Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
propagation simulations
B.L. Sainsbury
D.P. Sainsbury
M.E. Pierce
Itasca Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA
ABSTRACT: Cave mining methods allow for the bulk extraction of large, low grade ore bodies
in a cost effective manner. The fundamental mechanics of caving involves the self-propagating
yield (failure) of an in situ rock mass in response to production draw from a mining horizon located at depth. Since the inception of cave mining methods in the iron ore mines of northern
Michigan, USA, during the early part of the 20th century, researchers have sought to understand
and predict the nature of cave propagation through simple one-dimensional volume based relationships and empirical methods. Although these methods have successfully been applied to
many cave operations to-date, numerical modeling is considered to be able to provide a more
fundamental, rigorous and robust assessment of cave propagation behavior. Over the past 12
years, through funding provided by the International Caving Study (ICS) and Mass Mining
Technology (MMT) Projects, significant advancement has been made with respect to the development and validation of numerical caving methodologies.
1 INTRODUCTION
Cave mining methods allow for the bulk extraction of large and low grade ore bodies in a
cost effective manner. The caving process involves undercutting (blasting a horizon of in
situ rock mass) and extraction of the broken rock from drawpoints on a production level located at depth. When the plan area of the mining footprint reaches a large enough dimension, a self-sustained propagating cave will develop as long as the broken and bulked ore is
continued to be withdrawn. A schematic diagram of a typical block cave mine is layout provided in Figure 1a.
Figure 1. (a) Schematic representation of a typical block cave mine (b) Main behavioral regions of a
propagating cave.
2 CAVING TERMINOLOGY
A conceptual model of caving has been developed by Duplancic & Brady (1999). The model
includes four main behavioral regions - presented in Figure 1b. The characteristics of each
region have been derived from in situ monitoring, underground observations and numerical
simulations. They are defined below.
Elastic Region -- The host rock mass around the caving region behaves mainly
elastically and has properties consistent with an undisturbed rock mass.
Seismogenic Zone -- Microseismic (and sometimes seismic) activity is concentrated in this region primarily due to slip along pre-existing discontinuities and the
initiation of new fractures.
Yielded Zone The rock mass in this region is fractured and has lost some or all
of its cohesive strength and provides minimal support to the overlying rock mass.
Rock mass within the yielded zone is subject to significant damage, i.e. open
holes are cut-off, TDRs break and cracking is observable in infrastructure. Stress
components within this region are typically low in magnitude.
Mobilized Zone This zone gives an estimate as to the portion of the orebody
that has moved at least 1-2 m in response to the production draw and may be recoverable.
3 ANALYTICAL AND EMPERICAL METHODS OF CAVEABILIY ANALYSIS
Since the inception of cave mining methods during the early part of the 20th century, researchers have sought to understand and predict the nature of cave propagation. Rice (1934)
and later Panek (1984) developed simple one-dimensional volume based relationships to
characterize cave behavior according to an assumed bulking behavior, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Relationship between thickness of caved ore withdrawn (tc), thickness of in-place ore extracted (ti) and rise of the caving brow (Dh) (after Panek 1984).
Simple volumetric relations are still used today by many researchers to estimate cave
propagation rates (Beck et al. 2006). However, the simplifications assume that (a) cave initiation always occurs, and that, (b) cave propagation (and mobilization of material) is always
vertical.
Since the inception of cave mining methods, the use of empirical methods to estimate
cave behavior have been, and still are, widespread. The most commonly used approach for
estimating cavability was developed by Laubscher (Diering & Laubscher 1987, Laubscher
1990, 1994, 2001) and is based on a compilation of rock mass geotechnical characteristics
and caving case histories largely derived from low strength kimberlitic deposits in South Africa. Laubschers chart (Figure 3a) defines, three possible caving states that include; no
caving, transitional whereby the cave initiates, but propagation is minimal and caving
whereby self-sustained propagation occurs.
Many mines still use Laubschers chart to estimate the undercut dimensions required to
induce continuous caving. In most cases, good agreement is achieved. However Lorig et al.
(1995), van As & Jeffrey (2000), De Nicola Escobar & Fishwick Tapia (2000) have previously reported on instances where significant differences were observed. A detailed review
of these cases by Trueman & Mawdesley (2003) showed that the biggest difference in actual
outcome versus prediction was associated with strong (MRMR greater than 50) rock masses
and misinterpretation of the application of adjustments in the MRMR rating scheme. As a
result of this review, Trueman & Mawdesley proposed an alternate method for the prediction
of continuous caving conditions through an extension of the Mathews stope stability chart
(Mathews et al. 1980) that included data from non-caving operations. Their extended stability chart is provided in Figure 3b.
By necessity, empirical methods are limited by the dataset they are developed from. In his
review of cave mining practices, Brown (2003) reasons that numerical modeling enables a
more fundamental and rigorous assessment of cave initiation and propagation behavior than
empirical methods, since it may have advantages in cases for which current experience is
lacking.
Figure 3. (a) Laubschers stability chart, after Laubscher (1994) (b) Extended Mathews Stability
Chart, after Trueman & Mawdesley (2003).
Figure 4. Impact of principal stress orientation in relation to undercut (after Palma & Agarwal
1973).
Figure 5. (a) Model mesh (b) section through the mining geometry (c) simulated undercutting process (d) contours of resultant mobilized strength the shaded area represents a fully softened/caved rock mass (after Barla & Boshcov 1980).
During the International Caving Study (ICS), Karzulovic & Flores (2003) considered the
influence of depth, stress, structure, rock mass strength and groundwater on cavability
through a sensitivity analysis with the two-dimensional FEM code Phase2 (Rocscience
2002). The caving methodology employed forces vertical cave propagation. It was assumed
that rock mass breakage should only occur in a window with a width equal to 10% of the
undercut width (i.e. if the undercut width is 100 m, then the vertical propagation of the caving requires the breakage of the upper part of the cave along a width of 10 m), as illustrated
in Figure 6a.
Based upon stress redistribution around an imposed cave shape, a Cave Propagation Factor (CPF), which is the ratio between the average deviatoric stress acting on the cave back
and the maximum deviatoric stress that the rock mass can sustain, was used to determine if
caving is problematic, transitional or self-sustained.
Although simple assumptions were used in the representation of geometry, stress redistribution (2D), rock mass plasticity and post peak rock mass behavior, assessment of the CPF
at the Northparkes Lift 1 Mine provided good correlation with the actual performance of the
cave that stalled in 1999 as shown in Figure 6b.
4.2.1 Axis-symmetric strain softening models
In an attempt to include a better representation of the three-dimensional shape of the undercut and surrounding stress field, during the International Caving Study, Lorig (2000) (also
reported in Brown 2003) conducted axis-symmetric simulations of cave propagation using
FLAC (Itasca 2000). A cylindrical undercut located at varying depths was considered. The
initial state of stress within the models was assumed to be lithostatic and stress boundaries (a
support pressure) were imposed at the excavated undercut level to ensure initial stability. To
simulate mining, the support pressure was monotonically reduced in the roof of the undercut
(similar to the approach of Barla & Boshcov 1980) and the extension of the yielded rock
mass (represented by a strain-softening material) was assessed.
Through this approach, even though the true three-dimensional geometry and stress tensor
were not accurately represented, Lorig (2000) was able to predict a hydraulic radius (HR)
associated with cave initiation and self-sustained instability that compared well to
Figure 6. Cave Propagation Factor at Northparkes Lift 1 Mine (after Karzulovic & Flores 2003)
Figure 7. (a) axis-symmetric model (b) evolution of the undercut pressure and height (c) stepwise
reduction of undercut pressure (d) details of the pressure evolution with a simulated reduction
step (after Brown 2003).
These simulations showed that cave propagation is dependent on the post-peak brittleness
of the rock mass, i.e. as the material was made more brittle, the cave height increased.
Trueman & Mawdesley (2003) suggest that continuum methods that use a strain softening
model are not robust as they are highly sensitive to mesh size and the post peak material
properties which impose mesh dependency within the numerical results. However, Lorig
(2000) showed that, provided the mesh-dependency was considered by introducing a standard length scale to the numerical mesh and the critical plastic strain softening input parameters, that the cave simulation results are repeatable with different sized meshes. This scaling
approach, also termed the Standard Regularization Method has also been used by other researchers to account for mesh dependency in the numerical simulation of other geomechanical processes (Crook et al. 2003). Table 1 provides a summary of Lorigs results.
In addition, an analysis of the Northparkes Lift 1 cave was completed, as illustrated in
Figure 8. For each expanding undercut increment, the resulting cave height was assessed. A
hydraulic radius of 42.5 m was required to reproduce the observed in situ cave height. This
is consistent with the stalled undercut geometry. Although the cave height was reproduced,
it is clear the shape of the cave volume (flat-back) is not necessarily realistic.
Grid
Critical Strain (escrit)
Cavern Height (m)
_____________________________________________________________________
Coarse
0.1
160
Fine
0.02
150
Coarse
0.005
200
Fine
0.01
205
Coarse
0.0025
225
Fine
0.005
250
_____________________________________________________________________
Figure 8. Cave geometry resulting from a numerical simulation, hydraulic radius = 42.5m (a) displacement vectors (b) softened zone (after Lorig 2000).
Figure 9. (a) Particle clusters early in the caving process with superimposed contact force chains
(after Lorig et al. 1995). (b) Particle clusters after significant cave propagation showing internal
fractures of blocks in the caving zone chains (after Lorig et al. 1995). (c) Forces arching around
the unstable rock mass(after Brown 2003).
Figure 10. (a) Logic sequence to simulate caving (b) typical simulation results (after Pierce & Lorig
1998).
Figure 11. Simulation of production draw from FLAC3D model based on velocities (after Sainsbury et
al, 2008a).
Figure 12. Progression of predicted mobilized zone limit (white iso-surface) and overlying yield zone
limit (blue iso-surface) versus TDR breakage locations (blue spheres) and open hole blockage locations (red squares).
Figure 13. Simulation of cave development using a hybrid approach (after Vyazmensky et al. 2007).
overall response is often termed a strain-softening process, and is the result of straindependent material properties. In the caving model the rock mass material is described by a
Mohr-Coulomb strain-softening, failure criterion in which the behavior is constrained by the
results of SRM simulations.
Calibration of a SRM material response in FLAC3D (as described by Sainsbury et al. 2008)
has been termed a Ubiquitous Joint Rock Mass (UJRM). UJRM samples are calibrated to
SRM test results under three different stress paths (UCS, triaxial and direct tension), in three
different loading directions and at three different samples sizes. In each of these environments, not only is the peak and post-peak response matched, but the failure mechanisms, determined from SRM testing, are also honored.
5.2 Density (porosity) changes
It is known that the density of broken rock varies greatly within a cave and that it is related
to the volumetric changes that accompany dilation under shear failure and or expansion under tensile failure. As a result of this, the density tends to be lowest in actively flowing regions and higher in areas that have been stagnant for some time and may have been subject
to re-compaction. In the caving algorithm, volumetric expansion can occur via both mechanisms (shear dilation and tension). The resulting changes in porosity (n) within each zone
are tracked and the density updated according to Equation (1).To prevent bulking of the rock
mass to unrealistic levels, a maximum porosity is set within the model that cannot be exceeded.
r bulk = rinsitu / 1 + ( h / (1 - h ) )
(1)
Figure 14. Predicted mobilized (yellow iso-surface) and yield zones (blue iso-surface).
6 SUMMARY
Since the development of numerical methods in the 1970s, the numerical assessment of
cave propagation has been continuously researched and improved to help minimize the geotechnical risks associated with cave mining methods. Numerical methodologies have
evolved from being able to accurately assess the primary risk of whether a cave will stall and
develop an airgap, to now being able to assess detailed cave behavior. The current state-ofthe-art caving algorithm, that has been developed within the industry funded MMT2 project
provides a robust assessment of the evolving mobilized, yield and seismogenic zones in response to the actual production draw at the undercut/extraction level. The evolving cave
shapes, propagation rates, abutment stresses and subsidence limits can be readily assessed
with the one numerical model.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the members of the ICS and MMT I and MMT II projects
for sponsoring the development of the numerical caving algorithm. In addition, the authors
would also like to thank Itasca and The University of New South Wales for their continued
support.
REFERENCES
Barla, G., Boshkov, S. & Pariseau, W. 1980. Numerical modeling of block caving at the Grace Mine.
Geomechanics applications in underground hardrock mining, Turin, Italy. pp. 241-256.
Beck, D., Reusch, F., Arndt, S., Thin, I., Stone, C., Heap, M. & Tyler, D. 2006. Numerical Modeling
of Seismogenic Development during Cave Initiation, Propagation and Breakthrough. Deep and
High Stress Mining 2006.
Brown, E.T. 2003. Block Caving Geomechanics, JKMRC Monograph Series in Mining and Mineral
Processing 3. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, the University of Queensland: Brisbane.
Clough, R.W. 1960. The finite element method in plane stress analysis. Proceedings of the Second
ASCE Conference on Electronic Computation, Pittsburgh, PA.
Crook, T., Willson, S., Yu, J.G. & Owen, R. 2003. Computational modeling of the localized deformation associated with borehole breakout in quasi-brittle materials. Journal of Petroleum Science
and Engineering, 38: 177-186.
De Nicola Escobar, R. & Fishwick Tapia, M. 2000. An underground airblast CODELCO Chile
Division Salvador. Proceedings, MassMin 2000. The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallur-