods. When enough data was available the relative frequency of the different
parameters was computed, and when the available data was limited, the relative importance
of the different parameters was assessed. The databases resulting from this data process-
ing are included in Appendix C.
10. BENCHMARKING REPORT: All of the above mentioned, and the conclusions and recom-
mendations resulting from this benchmarking are presented in this report.


3

Table 2.1
MINES VISITED FOR BENCHMARKING
Country Mine Comments
Cadia Hill
Open pit mine.
Visited October 2002.
Mount Keith
Open pit mine.
Project for a transition to underground mining.
Visited May 2002
Northparkes
Mine that developed a transition from open pit to underground mining.
Underground mining by block caving.
Visited October 2002
Australia
Ridgeway
Underground mining by sublevel caving.
Visited October 2002
Canada Kidd Creek
Underground mining by open stoping.
Visited June 2002
Andina
Open pit mine and underground mining by panel caving.
Visited July 2002
Chuquicamata
Open pit mine.
Visited July 2002
El Teniente
Underground mining by panel caving.
Visited July 2002
Chile
Salvador
Visited July 2002
Grasberg Underground
(DOZ)
Indonesia
Grasberg Open Pit
Open pit mine.
Visited April 2002
Finsch
Underground mining by open stoping.
Visited May 2002
Koffiefontein
Underground mining by sublevel / front caving.
Visited May 2002
South
Africa
Palabora
Mine developing a transition from open pit to underground mining.
Open pit mine and underground mining by panel caving.
Visited May 2002
Sweden Kiruna
Underground mining by sublevel caving.
Visited June 2002
Bingham Canyon
Open pit mine.
Visited June 2002
USA
Henderson
Visited June 2002


4

3. DATA PROCESSING
The collected data was analyzed in order to develop histograms and, if possible, correlations show-
ing the current practice and trends of open pit and underground mining by caving methods. When
enough data was available the relative frequency of the different parameters was computed, and
when the available data was limited the relative importance of the different parameters was as-
sessed.
The collected data included: GENERAL DATA
GEOTECHNICAL DATA
MINE DESIGN DATA
MINE OPERATION DATA
MONITORING DATA
GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS DATA
The process of data collection and processing showed that the number of mines that have devel-
oped, are in the process of developing, or will develop a transition from open pit to underground
mining, or vice versa, was more than what was expected. Indeed, Table 3.1 summarizes data on
33 mines that are under this condition.
Also, the analysis of the data indicated a sudden increase in the pit depths of the mines that will
have this transition in a mid or a long term, as illustrated by Figure 3.1. This is especially important
because it means that the geotechnical challenges for these projects will be expected to be larger
than the ones of the mines that had developed a transition in the past. The pits that will have large
depths when initiating the transition process are:
Bingham Canyon, USA (747 to 849 m depth)
Chuquicamata, Chile (1100 m depth)
Grasberg, Indonesia (1000 m depth)


5

Table 3.1
MINES THAT DEVELOPED, ARE DEVELOPING OR WILL DEVELOP
A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
HPIT
Date
Country Mine Transition Type
(m)
Developments Mining
Argyle Diamond Open pit UG mining 150 a 300 2006 (?)
Big Bell UG mining Open pit UG mining 1994 1997
Mount Isa 146 1967
Mount Keith 344 2015 (?)
Northparkes 100 1993 1997
Australia
Perseverance
Open pit UG mining

Craigmont 76 1963 1964
Kidd Creek 250 1969 1973
Stobie 150 (?) 1941 1948
Canada
Williams
Open pit UG mining

Chuquicamata 1100 2016 (?)
Chile
Mansa Mina
Open pit UG mining
400 (?) 2014 (?)
Finland Pyhasalmi Open pit UG mining 135 1967
Indonesia Grasberg Open pit UG mining 1000 2016 (?)
Kirovsky 1959
Russia
Mir
Open pit UG mining
455 1994
Finsch 423 1979 1990
Koffiefontein 240 1981
Palabora 803 1996 2000
Premier 189 1945 1946 (?)
Thabazimbi 70 a 240 1988 (?)
South
Africa
Venetia
Open pit UG mining
360 (?) 2011 (?)
Sweden Kiruna Open pit UG mining 230 1958
Bingham Canyon Open pit UG mining 747 a 899 2012 (?)
Climax 1973
Miami
UG mining Open pit

San Manuel UG mining Open pit UG mining
USA
Questa Open pit UG mining 150 (?) 1979 1983
Zambia Nchanga UG mining Open pit UG mining 1937 1939
Gaths
Miriam 60 1955 1957
Shabanie 150 (?) 1950 (?)
Zimbabwe
Shangani
Open pit UG mining
150 1980 (?)


6

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
YEAR
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
M
A
X
I
M
U
M

P
I
T

D
E
P
T
H

(
m
)
CHUQUICAMATA
BINGHAM CANYON
GRASBERG
PALABORA
MINES THAT DEVELOPED A TRANSITION FROM OP TO UG

MINES THAT ARE DEVELOPING A TRANSITION FROM OP TO UG

MINES THAT WILL DEVELOP A TRANSITION FROM OP TO UG

TREND FROM CASE HISTORIES

TREND FROM PROJECT DATA

Figure 3.1: Evolution through time of the trend for the depth of open pit mines that have devel-
oped, are developing, or will develop a transition to underground mining.

7

4. GENERAL DATA
The general data collected include:
Mine name, location, country, and owner.
Mine elevation, ore type, mined out reserves, initial mining method, and initial mining date.
Current mining method, reserves, mean ore grade, mine life, final mine depth, cash and total
costs (if provided), ore production, and waste removal.
Future mining method, reserves, mean ore grade, mine life, final mine depth, cash and total
costs (if provided).
Total work force.
Geotechnical groups (engineers, geologists, technicians)
Additional comments.
All the data obtained for each mine visited are included in Appendix B.
The analysis of the production and information on geotechnical groups is summarized in Figure
4.1, and indicates that:
(a) Due to the nature of mining methods open pit mines have much larger ore production than
underground mines; therefore, any open pit considering a transition to underground mining
must take account of this fact.
(b) Typically geotechnical groups are larger in underground mines than in open pit mines (of
course there are a few exceptions).
(c) According to the data, it is possible to define a trend between the size of the typical geotech-
nical group and the ore production for open pit and underground mining. These trends indi-
cate that:
The larger the ore production the larger the typical geotechnical group in both cases,
open pit and underground mining.
This trend shows a break or a sudden increase in the number of people in the geo-
technical group when the ore production exceeds 25 kTPD in underground mines, and
75 kTPD, in open pit mines.
(d) Therefore, considering a transition to underground mining, any open pit must take this fact
into account, and probably will have to increase the number of people in its geotechnical
group (in spite of the fact that the underground ore production will be smaller that the open
pit production).


8

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
ORE PRODUCTION (kTPD)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L

G
R
O
U
P

(
p
e
o
p
l
e
)
MINING METHOD
OPEN PIT
UNDERGROUNG
M
A
S
S
I
V
E

O
P
E
N

P
I
T

M
I
N
I
N
G
(
m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

7
5
k
T
P
D
)
M
A
S
S
I
V
E

U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D

M
I
N
I
N
G
(
m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

2
5

k
T
P
D
)
OP (< 75 kTPD)
UG (< 25 kTPD)

Figure 4.1: Variation of the size of the typical geotechnical group with ore production in open pit
and underground mining.

9

5. GEOTECHNICAL DATA
The geotechnical data collected included information on Structures, Rock Mass, Stress Environ-
ment, and Hydrogeology.
5.1. STRUCTURES
The data collected on structures include:
Structural domains
Number of structural sets
Geological characteristics: type of structure, infilling, waviness, roughness, and water
condition.
Geometrical characteristics: dip, dip direction, length, spacing, and gap.
Mechanical properties: joint roughness coefficient (JRC), joint wall compressive
strength (JCS), dilation angle (i), cohesion (c
J
), friction angle (
J
), normal stiffness
(k
N
), and shear stiffness (k
S
).
The analysis of the data on the orientation and properties of the structural sets in open pit
and underground mines indicates that:
(a) In most underground mines that use caving methods, subvertical structures predomi-
nate (subvertical meaning dips steeper than 60), as shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
This conclusion does not mean that there are not subhorizontal or flatter structures,
but that the number of subvertical sets (> 60) exceeds the number of flatter sets (<
60).
(b) In underground and open pit mines the data on the orientation of structures is typically
much better than the data on their length, spacing, and gap. Generally the data can be
ordered from more to less reliable as follows:
Dip Dip Direction Spacing Length Gap
(c) The geotechnical characterization of structures generally is poorer in underground
mines than in open pit mines. Perhaps due to the fact that mapping is more difficult
underground. This is shown in Figure 5.3 that correlates the magnitude of the cohe-
sion and friction angle, and shows a much better trend in the data from open pits than
in the one from underground mines.
(d) In open pit mines the strength properties of structures are fairly to well known, but the
deformability properties are poorly to fairly known.
(e) In underground mines the strength properties of structures are poorly to fairly known,
but their deformability properties are almost unknown.
(f) In spite of the increasing use of numerical models, the quality of input data on the me-
chanical properties of structures is, in most of cases, poor.
5.2. ROCK MASS
The data collected on rock masses include:
Rock types.
Intact rock properties: unit weight (), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), parameter
m of the Hoek-Brown criteria (m
i
), modulus of deformability (E), wave velocity for P
and S waves (V
P
and V
S
).

10

85 - 90 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 3
80 - 84 2 4 3 1 1 1 3 4 4 3 2 1 2
75 - 79 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1 2
70 - 74 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 1
65 - 69 2 1 1 6 1 2 11 3 1 3 3
60 - 64 1 1 2 1 1
55 - 59 1 1 1 1 3 1 2
50 - 54 1 1 1 1 1 1
45 - 49 2 1 1 1 2 1 1
40 - 44 1 1
35 - 39 1 3 1
30 - 34 1
25 - 29
20 - 24 1
15 - 19 1
10 - 14 1
5 - 9 1
0 - 4
0 - 19 20 - 39 40 - 59 60 - 79 80 - 99 100 - 119 120 - 139 140 - 159 160 - 179 180 - 199 200 - 219 220 - 239 240 - 259 260 - 279 280 - 299 300 - 319 320 - 339 340 - 359
D
I
P
D I P D I R E C T I O N

Figure 5.1: Trend of the orientation (defined by dip and dip direction) of structural sets in under-
ground mines that use caving methods.
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22
RELATIVE FREQUENCY
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
D
I
P

(
d
e
g
r
e
s
s
)

Figure 5.2: Histogram showing the relative frequency of different dip angles for structural sets in
underground mines that use caving methods.

11

Rock mass quality: RQD, RMR
BIENIAWSKI
, RMR
LAUBSCHER
, Q, GSI.
Rock mass properties: cohesion (c), friction angle (), modulus of deformability (E),
Poissons ratio (), bulk modulus (B), shear modulus (G), wave velocity for P and S
waves (V
P
and V
S
).
The analysis of the data on the rock masses in open pit and underground mines indicates
that:
(a) The data on intact rock properties is well known for the unit weight (), and the uniaxial
strength (UCS); but the data for the other intact rock parameters is poorer.
(b) Typically UCS values are smaller for open pit mines rocks (averages 80 MPa) that for
underground mines rocks (averages 115 to 150 MPa). There is also no major differ-
ence in the UCS values for the rocks in different types of underground mining. This is
shown in Figure 5.4.
(c) Typically RQD values are smaller for open pit mines rocks (averages 65%) than for
underground mines rocks (averages 70% to 85%). Also there is no major difference in
the RQD values for the rocks in different types of underground mining. This is shown
in Figure 5.5.
(d) The most used method for rock mass classification in underground mines is Laub-
schers RMR (53%), followed by Bartons Q (26%), and Bieniawskis RMR (15%). The
most used method for rock mass classification in open pit mines is Hoeks GSI (39%),
followed by Bieniawskis RMR (26%), and Laubschers RMR (22%). This is shown in
Figure 5.6.
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
FRICTION ANGLE OF GEOLOGICAL STRUCTURES (degrees)
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
C
O
H
E
S
I
O
N

O
F

G
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
A
L

S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S

(
k
P
a
)OPEN PIT MINING

UNDERGROUND MINING

Figure 5.3: Variation of the cohesion of structures with their friction angle, for open pit and un-
derground mines.

12

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
INTACT ROCK UNIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, UCS (MPa)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
MINING METHOD
OPEN PIT
OPEN STOPING
SUBLEVEL CAVING
BLOCK CAVING
PANEL CAVING

Figure 5.4: Relative frequency of the intact rocks uniaxial compressive strength, UCS, in differ-
ent mining methods.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION, RQD (%)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
MINING METHOD
OPEN PIT
OPEN STOPING
SUBLEVEL CAVING
BLOCK CAVING
PANEL CAVING

Figure 5.5: Relative frequency of the Rock Quality Designation Index, RQD, in different mining
methods.

13

(e) Interpreting all rock mass classification data in terms of Laubschers RMR it is clearly
evident, as shown in Figure 5.7, that rock mass quality is poorer in open pit mines
(averages 40) than in underground mines (averages 50 to 60).
(f) The typical rock mass rating distribution for different mining conditions are shown in
Figures 5.8 to 5.12, which show the following typical RMR ranges:
Open Pit Mines RMR: 20 to 40
Open Stoping Mines: RMR: 40 to 80
Sublevel Caving Mines: RMR: 40 to 70
Block Caving Mines: RMR: 30 to 70
Panel Caving Mines: RMR: 40 to 80
(g) As shown in Figure 5.13, the average trend relating Laubschers RMR and MRMR is:
MRMR = 0.9 RMR
(h) As shown in Figure 5.14 the cohesion of underground mines rock masses is typically
larger than the cohesion of open pit rock masses, probably due to the higher confine-
ment in underground mining. This figure also shows that the trend between rock mass
cohesion and rock mass friction angle is better for the case of open pits than for un-
derground mines.
(i) The geotechnical characterization of rock masses seems to be poorer in underground
mining than in open pit mining. Indeed, in spite of the increasing use of numerical
models the quality of input data on rock mass properties is, in most cases, poor to fair.

ROCK MASS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
MINING METHOD
OPEN PIT
UNDERGROUND
Q (Barton et al.) RMR (Bieniawski) GSI (Hoek et al.) RMR (Laubscher)

Figure 5.6: Methods used in mining for rock mass classification.

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LAUBSCHERS ROCK MASS RATING, RMR
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
MINING METHOD
OPEN PIT
OPEN STOPING
SUBLEVEL CAVING
BLOCK CAVING
PANEL CAVING

Figure 5.7: Relative frequency of Laubschers Rock Mass Rating, RMR, in open pits and under-
ground mines that use different mining methods.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 5.8: Relative frequency of Laubschers Rock Mass Rating, RMR, in open pit mining.

15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 5.9: Relative frequency of Laubschers Rock Mass Rating, RMR, in open stoping mining.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 5.10: Relative frequency of Laubschers Rock Mass Rating, RMR, in sublevel caving mining.

16

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 5.11: Relative frequency of Laubschers Rock Mass Rating, RMR, in block caving mining.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 5.12: Relative frequency of Laubschers Rock Mass Rating, RMR, in panel caving mining.

17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LAUBSCHERS RMR
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
M
R
M
R
MRMR / RMR = 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9
MINING METHOD
OPEN PIT

OPEN STOPING

SUBLEVEL CAVING

BLOCK CAVING

PANEL CAVING
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6

Figure 5.13: Relationship between Laubschers Rock Mass and Mining Rock Mass Ratings, RMR
and MRMR.
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
ROCK MASS FRICTION ANGLE (degrees)
10
100
1000
10000
R
O
C
K

M
A
S
S

C
O
H
E
S
I
O
N

(
k
P
a
)
OPEN PIT MINING

UNDERGROUND MINING
2000
5000
500
50
200
20

Figure 5.14: Relationship between the cohesion and the friction angle of the rock mass in open pit
and underground mining.

18

5.3. STRESS ENVIRONMENT
The data collected on the stress environment include:
Production sector where the stress measurements were made.
Stress tensor components: horizontal stress (S
x
, S
y
, X towards East, Y towards North),
vertical stress (S
v
), and shear stresses (S
xy
, S
yz
, S
zx
).
Principal stresses: magnitudes (S
1
, S
2
, S
3
), plunges (
1
,
2
,
3
), and trends (
1
,
2
,
3
).
Stress measurement method.
The analysis of the data on the stress environment in underground mines indicates that:
(a) Currently the CSIRO Hollow Inclusion Cell is the most used method for in situ stress
measurements.
(b) As shown in Figure 5.15, in underground mines the in situ major principal stress S
1

typically varies from 30 to 40 MPa.
(c) As shown in Figure 5.16, the minimum principal stress S
3
typically varies from 10 to
20 MPa.
(d) As shown in Figure 5.17, the principal stress difference S
1
- S
3
typically varies from 20
to 30 MPa.
(e) As shown in Figure 5.18, in underground mines the in situ vertical stress is larger than
the lithostatic stress (z). This result could be due to the fact that several stress
measurements could be located in proximity to caves.
(f) As shown in Figure 5.19, in underground mines the mean value of the stress ratio,
KMEAN, is bounded as proposed by Hoek & Brown (1980):
0.5 + (1500/ z) K
MEAN
0.3 + (100 / z)
(g) As a result of this benchmarking, similar relationships were derived for the minimum
and maximum values of the stress ratio, K
MIN
and K
MAX
. These relationships are
shown in Figures 5.20 and 5.21, and are given by:
0.6 + (1250/ z) K
MIN
0.2 + (100/ z)
1.0 + (1500/ z) K
MAX
0.3 + (90 / z)
5.4. HYDROGEOLOGY
The data collected on the hydrogeology include:
Hydrogeological units.
Maximum and minimum permeabilities (k
MAX
and k
MIN
).
General parameters: depth of the phreatic surface, infiltration rate into the mine, and
dewatering rate.
Operative parameters on drainage systems: drainage tunnels, pumping wells, and
subhorizontal drains.
The analysis of the data on the hydrogeology in open pits and underground mines indicates
that:
(a) Most mines do not consider the hydrogeological characterization a high priority.

19

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MAJOR PRINCIPAL STRESS, S
1
(MPa)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 5.15: Histogram showing the relative frequency of major principal stresses, S1, with different
magnitudes (measurements in underground mines).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MINOR PRINCIPAL STRESS, S
3
(MPa)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 5.16: Histogram showing the relative frequency of major principal stresses, S3, with different
magnitudes (measurements in underground mines).

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
PRINCIPAL STRESS DIFFERENCE, S
1
- S
3
(MPa)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 5.17: Histogram showing the relative frequency of major principal stress differences, S1 - S3,
with different magnitudes (measurements in underground mines).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
VERTICAL STRESS (MPa)
3000
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
D
E
P
T
H

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)

Figure 5.18: Variation of in situ vertical stresses with depth in underground mines.

21

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
K
MEAN
3000
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
D
E
P
T
H

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)

Figure 5.19: Variation of the average value of the in situ stress ratio, KMEAN, with depth in under-
ground mines. The black curves shown the upper and lower boundaries defined by
Hoek & Brown (1980), while the red curve is the average between them.
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
K
MIN
3000
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
D
E
P
T
H

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)

Figure 5.20: Variation of the minimum value of the in situ stress ratio, KMIN, with depth in under-
ground mines. The black curves shown the upper and lower boundaries defined in
this work, while the red curve is the average between them.

22

(b) As shown in Figure 5.22, in open pit mines the most used drainage systems are:
subhorizontal drains (38%), drainage tunnels (27%), pumping wells (21%), and sumps
(14%).
(c) As shown in Figure 5.22, in underground mines the most used drainage systems are:
sumps (78%), subhorizontal drains (14%), and drainage tunnels (8%).
(d) The most typical monitoring systems are: observation wells (open holes), piezometers,
and flow rate measurement devices.
5.5. GEOTECHNICAL SOFTWARE
The data collected on geotechnical software currently being used in open pit and under-
ground mines, included the name and type of software. All the data obtained for each mine
visited are included in Appendix B. The analysis of this data indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 5.23, for conventional slope stability analyses the most used soft-
ware are: SLIDE (30%), DIPS (20%), and SWEDGE (17%).
(b) As shown in Figure 5.24, for two-dimensional numerical analyses the most used soft-
ware are: FLAC (50%), UDEC (33%), and EXAMINE (10%).
(c) As shown in Figure 5.25, for three-dimensional numerical analyses the most used
software are: FLAC3D (44%), 3DEC (26%), and MAP3D (18%).
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50
K
MAX
3000
2750
2500
2250
2000
1750
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
D
E
P
T
H

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)

Figure 5.21: Variation of the maximum value of the in situ stress ratio, KMAX, with depth in under-
ground mines. The black curves shown the upper and lower boundaries defined in
this work, while the red curve is the average between them.

23

DEWATERING SYSTEM
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
UNDERGROUND MINING
OPEN PIT MINING
DRAINAGE TUNNELS PUMPING WELLS SUBHORIZONTAL DRAINS SUMPS

Figure 5.22: Relative frequency of different dewatering systems used in open pits and under-
ground mines.
SOFTWARE PACKAGE
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
SLIDE DIPS SWEDGE XSTABL ROCFALL BACKBREAK GALENA SLOPE/W UTEXAS NFOLD
CONVENTIONAL SLOPE STABILITY
SOFTWARE CURRENTLY USED IN
OPEN PIT MINES

Figure 5.23: Relative frequency of software used in open pit mines for conventional slope stability
analyses.

24

SOFTWARE PACKAGE
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
FLAC UDEC EXAMINE / EXAMINE TAB PHASE2
2D NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
OPEN PIT AND UNDERGROUND MINES

Figure 5.24: Relative frequency of software used in open pit and underground mines for two-
dimensional numerical analyses.
SOFTWARE PACKAGE
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
FLAC3D 3DEC MAP3D EXAMINE3D BEFE ELAST-3
3D NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
OPEN PIT AND UNDERGROUND MINES

Figure 5.25: Relative frequency of software used in open pit and underground mines for three-
dimensional numerical analyses.

25

6. MINE DESIGN DATA
On open pit mines the mine design data collected included information on Slopes Geometrical Pa-
rameters, Acceptability Criteria, and Tools for Analysis.
On underground mines the mine design data collected included information on Mine Accesses,
Mining Method, Cave Initiation, Footprint, Block Height, Mine Layout, and Materials Handling Sys-
tems.
6.1. SLOPE GEOMETRY
The analysis of the data on slope geometries in open pit mines indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.1, bench heights can vary from 10 to 20 m for single benches,
and from 25 to 35 m for double benches. The typical height for single benches is 15
m, while it varies from 25 to 30 m for double benches. In most cases double benches
are developed in two stages (i.e. first a single bench is developed, and then it is dou-
bled). This practice is very common for pushbacks that reach the final pit condition,
and where the rock mass has a good geotechnical quality.
(b) As shown in Figure 6.2, in open pit slopes the interramp height can vary widely, from
50 to 250 m; but typically it does not exceed 200 m, and its average value is about
140 m.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.3, the overall height of open pit slopes can vary widely, from
100 to 900 m; but in most of the cases it varies from 100 to 500 m (more than 70% of
the cases), and its average value is about 350 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.4, the bench face inclination can vary from 55 to 90; but in
most of the cases it varies from 65 to 80, and its average is about 73. It is important
to indicate that to achieve bench face inclinations steeper than 65, it is a common
practice to use controlled blasting techniques.
(e) As shown in Figure 6.5, the interramp angle can vary from 25 to 60; but in most of
the cases it varies from 40 to 60, and its average is about 50.
(f) As shown in Figure 6.6, the overall slope angle can vary from 25 to 60; but in most
of the cases it varies from 30 to 60, and its average is about 45.
(g) As shown in Figure 6.7, the slope angle is maximum at bench scale, flatter for inter-
ramp slopes (typically 20 to 25 flatter), and even flatter for overall slopes (typically 5
flatter than interramp slopes).
(h) As shown in Figure 6.8, the data for interramp and overall slopes do not show a clear
trend between the slope height and the slope angle (probably due to the fact that the
data include many different geological-structural-geotechnical settings); nevertheless,
for preliminary evaluations the red curve shown in Figure 6.8 could be used to esti-
mate the slope angle for a given slope height.
6.2. MINE ACCESSES
The analysis of the data on mine accesses indicates that:
(a) Underground mine accesses can be shafts, declines or both.
(b) As shown in Figure 6.9 the use of shafts as the only access shows a decreasing trend
since 1970.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.9 the use of declines as the only access shows an increasing
trend since 1970.

26

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
BENCH HEIGHT, h
b
(m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
SINGLE BENCHES
DOUBLE BENCHES

Figure 6.1: Histogram showing the relative frequency of different bench heights, for single and
double benches in open pit mines.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
INTERRAMP SLOPE HEIGHT, h
r
(m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.2: Histogram showing the relative frequency of different interramp slope heights in open
pit mines.

27

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
OVERALL SLOPE HEIGHT, h
o
(m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.3: Histogram showing the relative frequency of different overall slope heights in open pit
mines.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
BENCH FACE INCLINATION,
b
(degrees)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.4: Histogram showing the relative frequency of different bench face inclinations in open
pit mines.

28

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
INTERRAMP SLOPE ANGLE,
r
(degrees)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.5: Histogram showing the relative frequency of different interramp slope angles in open
pit mines.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
OVERALL SLOPE ANGLE,
o
(degrees)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.6: Histogram showing the relative frequency of different overall slope angles in open pit
mines.

29

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
SLOPE ANGLE, (degrees)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
BENCHES
INTERRAMP SLOPES
OVERALL SLOPES

Figure 6.7: Histogram showing the relative frequency of different slope angles for benches, inter-
ramp and overall slopes in open pit mines.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
SLOPE ANGLE, (degrees)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
S
L
O
P
E

H
E
I
G
H
T
,

h

(
m
)
INTERRAMP SLOPES

OVERALL SLOPES

Figure 6.8: Variation of the slope angle with the slope height in open pit mines.

30

(d) Before 1970 in 70% of the cases shafts were used as accesses, in 30% declines were
used, and in 0% both, shafts and declines, were used.
(e) In the period from 1970 to 1990, in 46% of the cases shafts were used as accesses, in
42% declines were used, and in 13% both, shafts and declines, were used.
(f) In the period from 1990 to 2002, in 36% of the cases shafts were used as accesses, in
50% declines were used, and in 14% both, shafts and declines, were used.
6.3. BLOCK HEIGHT AND FOOTPRINT
The analysis of the data on block heights and footprints indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.10, since 1970 the block height in block/panel caving mines
shows an increasing trend. Before 1970, the typical block height was 100 m; for the
period 1970-1990 was 160 m, and for the period 1990-2002 it is 240 m.
(b) As shown in Figure 6.11, in block/panel caving mines the footprint area varies widely,
but in 80% of the cases, it is smaller than 250000 m
2
, and its average is 165000 m
2
.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.12, the footprint geometry is such that the ratio between its
length (L) and its width (B) rarely exceeds 3, and in almost 60% of the cases is
smaller than 2.
(d) It seems that most block/panel caving mines have ignored a possible relationship be-
tween block height (H) and footprint geometry (defined by its width B). As a prelimi-
nary conclusion, and as shown in Figure 6.13, the data collected suggested that:
o If H/B 1 then the cave will easily connect to surface (or upper level previ-
ously mined out).
o If 2 H/B > 1 then the cave probably will connect to surface (or upper level
previously mined out).
TIME PERIOD
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
ACCESS TYPE
SHAFTS
DECLINES
BOTH TYPES OF ACCESS
Before 1970 From 1970 to 1990 After 1990
D
E
C
L
IN
E
S
T
R
E
N
D

S
H
A
F
T
S
T
R
E
N
D

BOTHS TREND

Figure 6.9: Evolution through time of the trend for the type of access to underground mines.

31

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
BLOCK HEIGHT (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.10: Evolution through time of the trend for the block height in block/panel caving mines.
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 1000000
FOOTPRINT AREA (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
AVERAGE FOOTPRINT AREA = 165000 m
2

Figure 6.11: Relative frequency of the different footprint area ranges in mines by block/panel caving.

32

o If H/B > 2 then the cave would have problems to connect to surface (or up-
per level previously mined out).
Due to the importance of this issue, it will be studied with more accuracy during the
development of the geotechnical guidelines that are considered as the second main
activity of Task 4.
6.4. CAVING INITIATION
The analysis of the data on caving initiation indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.14, the shape of the initial area for caving is predominantly
square or rectangular, but in a few cases other shapes have been used (like triangular
shapes).
(b) As shown in Figure 6.14, the available data indicates that the area for caving initiation
has an average value of 10000 m
2
, and typically varies form 5000 to 15000 m
2
.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.15, the hydraulic radius of the initial caving area varies from 15
to 45 m, with an average value in the range from 20 to 30 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.16, to facilitate cave initiation in 53% of the cases slots have
been used, in 7% of the cases artificial chimneys have been used (chimneying inten-
tionally used to initiate caving, and not a product of poor cave management), and in
40% of the cases no measures to facilitate cave initiation have been used.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
FOOTPRINT LENGTH (m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T

W
I
D
T
H

(
m
)
L / W = 1.0
5.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0
%

C
U
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

3
1
%

5
9
%

8
1
%

9
4
%

1
0
0
%

Figure 6.12: Trend for the ratio between the footprint length (L) and its width (B) block/panel caving
mines.

33

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
FOOTPRINT WIDTH (m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
B
L
O
C
K

H
E
I
G
H
T

(
m
)
DIFFICULT
CONNECTION
TO SURFACE ?
EASY
CONNECTION
TO SURFACE
H = 2B H = B
CONNECTION
TO SURFACE

Figure 6.13: Trend between the block height (H) and the footprint width (B) for block/panel caving
mines.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
INITIAL CAVING AREA (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
AREA SHAPE
SQUARE
RECTANGULAR
OTHER

Figure 6.14: Relative frequency of different initial caving areas and their shapes in block/panel
caving mines.

34

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
HYDRAULIC RADIUS OF INITIAL CAVING AREA (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.15: Relative frequency of different hydraulic radius for the initial caving area in
block/panel caving mines.
MEASURES TO FACILITATE CAVING INITIATION
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
NONE SLOT ARTIFICIAL CHIMNEY

Figure 6.16: Relative frequency of different measures to facilitate caving initiation in block/panel
caving mines.

35

6.5. UNDERCUT LEVEL
The analysis of the data on the undercut level indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.17, the distance between undercut drifts varies from 10 to 35 m,
with an average from 20 to 25 m.
(b) As shown in Figure 6.18, the width of undercut drifts shows an increasing trend
through time. Before 1970 it has an average from 2 to 3 m, in the period 1970-1990
its average was 3 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is 4 m.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.19, the height of undercut drifts shows an increasing trend
through time. Before 1970 it has an average from 2.0 to 2.5 m, in the period 1970-
1990 its average was 3.0 to 3.5 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is from 3.5
to 4.0 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.20, the undercut height shows no time-dependent trends. It var-
ies from 3 to 20 m, with an average from 8 to 12 m.
(e) As shown in Figure 6.21, the undercut rate varies from 500 to 5000 m
2
/month, with an
average from 2000 to 2500 m
2
/month.
6.6. EXTRACTION LEVEL
The analysis of the data on the extraction level indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.22, the nominal crown-pillar thickness (from floor extraction
level to floor undercut level) shows an increasing trend through time. Before 1970 its
average was from 7.5 to 10.0 m, in the period 1970-1990 it was 12.5, and in the period
1990-2002 it is from 15.0 to 17.5 m.
(b) As shown in Figure 6.23, the spacing between extraction level drifts shows an in-
creasing trend through time. Before 1970 its average was from 12 to 16 m, in the pe-
riod 1970-1990 it was from 20 to 24 m, and in the period 1990-2002 it is from 26 to 28
m.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.24, the width of extraction level drifts shows an increasing trend
through time. Before 1970 it has an average of 2.5 m. In the period 1970-1990 its av-
erage was from 3.0 to 3.5 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is from 4.0 to
4.5 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.25, the height of extraction level drifts shows an increasing
trend through time. Before 1970 it has an average from 2.0 to 2.5 m. In the period
1970-1990 its average was 3.0 to 3.5 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is
from 3.5 to 4.5 m.
(e) As shown in Figure 6.26, the draw point spacing shows an increasing trend through
time. Before 1970 it has an average of 8 m. In the period 1970-1990 its average was
12 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is 15 m.
(f) As shown in Figure 6.27, the influence area of draw points shows an increasing trend
through time. Before 1970 it has an average of 50 m
2
. In the period 1970-1990 its
average was 125 m
2
, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is from 200 to 225 m
2
.
(g) As shown in Figure 6.28, the most used geometry for the extraction level is the
herringbone layout (54% of the cases), followed by El Teniente layout (layout 40% of
the cases).
(h) As shown in Figure 6.29, the average draw rate is from 0.20 to 0.25 m/day.
(i) The current practice is to use draw rates that increase with the percentage of block
extraction, as shown in Figure 6.30.


36

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NOMINAL DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIFTS UCL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.17: Relative frequency of different nominal distances between undercut level drifts in
caving mines.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NOMINAL WIDTH DRIFTS UCL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.18: Time trend of the relative frequency for the nominal width of undercut level drifts in
caving mines.

37

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NOMINAL HEIGHT DRIFTS UCL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.19: Time trend of the relative frequency for the nominal height of undercut level drifts in
caving mines.
0 4 8 12 16 20
UNDERCUT HEIGHT (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.20: Relative frequency of different undercut heights in caving mines.

38

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
AVERAGE UNDERCUT RATE (m
2
/month)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.21: Relative frequency of different undercut rates in caving mines.
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0
NOMINAL CROWN-PILLAR THICKNESS (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.22: Evolution through time of the trend for nominal crown-pillar thickness in mines by
caving methods.

39

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
PRODUCTION DRIFTS SPACING (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.23: Evolution through time of the trend for production drifts spacing in mines by caving.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NOMINAL WIDTH DRIFTS EXTRACTION LEVEL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.24: Evolution through time of the trend for the width of extraction level drifts in mines by
caving methods.

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NOMINAL HEIGHT DRIFTS EXTRACTION LEVEL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.25: Evolution through time of the trend for the height of extraction level drifts in mines by
caving methods.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DRAW POINT SPACING (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.26: Evolution through time of the trend for draw point spacing in mines by block and pa-
nel caving methods.

41

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
INFLUENCE AREA OF DRAW POINTS (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990

Figure 6.27: Evolution through time of the trend for the influence area of draw points in mines by
block and panel caving methods.
EXTRACTION LEVEL LAYOUT
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
HERRINGBONE TENIENTE OTHER

Figure 6.28: Relative frequency of different extraction level layouts in mines by block and panel
caving methods.

42

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
AVERAGE DRAW RATE (m/day)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 6.29: Relative frequency of different average draw rates in mines by caving methods.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
BLOCK EXTRACTION (%)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
D
R
A
W

R
A
T
E

(
m
/
d
a
y
)
Pilar Sub 6 - Esmeralda Sector Hw / Central, Initial Caving
Pilar Sub 6 - Esmeralda Sector Fw, Initial Caving
Esmeralda, Initial Caving
Diablo-Regimiento Project, Initial Caving
Palabora, Initial Caving
Average for Initial Caving
El Teniente trend for Steady-State Caving

Figure 6.30: Examples of the variation of the draw rate as a function of the percentage of block
extraction, in mines by block/panel caving.

43

6.7. SUPPORT
The analysis of the data on support indicates that:
(a) In most underground mines by caving the support at the undercut level includes only
bolts; nevertheless, in some mines this support also included mesh and shotcrete.
(b) In most underground mines by caving the support at the extraction level includes bolts
(typically from 1.8 to 2.4 m long, at spacings from 1.0 to 1.3 m), mesh and shotcrete
(typically 2), and in many cases also cables (typically at intersections, with lengths
from 5 to 8 m). Also some mines used straps and osro-straps, as shown in Photo-
graph 6.1.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.31, the bolt length varies from 1.25 to 3.75 m, with an average
from 2.00 to 2.25 m, for the Undercut Level, and from 2.00 to 2.50 m for the Extraction
Level.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.32, the bolt spacing varies from 0.6 to 1.40 m, being typically
1.0 m for both: Undercut and Extraction Levels (50% of cases). The average bolt
spacing is from 1.0 to 1.1 m, also for both levels.
(e) The variation of bolt lengths with the width of the drifts is shown in Figure 6.33, which
indicates that:
o There is no clear difference between the Undercut and Extraction Levels.
o In most cases the bolt length is such that: 1.5 B / L 3.0
o For preliminary estimations of bolt length, the following relationships are sug-
gested (the drift width, B, expressed in m):
For poor quality rock masses (20 RMR 40): L (m) = 0.60 B + 0.60
For fair quality rock masses (40 RMR 60): L (m) = 0.45 B + 0.45
For good quality rock masses (60 RMR 80): L (m) = 0.30 B + 0.30
(f) The variation of bolt spacing (s) with the bolt length (L) is shown in Figure 6.34, which
indicates that::
o There is no clear difference between the Undercut and Extraction Levels.
o In most cases the bolt length is such that: 1.5 L / s 2.5

Photograph 6.1: Extraction level support by bolts,
mesh and osro-straps at a South African under-
ground mine.


44

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
BOLT LENGTH (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL

Fit 1: Normal

Figure 6.31: Relative frequency of different bolt lengths in mines by caving methods.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
BOLT SPACING (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL

Fit 1: Normal

Figure 6.32: Relative frequency of different bolt spacings in mines by caving methods.

45

3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
DRIFT WIDTH, B (m)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
B
O
L
T

L
E
N
G
T
H
,

L

(
m
)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
B/ L = 1.0 1.5
GOO
D RO
CK M
ASS QUALITY, L = 0,30 B + 0,30
P
O
O
R
R
O
C
K
M
A
S
S
Q
U
A
L
IT
Y
, L
=
0
.6
0
B
+
0
.6
0

F
A
IR
R
O
C
K
M
A
S
S
Q
U
A
LIT
Y
, L
=
0
.4
5 B
+
0
.4
5
UNDERCUT LEVEL DATA
EXTRACTION LEVEL DATA

BEST FIT FOR B < 5 m

Figure 6.33: Variation of the bolt length with the nominal width of the drift in mines by caving
methods.
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0
BOLT LENGTH, L (m)
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
B
O
L
T

S
P
A
C
I
N
G
,

s

(
m
)
UNDERCUT LEVEL DATA
EXTRACTION LEVEL DATA
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
L

/

s = 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
G
O
O
D
R
O
CK
M
A
SS
Q
U
ALITY
POOR ROCK MASS QUALITY
FAIR ROCK MASS Q
UALITY
s = 0.150 L + 0.9
s = 0.100 L + 0.7
s = 0.125 L + 0.8

Figure 6.34: Variation of the bolt spacing with the bolt length in mines by caving methods.

46

o For preliminary estimations of bolt spacing, the following relationships are sug-
gested (the bolt length, L, expressed in m):
For poor quality rock masses (20 RMR 40): s (m) = 0.100 L + 0.7
For fair quality rock masses (40 RMR 60): s (m) = 0.125 B + 0.8
For good quality rock masses (60 RMR 80): s (m) = 0.150 B + 0.9
(g) Underground mines by caving methods and under rockburst risk, have also used
mesh and lacing as a complementary support for extraction level drifts.
(h) The support of the draw points changes from one mine to another, but in most cases it
includes steel arches, cablebolts and concrete and/or shotcrete. The number of steel
arches had varied from 2 to 7, but currently most mines used 2 to 3 steel arches. Pho-
tographs 6.2 and 6.3 show some examples of draw point support.

Photograph 6.2: Draw point
support using steel sets and
concrete at a North American
mine by caving

Photograph 6.3: Draw point
support using steel sets and
concrete at a South African
mine by caving


47

6.8. MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM
The analysis of the data on material handling systems indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.35, in 57% of the cases underground mines by caving use pro-
duction shafts; in 27% of the cases they use conveyor belts; in 12% of the cases they
use trains; and in 4% of the cases they use trucks.

MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
SHAFTS CONVEYOR BELTS TRUCKS TRAINS

Figure 6.35: Relative frequency of different material handling systems used in underground mines
by caving methods.

48

7. MINE OPERATION DATA
The mine operation data collected include:
Operational parameters for the undercut and extraction levels.
Production blasting
Fragmentation
Oversize limits
Draw rates
Equipment
Repair frequencies
The analysis of the mine operation data indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 7.1, the powder factor for undercut blasting varies widely, from 200 to
1000 grm/ton; with an average from 400 to 500 grm/ton, and a typical or most used value
from 300 to 600 grm/ton.
(b) As shown in Figure 7.2, the LHD capacity varies from 7 to 19 tons, with an average of 11
tons.
(c) As shown in Figure 7.3, the LHD tramming distance varies widely, from 25 to 300 m, with an
average from 125 to 150 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 7.4, the oversize limit in most cases (almost 50%) varies form 1.8 to 2.0
m
3
; nevertheless, its range is wide, from 0.4 to 2.4 m
3
. The average oversize limit is 1.6 m
3
.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
POWDER FACTOR (grm/ton)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 7.1: Relative frequency of different values of the powder factor used for undercut blasting
in mines by caving methods.

49

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
LHD CAPACITY (tons)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 7.2: Relative frequency of different LHD capacities used in mines by caving methods.
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
LHD TRAMMING DISTANCE (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 7.3: Relative frequency of different LHD tramming distances used in mines by caving
methods.

50

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
OVERSIZE LIMIT (m
3
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 7.4: Relative frequency of different oversize limits in mines by caving methods.

51

8. GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING DATA
The data on geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring include:
Parameters to be monitored.
Purpose.
Instruments.
Number.
Length.
Frequency of readings.
Threshold values.
Degree of satisfaction.
The analysis of the geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring data indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 8.1, in open pit mines the frequency of use and degree of satisfaction
(DS) with monitoring is:
Degree of Satisfaction
Frequency of Use Monitoring System
Range Average
Field inspections (100%) Fair to Very High High
Most used
Global displacements (100%) Fair to Very High Fair to High
Local displacements (78%) Very Low to Very High Fair
Second most used
Groundwater monitoring (67%) Fair to Very High Fair
Aerial photography (44%) High High
Third most used
TDR (33%) Very Low to Fair Fair

(b) As shown in Figure 8.2, in underground mines by caving methods the frequency of use and
degree of satisfaction (DS) with monitoring is:
Degree of Satisfaction
Frequency of Use Monitoring System
Range Average
Field inspections (100%) Low to High High
Most used
Local displacements (82%) Very Low to Very High Fair
Seismic System (64%) Fair to Very High High
Second most used
TDR (64%) Low to Very High High
Convergence (36%) High to Very High High
Third most used
Observation Boreholes (36%) Low to Very High Fair


52

DEGREE OF SATISFACTION
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

I
N

O
P
E
N

P
I
T

M
I
N
I
N
G
VERY LOW VERY HIGH HIGH FAIR LOW
FIELD INSPECTIONS
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
RECONCILIATION
TIME DOMAIN REFLECTOMETER
GROUNDWATER
GLOBAL DISPLACEMENTS
LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS
FREQUENCY
OF USE
78%
100%
67%
33%
11%
44%
100%

Figure 8.1: Relative frequency and degree of satisfaction for different geotechnical instrumenta-
tion and monitoring systems used in open pit mines.
DEGREE OF SATISFACTION
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L

M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G

I
N

U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D

M
I
N
I
N
G
VERY LOW VERY HIGH HIGH FAIR LOW
CONVERGENCE
FIELD INSPECTIONS
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
(SUBSIDENCE)
SEISMIC SYSTEMS
OBSERVATION BOREHOLES
(CAVE BACK)
OVERBREAK
TIME DOMAIN REFLECTOMETER
(CAVE BACK)
WATER FLOW
STRESSES
GLOBAL DISPLACEMENTS
LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS
FREQUENCY
OF USE
36%
82%
9%
27%
18%
18%
64%
36%
64%
27%
100%

Figure 8.2: Relative frequency and degree of satisfaction for different geotechnical instrumenta-
tion and monitoring systems used in underground mines by caving methods.

53

9. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS DATA
The geotechnical hazards considered in the bench marking includes:
Open pit hazards (rock falls, wedge/planar failures and slides).
Underground mines hazards (rib pillar failures, pillar instabilities, stope instabilities, early di-
lution, water inflows and mudrushes, collapses, hangups, rockbursts and subsidence).
9.1. COLLAPSES
A collapse is a type of hazards that frequently affects the extraction level of underground
mines by caving methods, causing important damage not only at the undercut level but also
at the extraction level, as illustrated by the example shown in Photographs 9.1 and 9.2.
The analysis of the data on collapses indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 9.1 the area affected by a single collapse varies from 140 to
17500 m
2
, with an average of 3700 m
2
.
(b) As shown in Figure 9.2 the main causes of collapses are:
o Draw rate / Draw management
o Structures
o Mine planning / Mining sequence
(c) As shown in Figure 9.3 the most frequent remedial measures for collapses are:
o Draw rate / Draw management
o Support
o Improving geological-geotechnical data

1,5 m

Photograph 9.1: Collapse at an undercut level drift of Teniente 4 Sur (1989).

54

CONCRETE
DAMAGE
CONCRETE
DAMAGE
1,5 m

Photograph 9.2: Collapse at an extraction level drift of Teniente 4 Sur (1989).
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
AREA AFFECTED BY A SINGLE COLLAPSE (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 9.1: Relative frequency of the area affected by a single collapse in underground mines by
caving.

55

MAIN CAUSES OF A COLLAPSE
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
FIRST MORE IMPORTANT CAUSE
SECOND MORE IMPORTANT CAUSE
THIRD MORE IMPORTANT CAUSE
GEOLOGY
STRUCTURES
WATER
MINE LAYOUT
DESIGN
SUPPORT
MINE PLANNING
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW RATE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
BLASTING

Figure 9.2: Relative frequency of the different main causes of collapses in mines by caving.
MAIN REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR A COLLAPSE
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
FIRST MOST COMMON REMEDIAL MEASURE
SECOND MOST COMMON REMEDIAL MEASURE
THIRD MOST COMMON REMEDIAL MEASURE
IMPROVED
GEOLOGICAL
GEOTECHNICAL
DATA
DRAINAGE SUPPORT
MINE PLANNING
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW RATE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
CONTROLLED
BLASTING

Figure 9.3: Relative frequency of the different remedial measures against collapses that have
been used in underground mines by caving.

56

9.2. ROCKBURSTS
A rockburst is a seismic event that causes damage. In most cases the damage has no clear
structural control, as shown in Picture 9.3, but in certain cases like the one shown in Picture
9.4, the damage has a clear structural control because the seismic event triggered the fall of
blocks. The intensity of this damage can vary widely, but for the purposes of this report it will
be considered that a rockburst can produce three levels of damage: heavy, moderated, and
light damage. These classes of damage are illustrated by the examples shown in Pictures
9.5 to 9.7.

Photograph 9.4: Typical major rockburst damage, with
structural control, due to a seismic event that affected a
drift at the ventilation level of Teniente Sub 6 (1990).

Photograph 9.3: Typical major rockburst damage, without structural control, due to a seismic
event that affected a drift at the undercut level of Teniente Sub 6 (1991).

57

Photograph 9.5: Example of MODERATE rockburst
damage.

Photograph 9.5: Example of HEAVY rockburst damage.

58

Photograph 9.7: Example of LIGHT
rockburst damage.

Due to the fact that not all mines by caving suffer rockbursts, and considering that most of
the data collected came from El Teniente Sub 6 experience, the numerical conclusions pre-
sented below are based on the analysis of these data. The analysis of the data on rock-
bursts indicates that:
(a) Rockburst can affect not only the undercut level, but also different levels below the
UCL, reaching up to the haulage level.
(b) The major rockbursts that damaged Teniente Sub 6 caused different kinds of damage
at different levels, and at different distances form the caving front.
(c) As shown in Figure 9.4 the heavy damage at different levels varies with the distance
to the caving front as follows:
Level Distance to Caving Front of Damaged Zone Most Damaged Sector
Undercut 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m
Extraction < 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m
Ventilation 50 to 150 m 100 to 150 m
Haulage < 0 to 150 m 100 to 150 m


59

(d) As shown in Figure 9.5 the moderate damage at different levels varies with the dis-
tance to the caving front as follows:
Ventilation < 0 to 150 m < 0 to 150 m
Haulage < 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m

(e) As shown in Figure 9.6 the light damage at different levels varies with the distance to
the caving front as follows:
Ventilation 50 to 150 m 100 to 150 m
Haulage < 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m

(f) As shown in Figure 9.7 the main causes of rockburst are:
HIGH INFLUENCE: Structures
Stress environment
Mining sequence
Undercutting rate
Draw rate
DISTANCE TO CAVING FRONT (m)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
D
R
I
F
T

L
E
N
G
T
H

D
A
M
A
G
E
D

B
Y

A

S
I
N
G
L
E

R
O
C
K
B
U
R
S
T

(
m
)
HEAVY ROCKBURST DAMAGE
TEN SUB 6 (1989 - 1992)
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL
VENTILATION LEVEL
HAULAGE LEVEL
< 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150

Figure 9.4: Relative frequency of the heavy rockburst damaged zones at different levels, and at
different distances from the caving front.

60

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
D
R
I
F
T

L
E
N
G
T
H

D
A
M
A
G
E
D

B
Y

A

S
I
N
G
L
E

R
O
C
K
B
U
R
S
T

(
m
)
MODERATE ROCKBURST DAMAGE
TEN SUB 6 (1989 - 1992)
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL
VENTILATION LEVEL
HAULAGE LEVEL
< 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150

Figure 9.5: Relative frequency of the moderate rockburst damaged zones at different levels, and
at different distances from the caving front.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
D
R
I
F
T

L
E
N
G
T
H

D
A
M
A
G
E
D

B
Y

A

S
I
N
G
L
E

R
O
C
K
B
U
R
S
T

(
m
)
LIGHT ROCKBURST DAMAGE
TEN SUB 6 (1989 - 1992)
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL
VENTILATION LEVEL
HAULAGE LEVEL
< 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150

Figure 9.6: Relative frequency of the light rockburst damaged zones at different levels, and at dif-
ferent distances from the caving front.

61

MODERATE INFLUENCE: Rock mass quality
Mine layout
Rock support
Undercutting management
Blasting
(g) As shown in Figure 9.8 the main remedial measures for rockburst are:
HIGH INFLUENCE: Monitoring
Mining sequence
Draw rate
Contingency plans
MODERATE INFLUENCE: Rock mass conditioning
Draw management
Support
Technological improvements
9.3. SUBSIDENCE
The connection of the cave back with the ground surface generates a subsidence crater, like
the ones illustrated in Pictures 9.8 to 9.10, for sublevel, block, and panel caving mines.
Usually the crater perimeter is subcircular, but in certain cases like the one shown in Picture
9.11, it could have a special shape. On the other hand the development of the subsidence
crater could affect other mines located nearby, like the example shown in Picture 9.12. Of
course, this will also be the case of any open pit mine developing a transition to underground
mining by caving methods, like the example shown in Picture 9.13.
MAIN CAUSES OF A ROCKBURST
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
STRUCTURES
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW
RATE
MINE
LAYOUT
UNDERCUTING
MANAGEMENT
STRESS
ENVIRONMENT
UNDERCUTING
RATE
ROCK MASS
QUALITY
ROCK
SUPPORT
BLASTING
1
2
3
0

Figure 9.7: Relative importance of the different causes of rockbursts in underground mines by
caving methods.

62

REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR ROCKBURSTS
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
1
2
0
3
MONITORING
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW RATE
CONTINGENCY
PLANS
ROCK MASS
CONDITIONING
SUPPORT
TECHNOLOGICAL
IMPROVEMENTS
DRAW
MANAGEMENT

Figure 9.8: Relative importance of the different remedial measures for rockbursts in underground
mines by caving methods.

Photograph 9.8: Initiation of a subsidence crater due to the cave back connection to ground surface at
a sublevel caving mine, Ridgeway, Australia.

63

Photograph 9.9: Typical subsidence crater of
a block caving mine, II Panel,
Andina Mine, Chile.

Photograph 9.10: Typical subsidence crater of
a panel caving mine, Gras-
berg IOZ, Indonesia.
PIPA PIPA
BRADEN BRADEN
Quebrada Quebrada
Teniente Teniente
Teniente Teniente
4 Fortuna 4 Fortuna
Teniente 4 Teniente 4
Regimiento Regimiento
Pilares Pilares
Teniente Teniente
3 3 Isla Isla
Teniente Teniente
Sub 6 Sub 6
Teniente Teniente
4 Sur 4 Sur
N N
PIPA PIPA
BRADEN BRADEN
Quebrada Quebrada
Teniente Teniente
Teniente Teniente
4 Fortuna 4 Fortuna
Regimiento Regimiento
Pilares Pilares
Teniente Teniente
3 3 Isla Isla
Teniente Teniente
Sub 6 Sub 6
Teniente Teniente
4 Sur 4 Sur
N N

Photograph 9.11: Non typical, horse shoe shaped subsidence crater of a panel caving operation with
several productive sector around a central pipe, El Teniente, Chile.

64

Photograph 9.12: Example of the interaction
between the subsidence crater of an under-
ground panel caving mine (Andina), and a nearby
open pit mine (Disputada), Chile.

SUBSIDENCE CRATER
UG PANEL CAVING MINE
III PANEL, ANDINA
OPEN PIT MINE
DISPUTADA
SUBSIDENCE CRATER
UG PANEL CAVING MINE
III PANEL, ANDINA
OPEN PIT MINE
DISPUTADA

PERIMETER OF THE
SUBSIDENCE CRATER
PERIMETER OF THE
SUBSIDENCE CRATER

Photograph 9.13: Example of the subsidence problem in a transition from open pit to under-
ground mining by block caving, San Manuel, United States.

65

The overall geometry of a subsidence crater can be described as shown in Figure 9.9, by
the depth (H) and mean inclination () of its walls will. The mean inclination of the crater wall
is also known as break angle.
The analysis of the data on subsidence indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 9.10, the height of the subsidence crater walls varies from less
than 100 to 1400 m; but most data are below 700 m, and the average is about 450 (of
course the height of a subsidence crater walls depends on the terrain topography).
(b) As shown in Figure 9.11, the break angle defining the mean inclination of the crater
walls varies from 40 to 90 (even in few cases there are overhanging walls), in-
creased with rock mass quality, but most data are in the range from 50 to 90, and if
RMR > 70 the recorded break angles are all larger than 60. It is very important to
note that most of the data are for long term conditions (i.e. after the end of the block
extraction).
(c) Available data indicates that it could be possible to find a relationship between rock
mass rating, RMR, the break angle, , and the depth of the crater walls, H. This trend
is illustrated in Figure 9.12. This topic will be included in the development of the geo-
technical guidelines that are the second main activity of Task 4.
(d) As shown in Figure 9.13 the main causes of subsidence are:
HIGH INFLUENCE: Structures
Rock mass quality
Block height
Draw rate
Draw management
MODERATE INFLUENCE: Water conditions
Footprint geometry
Caving initiation
Mining sequence
Undercutting management

Figure 9.9: Parameters describing the overall geometry of a subsidence crater: crater wall depth,
H, and crater wall mean inclination or break angle, .
Crater Depth
z
SURFACE
CRATER WALL
BROKEN ROCK
DRIFT AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE CRATER
(INFLUENCE ZONE)
Crater Wall Mean Inclination
Crater Depth
z
SURFACE
CRATER WALL
BROKEN ROCK
(INFLUENCE ZONE)
Crater Wall Mean Inclination Crater Walls Mean Inclination
Crater
Depth
SURFACE
BROKEN ROCK
CRATER WALL
DRIFTS AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE
(INFLUENCE ZONE OF THE CRATER)
Crater Depth
z
SURFACE
CRATER WALL
BROKEN ROCK
(INFLUENCE ZONE)
Crater Wall Mean Inclination
Crater Depth
z
SURFACE
CRATER WALL
BROKEN ROCK
(INFLUENCE ZONE)
Crater Wall Mean Inclination Crater Walls Mean Inclination
Crater
Depth
SURFACE
BROKEN ROCK
CRATER WALL
DRIFTS AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE
(INFLUENCE ZONE OF THE CRATER)

66

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
DEPTH OF SUBSIDENCE CRATER WALL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y

Figure 9.10: Relative frequency of different crater wall depths for underground mines by caving.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
BREAK ANGLE MEAN VALUE (degrees)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
70 < RMR
60 < RMR < 70
50 < RMR < 60
40 < RMR < 50

Figure 9.11: Relative frequency of break angles for different rock mass qualities (Laubschers
RMR), in the subsidence craters of underground mines by caving methods.

67

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
BREAK ANGLE (degrees)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
C
R
A
T
E
R

W
A
L
L

D
E
P
T
H

(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
Laubscher's RMR
41 to 50

51 to 60

61 to 70

> 71

Figure 9.12: Tentative relationship between the rock mass quality (Laubschers RMR), the break
angle (), and the depth of the crater walls (H) in underground mines by caving.
MAIN CAUSES OF SUBSIDENCE
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
1
2
3
0
BLOCK
HEIGHT
STRUCTURES
FOOTPRINT
GEOMETRY
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
UNDERCUTING
MANAGEMENT
ROCK MASS
QUALITY
CAVING
INITIATION
DRAW
RATE
WATER
CONDITIONS

Figure 9.13: Relative importance of the main causes of subsidence in underground mines by caving
methods.

68

(e) As shown in Figure 9.14 the main remedial measures for subsidence are:
HIGH INFLUENCE: Monitoring
Mining sequence
Draw rate
Relocate infrastructure
MODERATE INFLUENCE: Blasting
Draw management
Contingency plans
Drainage
9.4. WATER INFLOWS AND MUDRUSHES
Water inflows and mudrushes have caused important damage to underground mines by cav-
ing methods, such as the example shown in Picture 9.14. These phenomena are sudden in-
flows of water and/or mud from drawpoints or other underground openings. Due to its own
flow nature these phenomena propagate rapidly, endangering people, equipments, and in-
frastructure.
Due to the fact that the amount of collected data on water inflows and mudrushes is limited,
the analysis developed was mainly qualitative. The analysis of the data on water inflows and
mudrushes indicates that:
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR SUBSIDENCE
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
1
2
0
3
MONITORING
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW
RATE
RELOCATE
INFRASTRUCTURE
BLASTING
CONTINGENCY
PLANS
DRAINAGE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT

Figure 9.14: Relative importance of the different remedial measures for subsidence in under-
ground mines by caving methods.

69

Photograph 9.14: Example of the damage
caused by a mudrush in an underground mine by
caving methods.

(a) As shown in Figure 9.15 the main causes of water inflows and mudrushes are:
Most Frequent: Wet ore / Clayey ore
Moderately Frequent: Fine fragmentation
Water collector crater
Slope failures
Less Frequent: Clayey overburden
Warm rains / Rains
Crown-Pillar failures
Water above underground mine
Backfill failures
(b) As shown in Figure 9.16 the main remedial measures for water inflows and
mudrushes are:
Most Frequent: Surface stabilization
Draw management
Contingency plans
Drainage
Moderately Frequent: Monitoring
Technological improvements
Relocate infrastructure
Blasting

70

MAIN CAUSES OF MUDRUSHES AND WATER INFLOWS
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
RAIN WATER ABOVE
UG MINE
CLAYEY
ORE
WATER-COLLECTOR
CRATER
CLAYEY
OVERBURDEN
CROWN-PILLAR
FAILURE WET ORE
FINE
FRAGMENTATION
SLOPE
FAILURE
WARM
RAIN
BACKFILL
FAILURE

Figure 9.15: Relative importance of the main causes of water inflows and mudrushes in under-
ground mines by caving methods.
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR WATER INFLOWS & MUDRUSHES
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
1
2
0
3
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
DRAINAGE BLASTING
TECHNO
IMPROVEMENTS SURFACE
STABILIZATION
CONTINGENCY
PLANS
MONITORING
RELOCATE
INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 9.16: Relative importance of the main remedial measures for water inflows and mudrushes
in underground mines by caving methods.

71

9.5. HANGUPS
The ceasing of cave propagation due to the formation of stable geometry generates a han-
gup. This does not only stop the continuous breakage of rock, affecting the draw, but also
generates a risk of a sudden failure of the stable geometry that could generate an air blast,
causing important damage in the underground mine. After the failure of this stable geome-
try, usually the cave back reaches the ground surface generating a crater like the one shown
in Picture 9.15.

The analysis of the data on hangups indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 9.17, the area of a hangup could vary widely, from less than 1000
m
2
to more than 35000 m
2
. Nevertheless, most reported data are below 15000 m
2
,
and the average is 12000 m
2
.
(b) Reported data on air-blasts are related to hangups with areas larger than 10000 m
2
.
(c) As shown in Figure 9.18 the main causes of hangups are:
Most Frequent: Geological changes
Underestimation of rock mass quality
Moderately Frequent: Low stress environment
Changes in the undercut height
Less Frequent: Draw rate / Draw management
Undercutting sequence
No measures taken to facilitate cave initiation
Non standard undercut geometry
(d) As shown in Figure 9.19 the main remedial measures for hangups are:
Most Frequent: Increase of the undercut area
Conditioning the rock mass
Moderately Frequent: Weakening of the boundaries of the hangup
Draw rate / Draw management

Photograph 9.15: Example of the formation of a chimney crater immediately after the failure of the
hangup at Inca West Sector, Salvador Mine, Chile (December 5, 1999).

72

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
HANGUP AREA (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
A I R B L A S T A I R B L A S T
SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999

Figure 9.17: Relative frequency of different hangup areas in underground mines by caving.
MAIN CAUSES OF HANGUPS
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
DRAWRATE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
GEOLOGICAL
CHANGES
UNDERESTIMATED
ROCK MASS
QUALITY
LOW STRESS
ENVIRONMENT
CHANGES IN
UNDERCUT
HEIGHT
UNDERCUTTING
SEQUENCE
NO MEASURES
TO FACILITATE
CAVING INITIATION
NON STANDARD
UNDERCUT
GEOMETRY

Figure 9.18: Relative importance of the main causes of hangups in underground mines by caving.

73

9.6. FINAL COMMENTS
The evaluation of the different causes for geotechnical hazards allows the grouping and
classification of these causes as follows:
Causes of Geotechnical Origin:
Structures (presence of major geological structures)
Rock mass quality (strength/cavability of the rock mass)
Stress environment (in situ stresses)
Water conditions (groundwater, hydrogeology, hydrology)
Causes Related to Mine Design:
Block height (column of solid rock above the UCL)
Footprint geometry (area and geometry)
Caving initiation (area, geometry, location, undercut height, measures to facilitate cav-
ing)
Mine layout (drift orientation, spacing, size, draw point geometry and spacing)
Support (drift support, draw point support, etc.)
Causes Related to Mine Planning:
Mining sequence (caving front orientation, geometry, advance direction, detentions,
changes, etc.)
Undercutting rates (magnitude (m
2
/month) and changes of magnitude)
Draw rate (magnitude (m/day) and changes of magnitude, draw strategy)
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR HANGUPS
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E

F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
INCREASE
UNDERCUT AREA
CONDITIONING
THE ROCK MASS
WEAKENING
THE BOUNDARIES
DRAW RATE
DRAW MANAGEMENT

Figure 9.19: Relative importance of the main remedial measures for hangups in underground mines
by caving.

74

Causes Related to Mine Operation:
Undercutting management (tactical development of the undercutting: steps, operative
sequence, short term rate)
Draw management (tactical development of the extraction: uniformity, local changes,
short term rate)
Blasting (blast induced damage, remnant pillars, poor drilling/blasting operation)
The evaluation of the relative frequency of each one of these causes in the reported geo-
technical hazards, allow classifying them as causes of high influence, moderated influence,
and low influence for each type of geotechnical hazard. This is shown in Figure 9.20, which
indicates that the most important causes of geotechnical hazards are:
STRUCTURES (geotechnical, present in all geotechnical hazards)
DRAW RATE (mine planning, present in 4 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
DRAW MANAGEMENT (mine operation, present in 3 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
The evaluation of the different remedial measures for geotechnical hazards, allow the group-
ing and classification of these remedial measures as follows:
Remedial Measures of Geotechnical Origin:
Monitoring (seismic monitoring, displacements, field inspections, etc.)
Rock mass conditioning (distressing, hydrofracturing, boundary weakening, etc.)
Remedial Measures Related to Mine Design:
Support (additional support, repair, backfilling, etc.)
Remedial Measures Related to Mine Planning:
Mining sequence (caving front orientation, geometry, advance direction, detentions,
changes, etc.)
Draw rate (magnitude (m/day) and changes of magnitude, draw strategy)
Technological improvements (remote controlled equipment, new chute design, etc.)
Surface stabilization (stabilization of slopes, mine waste deposits, etc.)
Relocate infrastructure (changing the location of infrastructure affected by/causing a
geotechnical hazard)
Remedial Measures Related to Mine Operation:
Draw management (tactical development of the extraction: uniformity, local changes,
short term rate)
Contingency plans (restrict access, evacuate people and equipment, sealing drifts or
other cavities, etc.)
Blasting (improved blasting techniques, blasting of remnant pillars, etc.)
Drainage (surface and underground drainage measures, improving dewatering capac-
ity, etc.)
Undercutting management (tactical development of the undercutting: steps, operative
sequence, short term rate)
The evaluation of the relative frequency of each one of these remedial measures in the re-
ported geotechnical hazards, allow classifying them as remedial measures of high influence,
moderate influence, and low influence for each type of geotechnical hazard. This is shown
in Figure 9.21, which indicates that the most important remedial measures for geotechnical
hazards are:
MINING SEQUENCE (mine planning, present in 4 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
MONITORING (geotechnical, present in 3 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
DRAW MANAGEMENT (mine operation, present in 3 of 5 geotechnical hazards)

75

COLLAPSES
ROCKBURSTS
SUBSIDENCE
WATER INFLOWS & MUDRUSHES
HANGUPS
HIGH INFLUENCE MODERATE INFLUENCE LOW INFLUENCE
U
N
D
E
R
C
U
T
I
N
G

M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
D
R
A
W

M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
B
L
A
S
T
I
N
G
R
O
C
K

S
U
P
P
O
R
T
M
I
N
I
N
G

S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
U
N
D
E
R
C
U
T
I
N
G

R
A
T
E
D
R
A
W

R
A
T
E
B
L
O
C
K

H
E
I
G
H
T
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T

G
E
O
M
E
T
R
Y
C
A
V
I
N
G

I
N
I
T
I
A
T
I
O
N
M
I
N
E

L
A
Y
O
U
T
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
R
O
C
K

M
A
S
S

Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
S
T
R
E
S
S

E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
W
A
T
E
R

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
H
A
Z
A
R
D
S
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
GEOTECHNICAL
MAIN CAUSES
OF
GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
UNDERGROUND MINES
BY CAVING
IN
MINE DESIGN PLANNING OPERATION
C A U S E S

Figure 9.20: Relative influence of the main causes of geotechnical hazards in underground mining
by caving.
DESIGN
COLLAPSES
ROCKBURSTS
SUBSIDENCE
WATER INFLOWS & MUDRUSHES
HANGUPS
HIGH INFLUENCE MODERATE INFLUENCE LOW INFLUENCE
FOR
UNDERGROUND MINES
GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
R
O
C
K

M
A
S
S

C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
W

R
A
T
E
T
E
C
H
N
O

I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E S
H
A
Z
A
R
D
S
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
GEOTECH
MAIN
REMEDIAL & MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
BY CAVING
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
PLANNING
M
I
N
I
N
G

S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
U
R
F
A
C
E

S
T
A
B
I
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E

I
N
F
R
A
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
D
R
A
W

M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
N
T
I
N
G
E
N
C
Y

P
L
A
N
S
B
L
A
S
T
I
N
G
OPERATION

Figure 9.21: Relative influence of the main remedial measures for geotechnical hazards in under-
ground mining by caving.

76

10. CONCLUSIONS
To develop this benchmarking 17 mines in 7 countries were visited, in order to collect relevant in-
formation. Also a comprehensive literature review was done to get complementary data, allowing
to obtain information on up to 88 additional mines; nevertheless, in most cases the additional data
do not include all the aspects considered in the benchmarking survey.
The interpretation of the data collected in this benchmarking has allowed to define the current
trends and practices of the underground mining by caving methods. These have been summarized
as histograms and/or curves to facilitate their use by the sponsors of ICS-II, especially during the
early stages of a new mining project.
To make even easier the use of this information, Table 10.2 summarizes the current trends for the
most relevant design parameters, and it can be used for pre-feasibility studies.
It is also important to realize when a problem originates and when it is detected during the different
stages of a mining project. As a first attempt, it is suggested use Table 10.1.

Table 10.1
POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ORIGIN AND DETECTION OF PROBLEMS
DURING THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF A MINING PROJECT
Stage of the Project Origin of the Problem Detection of the Problem
Pre-Feasibility Study 0% to 20% 0%
Feasibility Study 20% to 60% 0% to 5%
Basic Engineering 20% to 40% 0% to 5%
Detailed Engineering 10% to 20% 0% to 5%
Construction 10% to 20% 10% to 30%
Operation 20% to 60% 50% to 90%
(*) Modified from Sowers (1993)

Finally it must be noted that all the results presented in this report will be used as a starting basis
for the development of geotechnical guidelines for a transition from open pit to underground mining,
which corresponds to the second main activity of Task 4, and includes the following subjects:
5. CAVING PROPAGATION
6. SUBSIDENCE
7. CROWN-PILLAR
8. WATER INFLOWS & MUDRUSHES


77

Table 10.2
TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR A BLOCK/PANEL CAVING MINE
Mine Design Parameter Typical Value Comments
Rock Mass Quality 50 RMR < 60 If RMR > 60 rock mass cavability must be evaluated carefully.
Acces Decline
Currently 70% of mines prefer declines, and 20% declines and shafts as
mine access.
Block Height 210 m This typical block height could vary 20%.
< 50000 m
2
30000 m
2

50000 a 100000 m
2
75000 m
2

Footprint
Area
> 100000 m
2
170000 m
2

These typical areas could vary +20%. It is recommended to use equal or
larger areas, but not smaller than the typical values. Also, square areas are
better than the rectangular ones.
Area 10000 m
2
Smaller areas are not recommended, specially in massive rock masses.
Shape Square Internal corners must be avoided (e.g. a L shaped area).
Measures to Facilitate Slot Is highly recommended to facilitate cave initiation.
Caving
Initiation
Hydraulic Radius 20 to 30 m Avoid being close to the limit in Laubschers chart.
Spacing 15 m This is the current practice.
Height 4 m
D
r
i
f
t
s

Width 4 m
Undercut Height 8 m Could vary, but be careful if using small undercutting heights.
U
n
d
e
r
c
u
t

L
e
v
e
l

Undercut Rate 2100 m
2
/month
Could be increased but be careful with induced seismicity, specially if in a
high stress environment.
Crown-Pillar Thickness 17 m Could vary 20% (measured from floor UCL to floor EXT).
Height 4 m
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

L
e
v
e
l

D
r
i
f
t
s

Width 4 m
Draw Points
Influence Area 225 m
2
Could vary from 169 to 324 m
2
.
Draw Rates 0.20 m/day
This is an average value. Typically lower values are used at the beginning
of caving, and higher values are used when over 30% of the block height
has been extracted.
Capacity 11 ton It could vary 20%.
LHD
Equipment
Traming Distance 140 m Smaller tramming distances are preferable.
Powder Factor 400 grm/ton For undercutting blasting. It could vary 20%.
Oversize Limit 1.8 to 2.0 m
3
It could vary 20%.
RMR < 70 > 45
Subsidence
RMR > 70 > 60
is the break angle defining the mean inclination of the crater walls.
Geotechnical Hazards
The project must take account that collapses, rockbursts, subsidence, water inflows and
mudrushes, and hangups could occur (see Figure 9.20 for main causes and Figure 9.21 for
the most common remedial measures).
Instrumentation & Monitoring
The most common monitoring systems include displacements and seismicity. It is re-
commended to include a seismic monitoring system, specially in massive hard rock and/or
high stress environments..
(1) These typical values are intended only for the pre-feasibility stage of a mining project.
(2) RMR values are for Laubschers 1990 system.

78

11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report want to thank all the sponsors for giving them the possibility of develop-
ing this work. The authors also want to express their sincere gratitude to all the colleagues that
helped them to collect the information at each mine visited: Andina, Bingham Canyon, Cadia, Chu-
quicamata, El Teniente, Finsch, Grasberg Open Pit, Grasberg Underground (DOZ), Henderson,
Kidd Creek, Kiruna, Koffiefontein, Mount Keith, Northparkes, Palabora, Ridgeway, Salvador. It is
important to note that Grasberg, Henderson and Kidd Creek mines do not participate as sponsors
of the ICS-II Study, but they were willing to help the authors in developing this benchmarking study.
Finally, the authors want to acknowledge specially the support provided by Chuquicamata Mine of
Codelco to develop this work.


79

12. REFERENCES
[1] Agapitio, J. & Shoemaker, D. (1987): Ground Stability and Support in Block Caving Operations at Mo-
lycorps Questa Mine, ROCK MECHANICS, Proceedings of 28
th
US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
edited by I. Farmer et al., Balkema.
[2] Aimin, Z. & Yongxue, S. (2000): Application of Block Caving System in the Tongkuangyu Copper Mine,
MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[3] Alanis, M.; Hormazbal, E. & Karzulovic, A. (2000): Aplicacin del Metodo Observacional al Sector SW
de Mina Chuquicamata. Informe Tcnico elaborado por la Superintendencia de Ingeniera Geotcnica,
Subgerencia de Geologa y Geotecnia, Divisin Chuquicamata de CODELCO.
[4] Antikainen. J. (1990): Open Stope Design Under Adverse Rock Mechanical Conditions at Pyhsalmi
Mine, ROCK MECHANICS CONTRIBUTIONS AND CHALLENGES, Proceedings of the 31
st
U.S.
Symposium, W. Hustrulid & G. Johnson editors, Balkema.
[5] Antikanien, J.; Simonen, A. & Mkinen, I. (1993): 3D Modelling of the central pillar en the Pyhsalmi
mine, INNOVATIVE MINE DESIGN FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY, Proceedings of the International Con-
gress on Mine Design, W. Bawden & J. Archibald editors, Balkema.
[6] Apablaza, R. (2002): Personal communication.
[7] Arjang, B. (1997): DGround Stress Determination at the 6800 Level, kidd Mining Division. Work per-
formed for Falconbridge Ltd., Kidd Mining Division; Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories, Report
MMSL 96-047 (CR), Job N 51422, CANMET.
[8] Austin, G. (2002): DPersonal Communication.
[9] Baase, R.; Diment, W. & Petrina, A. (1998): Sublevel Caving at Craigmont Mines Ltd., Chapter 37 in
TECHNIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Hand-
book, Edited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[10] Barber, J.; Dirdjosuwondo, S.; Casten, T. & Thomas, L. (2001): Block Caving the EESS Deposit at P.T.
Freeport Indonesia, Chapter 53 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals
and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[11] Barber, J.; Thomas, L. & Casten, T. (2000): Freeport Indonesias Deep Ore Zone Mine, MASSMIN
2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[12] Barlett, P. (2001): Premier Diamond Mine, Chapter 52 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engi-
neering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid, and R. Bullock, SME.
[13] Barlett, P. & Croll, A. (2000): Cave Mining at Premier Diamond Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings,
Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[14] Barlett, P. & Raubenheimer, M. (1988): Collapse of the Gabbro Sill above an Open Stope at Premier
Mine, SANGORM SYMPOSYUM, Rock Mechanics in Africa, Nov. 1988.
[15] Barnett, W.; Guest, A.; Terbrugge, P. & Walker, D. (2001): Probabilistic Pit Slope Design in the Lim-
popo Metamorphic Rock at Venetia Mine, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall.
[16] Barraza, M. & Crorkan, P. (2000): Esmeralda Mine Exploitation Project, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings,
[17] Bates, G. (1998): Open Stope Mining at the Magmont Mine, Bixby, Missouri, Chapter 7 in TECH-
NIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Ed-
ited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[18] Bawden, W. (1994): Integrated Seismic-Stress-Geomechanical Analysis of a Cable Bolted Back Fail-
ure, Mines Gaspe, Canada, ROCK MECHANICS; MODELS AND MEASUREMENTS CHALLENGES
FROM INDUSTRY, Proceedings of the 1
st
North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, , P. Nelson &
S. Laubach editors, Balkema.
[19] Beck, D.; Brady, B. & Grant, D. (1996): Analysis of Seismicity and Rock Deformation During Open
Stoping of a Deep Orebody, PREDICTIONS AND PERFORMANCE IN ROCK MECHANICS AND
ROCK ENGINEERING, ISRM International Symposium EUROCK96, Volume 2, edited by G. Barla,
Balkema.
[20] Blondell, J. (2002): Personal Communication.
[21] Blondel, J.; Aguirre, E.; Behn, G. & Toledo, C. (1993): Seismic Refraction and Tomography studies in
the El Teniente copper mine, INNOVATIVE MINE DESIGN FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY, Proceedings of
the International Congress on Mine Design, W. Bawden & J. Archibald editors, Balkema.

80

[22] Board, M.; Seldon, S.; Brummer, R. & Pakalnis, R. (2000): Analysis of the Failure of a Large Hanging-
wall Wedge: Kidd Mining Division, Falconbridge, Ltd., CIM Bulletin, Vol. 93, N 1043, September 2000.
[23] Bonani, A. (2002): Personal Communication.
[24] Bronkhorst, D; Rheault, J. & Ley, G. (1993): Geotechnical Principles Governing Mine Design at the Wil-
liams Mine, INNOVATIVE MINE DESIGN FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY, Proceedings of the International
Congress on Mine Design, W. Bawden & J. Archibald editors, Balkema.
[25] Broome, M. & Sandy, M. (1988): Rock Mechanics Investigations at Mufulira mine, Zambia, Transac-
tions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (Section A, Mining Industry), Volume 97, January
1988.
[26] Brown, E. & Ferguson, G. (1979): Prediction of Progressive Hanging-Wall Caving, Gaths Mine,
Rhodesia, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (Section A, Mining Industry),
Volume 88, January 1988.
[27] Brumleve, C. (1988): Rock Reinforcement of a Caving Block in Variable ground Conditions, King Mine,
Zimbabwe, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (Section A, Mining Industry), Vol-
ume 97, April 1988.
[28] Brumleve C. & Maier, M. (1981): Applied Investigations of Rock Mass Response to Panel Caving,
Henderson Mine, Colorado, USA, Chapter 19 in DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUB-
LEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume I, edited by D. Stewart, SME, New York.
[29] Buksa, H. (2001): Sublevel Cave Mining Update at INCOs Stobie Mine, Chapter 44 in UNDER-
GROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by
W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[30] Butcher, R. (2002): Personal Communication.
[31] Calder, K.; Townsend, P. & Russell F. (2001): Palabora Underground Mine Project, Chapter 49 in UN-
DERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited
by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[32] Caldern, A.; Torres, R.; Surez, C.; Daz, M.; Karzulovic, A. & Barahona P. (1988): Diseo
Geotcnico Taludes Mina Chuquicamata, Informe Tcnico, Superintendencia Ingeniera Geotcnica,
Direccin de Planificacin, Subgerencia Planificacin y Gestin Estratgica, Divisin Chuquicamata de
CODELCO.
[33] Callahan, M.; Keskimaki, K. & Rech, W. (2000): A Case History of the Crusher Level Development at
Henderson, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[34] Carter, C. & Russell, F. (2000): Modelling and Design of Block Caving at Bingham Canyon, MASSMIN
[35] Casten, T.; Golden, R.; Mulyadi, A. & Barber, J. (2000): Excavation Design and Ground Support of the
Gyratory Crusher Installation at the DOZ Mine, PT Freeport Indonesia, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings,
[36] Cataln, A.; Hormazbal, E. & Karzulovic, A. (2000): Aplicacin del Mtodo Observacional al Sector
SE de Mina Chuquicamata, Informe Tcnico elaborado por la Superintendencia de Ingeniera Geotc-
nica, Subgerencia de Geologa y Geotecnia, Divisin Chuquicamata de CODELCO.
[37] Chen, D (1996): Geotechnical Assessment of Block Cave Mining in Northparkes Mines, NSW, AUSTRA-
LIA, ROCK MECHANICS, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES, Proceedings of the 2
nd
North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium: NARMS96, Volume 1; edited by M. Aubertin, F. Hassani & H. Mitri, Balkema.
[38] Chileshe, P. (1996): Interaction Between Underground and Opencast Workings at Nchanga Mine,
Chingola, Zambia, SURFACE MINING 1996, Johannesburg, SAIMM.
[39] Chileshe, P. (1997): Ground Stress and Movement Associated with Block Caving of the flat 25 dipping
Orebody at Nchanga Mine, Chingola, Zambia, SARES 97, 1
st
Southern African Rock, Engineering
Symposium, Proceedings.
[40] Chileshe, P. & Phiri, S. (1994): New Production from Exhausted Block-Caving Areas at Nchanga
Mine, XV
TH
CMMI CONGRESS, Johannesburg, SAIMM.
[41] Contador, N. & Glavic F. (2001): Sublevel Open Stoping at El Soldado Mine: A Geomechanic Chal-
lenge, Chapter 29 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and Interna-
tional Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[42] Dahner, C. (2002): Personal Communication.
[43] De Nicola, R. & Fishwick, M. (2000): An Underground Air Blast Codelco Chile - Division Salvador,
MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.

81

[44] DeWolfe, V. (1981): Draw Control in Principle and Practice at Henderson Mine, Chapter 56 in DESIGN
AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume II, edited by D. Stewart,
SME, New York.
[45] Daz, J.; Espinoza, C. & Karzulovic, A. (2000): Evaluacin y Anlisis Colapso en Nivel 16 Produccin
LHD, III Panel, Mina Ro Blanco, Estudio DA - CG - 00 - 003, informe tcnico de AKL para Divisin An-
dina de CODELCO.
[46] Dinkowitz, S. (2002): Personal Communication..
[47] Doepken, W. (1998): The Henderson Mine, Chapter 44 in TECHNIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MIN-
ING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Edited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock,
SME.
[48] Dolipas, R. (2000): Rock Mechanics as Applied in Philex Block Cave Operations, MASSMIN 2000, Pro-
ceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[49] Dube, S. (2002): Personal Communication.
[50] Duffield, S. (2000): Design of the Second Block Cave at Northparkes E26 Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Pro-
[51] Dunne, K. & Pakalnis R. (1996): Dilution Aspects of a Sublevel Retreat Stope at Detour Lake Mine,
ROCK MECHANICS, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES, Proceedings of the 2
nd
North American Rock Me-
chanics Symposium: NARMS96, Volume 1; edited by M. Aubertin, F. Hassani & H. Mitri, Balkema.
[52] Espinoza, C. (1996): Analisis y Diseo de Crown Pillars, Memoria de Ttulo, Depto. Ingeniera de Mi-
nas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile.
[53] Fletcher, J. (1960): Ground Movements and Subsidence from Block Caving at Miami Mine, AIME
Trans., Vol.217, 1960. San Francisco Meeting.
[54] Flores, G. (1993): A new Mining Sequence to Minimize Stability Problems in Block Caving Mines, MSc
Thesis (unpublished), Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
[55] Flores, G. & Karzulovic, A. (2001): The Role of the Geotechnical Group in an Open Pit: Chuquicamata
Mine, Chile, 4
th
International Symposium on slope Stability in Surface Mining, Denver Colorado.
[56] Gallager, J. & Teuscher, J. (1998): Henderson Mine: Preparing for the Future; Mining Engineering, a
publication of SME, August 1998, Vol. 50, N 8.
[57] Goodrich, R.; Hardy, M. & Brechtel, C. (2001): Geotechnical Characterization and Structural Mine De-
sign at the Murray Mine, Northeasten Nevada, ROCK MECHANICS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST,
Proceedings of the 38
th
U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Volume I, Edited by D. Elsworth, J. Tinucci
& K. Heasley, Balkema.
[58] Grant, D & DeKruijff, S. (2000): Mount Isa Mines - 1100 Orebody, 35 Years On, MASSMIN 2000, Pro-
[59] Guarascio, M.; Antonietti, M.; Fry, R. & Gallavresi, F. (1993): Stabilization of Unconsolidated Backfill at
Tara Mine, ASSESSMENT AND PREVENTION OF FAILURE PHENOMENA IN ROCK ENGINEER-
ING, A. Pasamehmetoglu et al. editors, Balkema.
[60] Hancock, F. & Mattson, R. (1982): Sublevel Caving at Granduc, Chapter 4 in UNDERGROUND MIN-
ING METHODS HANDBOOK, W. Hustrulid editor, New York, SME
[61] Hannweg, L. (2002): Personal Communication.
[62] Harrison, E. (2002): Personal Communication.
[63] Harvey P.; Bloss, M. & Bouliane, N. (2000): Cannington Mine 30 Million Ounces of Silver per Year
from a 300-m Cube, Chapter 27 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals
and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[64] Heden, H.; Lidin, K. & Malmstrm, R. (1998): Sublevel Caving at LKABs Kirunavaara Mine, Chapter 39
in TECHNIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Hand-
book, Edited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[65] Henry, E. & Dahnr-Linqvist, C. (2000): Footwall Stability at the LKABs Kiruna Sublevel Caving Opera-
tion, Sweden, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[66] Hepworth, N. (2002): Personal communication.
[67] Henry, E. & Marcotte, D. (2001): Developments in Ground Control Planning enhaced by RQD
Geostatistical Analyses at the LKABs Kiruna Mine, Sweden, ROCK MECHANICS - A CHALLENGE
FOR SOCIETY, Srkk & Eloranta editors, Balkema.

82

[68] Hewson, S. (2002): Personal Communication.
[69] Hickson, R. (1991): Grasberg Open Pit: Ertsbergs Big Brothest Comes on Stream in Indonesia, Mining
Engineering, April 1991.
[70] Hornsby, B. & Sullivan, B. (1998): Excavations Design and Mining Methods in the 1100 Orebody,
Mount Isa Mine, Australia, Chapter 10 in TECHNIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from
Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Edited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[71] House, M.; van As, A. & Dudley, J. (2001): Block Caving Lift 1 of the Northparkes E26 Mine, Chapter
50 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Stud-
ies, Edited by W. Hustrulid, and R. Bullock, SME.
[72] Ingeroc (2000): Estudio de Medicin de Esfuerzos, Informe Final para Divisin Andina de CODELCO,
Ingeniera de Rocas Ltda.
[73] Internal Note (2002): Kidd Creek Mine Kidd Mining Division Underground Tour Guidebook.
[74] Jofre, J.; Yez, P. & Ferguson, G. (2000): Evolution in Panel Caving Undercutting and Drawbell
Excavation, El Teniente Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[75] Johnson, G. (1998): Sublevel Caving at the Stobie Mine, INCO Metals Co., Chapter 38 in TECH-
NIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Ed-
ited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[76] Johnson, G. & Soul, J. (1963): Measurements of Surface Subsidence, San Manuel Mine, Pinal Coun-
try, Arizona, Report of Investigation 6204, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, BUREAU OF MINES, Washington.
[77] Jude, C. (1990): Structural Analysis of a Mechanized LHD trench undercut caving system, ROCK ME-
CHANICS CONTRIBUTIONS AND CHALLENGES, Proceedings of the 31
st
U.S. Symposium, W. Hus-
trulid & G. Johnson editors, Balkema.
[78] Karzulovic, A.; Cavieres, P. & Gaete, S. (1994): Evaluacin Geotcnica-Geomecnica del Teniente
Sub-6, Sector NFW1 y su Impacto en el Mediano-Largo Plazo, Mina El Teniente EM-10/94, Depto. Es-
tudios y Mtodos Operacionales, Divisin El Teniente de CODELCO.
[79] Karzulovic; A. Cavieres, P. & Pardo, C. (1999): Caving Subsidence at El Teniente, Proc. Symp. Mining
Engineering, SIMIN 99, Universidad de Santiago.
[80] Karzulovic, KA. & Flores, G (2002): Visitas Tcnicas.
[81] Karzulovic, A.; Galeb, M. & Quiones, L. (1991): Evaluacin de la Experiencia Adquirida Durante el
Desarrollo y Explotacin de los Paneles I y II de la Mina Ro Blanco, informe tcnico de Ingeniera y
Geotecnia Ltda. para Divisin Andina de CODELCO.
[82] Keskimaki, K. & Jensen, E. (1992): Advances in Equipment Technology at the Henderson Mine,
MASSMIN92, The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, SAIMM, Johannesburg.
[83] Kozyrev, A. et al. (2001): Underground Mining in the Kola Peninsula, Russia, Chapter 30 in UNDER-
[84] Kvapil, R. (1982): The Mechanics and Design of Sublevel Caving Systems. Underground Mining Meth-
ods Handbook, Editor W. A. Hustrulid, Pages 880-897. Society of Mining Engineers, AIME, New York.
[85] Kvapil, R. (1992): Sublevel Caving. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 2
nd
Edition, Editor H. l. Hart-
man, Vol 2: 1789-1814. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton, Colorado.
[86] Kvapil, R., Baeza, L., Rosenthal, J. & Flores, G. (1989): Block Caving at El Teniente Mine, Chile.
Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, section A: Mining Industry, Vol 98,: A43-56.
[87] Lacasse, M. & Legast, P. (1981): Change from Grizzly to LHD Extraction System, Chapter 10 in
DESING AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, edited by D. Stewart,
SME, New York.
[88] Leach, A.; Naidoo, K. & Bartlett, P. (2000): Considerations for Design of Production Level Drawpoint
Layouts for a Deep Block Cave, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[89] Li, T. & Cribb, B. (1999): Shotcrete Trials and Aplications in Poor Ground Conditions at Mount Isa
Mines, ROCK SUPPORT AND REINFORCEMENT PRACTICE IN MINING, Villaescusa, Windsor &
Thompson editors, Balkema.
[90] Libby, D.J. et al. (1985): The Tara Mines Story, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
(Section A, Mining Industry), Volume 94, January 1985.
[91] Lupo, J. (1997): Progressive Failure of Hangingwall and Footwall Kiirunavaara Mine, Sweden, Int.
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 34 N 3-4, paper N 184, Elsevier.

83

[92] Lupo, J. (1999): Numerical Simulation of Progressive Failure from Underground Bulk Mining Opera-
tions, ROCK MECHANICS FOR INDUSTRY, Proceedings of the 37
th
U.S. Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, B. Amadei et al. editors, Balkema.
[93] Malmgren, L. & Svenson, T. (1999): Investigations of Important Parameters for Unreinforced Shotcrete
as Rock Support in the Kiirunavaara Mine, Sweden, ROCK MECHANICS FOR INDUSTRY, Proceed-
ings of the 37
th
U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, B. Amadei et al. editors, Balkema.
[94] Management and Staff Ecstall Mining Limited (1974): The Ecstall Story, CIM Bulletin, Volume 67, N
745, May 1974.
[95] McMurray, D. (1982): Sublevel Caving Practice at Shabanie Mine, Rhodesia, Chapter 7 in UNDER-
GROUND MINING METHODS HANDBOOK, edited by W. Hustrulid, SME.
[96] McMurray, S. (1982): Mining Below the Gabro-sill, Premier Mine, Cullinam, South Africa, Chapter 5 in
UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS HANDBOOK, edited by W. Hustrulid, SME.
[97] Merino, L. & Tapia, R. (2001): Cavability of Inca Sector, El Salvador Mine, FLAC AND NUMERICAL
MODELLING IN GEOMECHANICS, Billaux et al. editors, Balkema.
[98] Moss, A. (2002): Personal Communication.
[99] Mossop, D. (2002): Personal Communication.
[100] Moyano, A. & Viene J. (1993): Remote Operation of LHD and Pick Hammers in Rock Burst Conditions
at El Teniente Mine, INNOVATIVE MINE DESIGN FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY, Proceedings of the In-
ternational Congress on Mine Design, W. Bawden & J. Archibald editors, Balkema.
[101] Page, C. & Brennen, R. (1983): Stability of Large Open Stopes in Weak Rock, Chapter 15 in STABIL-
ITY IN UNDERGROUND MINING, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engin-
ners, Inc., C.O. Brawner editor, New York.
[102] Pastn, O. (1999): Evaluacion de la Socavacion de Baja Altura en Teniente 4 Sur, Memoria de Ttulo,
Depto. Ingeniera de Minas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile.
[103] Perason, N. (1981): The Development and Control of Block Caving at the Chingola Division of
Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Limited, Zambia, Chapter 18 in DESIGN AND OPERATION OF
CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume I, edited by D. Stewart, SME, New York.
[104] Player, J. (2001): Longitudinal Sublevel Caving, Big Bell Mine, Chapter 45 in UNDERGROUND MIN-
ING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid,
and R. Bullock, SME.
[105] Plessis, L. & Martin, D. (?):Numerical Modelling Studies for Design of High Rock Slopes at Palabora
Copper Mine, PROC. 7
TH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ROCK MECHANICS, AAACHE, VOL 1, A. A. BALKEMA.
[106] Pothitos, F. (2002): Personal Communication.
[107] Power, G. (2002): Personal Communication.
[108] Preece, C. (2001): Finsch Mine: Open Pit to Open Stoping to Block Caving, Chapter 54 in UNDER-
[109] Preece, C (2002): Personal Communication.
[110] Quinteiro, C.; Quinteiro, M. & Hedstrm, O. (2000): Underground Iron Ore Mining at LKAB, Sweden,
Chapter 43 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International
Case Studies, Edited by Hustrulid and Bullock, SME.
[111] Ran, J.; Seldon, S. & Counter, D. (2001): Underground Mining Induced Remobilization of a Hanging-
wall Wedge and Movement of Footwall Structures at Kidd Mine - A Case Study, paper to be published.
[112] Rech, W. (2001): Henderson Mine, Chapter 48 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering
Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[113] Rech, W. & Lorig, L. (1992): Predictive Numerical Stress Analysis of Panel Caving at the Henderson
Mine, MASSMIN92, The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, SAIMM, Johannesburg.
[114] Rech, W.; Keskimaki, K. & Stewart, D. (2000): An Update on Cave Development and Draw Control at
the Henderson Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[115] Rech, W. & Watson, D. (1994): Cave Initiation and Growth Monitoring at the Henderson Mine, SME
Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[116] Revista Minera Chilena, N 254, Agosto 2002.
[117] Rojas, E. (2002): Personal Communication.

84

[118] Rojas, E.; Cavieres, P.; Dunlop, R. & Gaete, S. (2000): Control of Induced Seismicity at El Teniente
Mine, Codelco-Chile, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[119] Rojas, E.; Molina, R.; Bonani, A. and Constanzo, H. (2000): The Pre-Undercut Caving Method at the El
Teniente Mine, Codelco Chile, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[120] Rojas, E.; Molina, R. & Cavieres, P. (2001): Pre-undercut Caving in El Teniente Mine, Chile, Chapter
51 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Stud-
ies, Edited by Hustrulid and Bullock, SME.
[121] Sandy, M. & Player, J. (1999): Reinforcement Design Investigations at Big Bell, ROCK SUPPORT AND
REINFORCEMENT PRACTICE IN MINING, Villaescusa, Windsor & Thompson editors, A. Balkema.
[122] Schroeder, K. (2002): Personal Communication.
[123] Stawski, M. (2002): Personal Communication.
[124] Stevens, C.; Sandbak, L. & Hunter, J. (1987): LHD Production and Design Modifications at the San
Manuel Mine, ROCK MECHANICS, Proceedings of 28
th
US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, edited by
I. Farmer et al., Balkema.
[125] Stewart, R. &d Sacrison, R. (1983): Geological Engineering A Bridge Between Geologist and Miner,
in Chapter 12 in SME - AIME Fall Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah - October 19 - 21, 1983.
[126] Streeton, G. (2000): Geotechnical Aspects of Open Stope Design at BHP Cannington, MASSMIN
[127] Struthers, M.; Turner, M.; McNabb, K. & Jenkins, P. (2000): Rock Mechanics Design and Practice for
Squeezing Ground and High Stress Conditions at Perseverance Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings,
[128] Suarez, C. (2002): Personal communications.
[129] Szwedzicki, T. (1989): Pillar Recovery at Manghura Copper Mines, Zimbabwe, Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (Section A, Mining Industry), Volume 98, September-December
1989.
[130] Tannant, D.; Martin, C. & Kaiser, P. (1997): Site Characterisation of the 6800 to 7800 Mining Block,
Technical Report submitted to Falconbridge Limited - Kidd Mining Division by the Geomechanics Re-
search Centre at Laurentian University.
[131] Taylor, J. & Chinamatira, R. (2000): The Evolution of Sublevel Caving at Trojan Mine, Bindura, Zim-
babwe, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[132] Terbrugge, P. & Hanif, M. (1981): Discussion of a Large Scale on the Footwall of the Nchanga Open
Pit, Zambia, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Weak Rock, Tokyo, September 1981.
[133] Thompson, P. (1989): Slope Stability at Finsh Mine, ROCK SLOPE STABILITY, Sangorm Symposium,
March 1989.
[134] Tobie, R. & Julin, D. (1982): Block Caving: General Description, UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS
HANDBOOK, edited by W. Hustrulid, SME.
[135] Tobie, R.; Thomas, L. & Richards, H. (1998): San Manuel Mine, Chapter 43 in Techniques in UNDER-
GROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Edited by R. Gertsh and
R. Bullock, SME.
[136] Turner, M. & Player, J. (2000): Seismicity at Big Bell Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane,
Qld, Australia.
[137] Uggalla, S. (2001): Sublevel Open Stoping Design and Planing at the Olympic Dam Mine, UNDER-
[138] Van As, A. (2002): Personal communication.
[139] Van As, A. and Jeffrey, R. (2000): Caving Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing at Northparkes Mines,
PACIFICS ROCKS, ROCK AROUND THE RIM, Proceedings of the Fourth North American Rock Me-
chanics Symposium: NARMS 2000, Washington; Girard, J; Liebman, M; Breeds, C and Doe, T. editors,
A. Balkema.
[140] Vera, S. (1981): Caving at Climax, Chapter 14 in Design and OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUB-
LEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume I, edited by D. Stewart, SME, New York.
[141] Wilkes, T. (1992): The Support of Highly Fractured Rock in shallow Open Stopes at Koffiefountain
Mine, Orange Free State, Republic of South Africa, ROCK SUPPORT IN MINING AND UNDER-
GROUND CONSTRUCTION, Kaiser & McCreath editors, Balkema.

85

[142] Wilkie, N. and Holt, W. (1961): A Description of Open Pit Mining at Nchanga Consolidated Cooper
Mines Limited, Northern Rhodesia, Commonwealth Mining and Metallurgical Congress, 7
th
, May 1961,
Johannesburg.
[143] Wilson, A. (2000): The Past Focuses Support for the Future, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane,
Qld, Australia.
[144] Wilson, D. (2002): Personal Communication.
[145] Wood, P.; Jenkins, P. and Jones, I. (2000): Sublevel Cave Drop Down Strategy at Perseverance Mine,
Leinster Nickel Operations, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[146] Zappia, M. (1981): Gravity Caving and Production Hoisting at the San Manuel Mine, Chapter 16 in DE-
SIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume I, edited by D.
Stewart, SME, New York.
[147] Zerga, R. (1981): Development and Production Equipment in Use at San Manuel, Chapter 50 in DE-
SIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume II, edited by D.
Stewart, SME, New York.

ICS-II, Task 4
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A
TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO
UNDERGROUND MINING

Main Activity 1:
APPENDIXES
BENCHMARKING REPORT
December 2002

Benchmarking Final Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

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

Benchmarking Final Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ICS-II, Task 4

GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A

Potrebbero piacerti anche