MINE 507 - Cave Mining Systems Caveability Report

Caveability Report
DATE : January 24th, 2017
TO : Davide Elmo
FROM : Mario Martinez Castro – Student #: 97868160
TOPIC : Review on Aspects of Caveability Related to Block Caving Design

1. Rock Mass Caveability.

Even though Block Caving operations have been in use for around 100 years, with examples such
as Palabora (South Africa), El Teniente (Chile), Henderson Mine (USA) and others being planned
to enter into operation like Grasberg BC (Indonesia) and Chuquicamata UG (Chile), there is very
often a dilemma between caveability and stability, where caveability is the mining-induced
fragmentation of the ore, allowing it to cave free and spontaneously once the undercut to a
sufficient dimension (Hem & Caldwell, 2012).

Figure 1: Planned Operations and Operating Block Caving Mines (Hem & Caldwell, 2012).

To make attractive the Block Caving method is necessary some ideal conditions related to a
weaker and highly fractured orebody being contained within a stronger host rock, particularly in
the footwall area (Agapito & Shoemaker, 1987). Caving occur when two mayor influences
converge, gravity and the stress induced in the crown of the undercut. Even under these
conditions, in some cases, it is possible for a self-supporting arch to develop in the crown of the
cave, while on the other extreme and when the mechanism of failure is brittle fracture on the intact
rock, may appear new failures at or near the boundary of the rock mass, creating blocks or slabs
of rock free to fall by gravity (Brown, 2003).

2. Factors Influencing Caveability.

The ability of an orebody to cave is influenced of mining-induced factors (engineering decisions
based on how the orebody is mined) and natural factors (geologic, geometric, and physical rock

Page 1 of 5
The University of British Columbia
Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering
Master of Engineering in Mining Engineering
MINE 507 - Cave Mining Systems Caveability Report

mass properties). In Figure 2, are shown the main factors affecting the caveability of a rock mass,
followed by a brief description about why and how them affect the caveability.

Figure 2: Factors affecting the caveability of a rock mass (Rafiee, et al., 2014).

2.1. Induced Factors

- Caving Rate; It is the rate of upward advance of the yield zone, it influences the rock mass
quality, induced stresses, and the rate of development joints. The highest the rate of caving, the
faster is the undercut advancing, but problems may arise if this allows an air gap to be formed
over a large area, the intersection of major structures, heavy blasting and influx of water result in
damaging air blasts (Brady & Brown, 2004).

- Fragmentation; the success and profitability of a block caving operation will significantly
depend on the fragmentation produced in the orebody during the caving process, but also the
design and operating parameters influenced by fragmentation include drawpoint size and spacing,
equipment selection, draw control procedures, production rates, etc. The degree of fragmentation
of the ore occurs because of the caving process and influences the drawpoint spacing and design,
equipment selection, and performance (Laubscher, 2003).

- Block Height; it depends on the geometry of the ore, fragmentation and properties of the
cap rock, an therefore the distance between mining levels will affect the rock mass caveability.
Secondary fragmentation of caving material occurs through attrition as the ore is drawn down
through the column and the caveability of ore, cap rock, and the result of fragmentation influence
the determination of the optimal block height (Rafiee, et al., 2014).

- Undercut Direction; it influences the caveability of a rock mass through the magnitude of
the induced stresses developed in the cave back, by several factors such as in-situ stress
direction and magnitudes, strength of orebody and its spatial variation, among others. The
direction of undercut developing into the principal stress direction will influence the magnitude of
abutment stresses, and therefore, to reduce clamping stresses in the cave back, the undercuts
are usually extracted in the direction of the maximum principal stress (Laubscher, 2000).

Page 2 of 5
The University of British Columbia
Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering
Master of Engineering in Mining Engineering
MINE 507 - Cave Mining Systems Caveability Report

- Hydraulic Radius; it influences the levels of stress induced on the extraction level, if the
hydraulic radius is larger, the cave rating increases and develops more fractures and
discontinuities. Hydraulic radius is derived by dividing the area by the perimeter, to propagate the
cave the hydraulic radius must be chosen based on the highest MRMR (Laubscher, 2000).

2.2. Natural Factors

- Geology Structures; filling, persistence, shear resistance, inclination and spacing of
discontinuities have a bearing on the caveability of the rock mass because these properties have
an important role in the strength of rock mass (Mahtab & Dixon, 1976). Several sets of fractures
are essential to develop a good caving, a low-angle structures lead to a suitable vertical
displacement in the rock mass during the mining operation, for example, one set of low-angle
fractures and two sets of nearly vertical fractures will be the most effective in improving the
caveability (Laubscher, 2000).

- Water; it has the potential to assist the caving acting as lubricant in the rock, being a vital
parameter in some operations, but in others only of little concern. In the cave zone, water can
contribute by reducing the friction on joints or by the effect of increased pore water pressure
(Rafiee, et al., 2014).

- Uniaxial compressive Strength (UCS); is considered as the most widely used and quoted
rock engineering parameter and is influenced by many rock characteristics, such as weathering
or alteration rate, microcracks and internal fractures, density, and porosity. The caveability of rock
mass decreases when the strength of rock mass increases (Rafiee, et al., 2014).

- In Situ Stress Regime and Direction; the redistribution of the maximum principal stress
over a shorter footprint axis will promote cave propagation, since the cave back experiences
greater stress concentrations when the maximum principal stress hits the cave ‘‘broadside’’ as
opposed to ‘‘end-on’’, where the cave presents a larger obstacle to stress. The ratio of the in-situ
horizontal to vertical stresses will affect the magnitude of the stresses induced in the cave back
as caving initiates and will, in association with joint orientation, strongly influence cave
propagation and the caving rate (Sainsbury, B., 2012).

3. Caveability Assessment (Brown, 2003)

3.1. Laubscher’s Caving Chart

Since the 1980s, this chart has been internationally used to predict caveability in block and panel
caving mines (plotting values of MRMR against the hydraulic radius), being successful when
applied to the weaker and larger orebodies from which it was first developed (Figure 3).

The limitation of this method it may not always provide satisfactory results for stronger (MRMR >
50), smaller and isolated or constrained blocks or orebodies to enable the three zones of stability
to be delineated with a reasonable degree of accuracy over a wide range of conditions.

Page 3 of 5
The University of British Columbia
Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering
Master of Engineering in Mining Engineering
MINE 507 - Cave Mining Systems Caveability Report

Figure 3: Laubscher’s Caving Chart (after Bartlett 1998) (Brown, 2003)

3.2. Mathews’ Stability Graph Approach

Conceptually, is very like Laubscher’s Caving Chart, providing an alternative method of predicting
caveability, even though no caving case histories were documented (Figure 4). The caving zones
were delineated collecting and analyzing caving case histories and an extended version of
Mathews stability graph was developed (Mawdesley, 2002. Figure 5).

Its limitation is that more caving and transitional data is required to increase confidence in the use
for predicting caveability, and thus, quantify the current uncertainty in the design limits
Figure 4. Figure 5.

Figure 4: Original Mathews’ Stability Graph (after Mathews et al 1980) (Brown, 2003)
Figure 5: Extended Mathews stability graph showing the stable and caving lines (Brown, 2003)

3.3. Numerical Modelling Approaches

Numerical modelling has the possibility of providing a more rigorous assessment of caveability
and are used widely to solve stress-deformation boundary value problem in mining geomechanics

Page 4 of 5
The University of British Columbia
Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering
Master of Engineering in Mining Engineering
MINE 507 - Cave Mining Systems Caveability Report

for which analytical solution cannot be obtained. Numerical approaches have the advantage over
empirical methods of assessing caveability of being able to treat complex mechanics of problems
more completely and accurately. They can model major faults explicitly and represent undercut
shape more completely than does the use of the hydraulic radius, or shape factor. However, as
rock masses are variable, the chance to set parameters and equations for every kind of rock is
remote, although great advances have been made to numerical modelling of geomechanic issues.

Most numerical models treat the rock mass as a continuum, assuming the material response may
be described by the equations of the theories of elasticity or plasticity. Special methods are
required for those rocks mechanics problems involving interaction of discrete blocks of rock in
which the ratio of the block size to the size of the domain is such that equivalent continuum
behaviour may not be assumed (Axisymmetric Continuum Model).

Due to the nature of the caving process is discontinuous, discontinuum approaches are in the
assessment of caveability. This method may provide important support to understand the caving
process, because of the elimination of the sensitivity to critical strain and accompanying scaling
process required by continuum model, providing an improved predicted shape of the caved region
(PFC3D Discontinuum Model). The advantage of the continuum models is they are easier to set
up, be run and interpreted than PCF models.

4. References
Agapito, J. F., & Shoemaker, D. R. (1987). Ground stability and support in block caving
operations at Molycorp's Questa Mine. Tucson: 28th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics.
Brady, B., & Brown, E. (2004). Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining. New York: Springer.
Brown, E. (2003). The International Caving Study I 1997-2000. In E. T. Brown, Block Caving
Geomechanics (Vol. 3, pp. 126-155). Brisbane, Australia: Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre.
Brown, E. (2003). The International Caving Study I 1997-2000. In E. T. Brown, Block Caving
Geomechanics (pp. 1-30). Brisbane, Australia: Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research
Centre.
Hem, P., & Caldwell, J. (2012, April). TechnoMine: Mining Technology. Retrieved from InfoMine:
Your Global Mining Resource:
http://technology.infomine.com/reviews/Blockcaving/welcome.asp?view=full
Laubscher, D. (2000). A practical manual on block caving. Brisbane, Australia: Julius Kruttschnitt
Mineral Research Centre.
Laubscher, D. (2003). Cave Mining Handbook. Johannesburg: De Beers.
Mahtab, M., & Dixon, J. (1976). Influence of rock fractures and block boundary weakening on
cavability. New York: Trans Soc Min Eng AIME.
Rafiee, R., Ataei, M., Khalokakaie, R., Mohammad, S., Jalali, E., & Sereshki, F. (2014).
Determination and Assessment of Parameters Influencing Rock Mass Cavability in Block
Caving Mines Using the Probabilistic Rock Engineering System. Shahrood University of
Technology. Shahrood: 2015.
Sainsbury, B. (2012). A model for cave propagation and subsidence assessment in jointed rock
masses. Doctoral dissertation, the University of New South Wales.

Page 5 of 5
The University of British Columbia
Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering
Master of Engineering in Mining Engineering