CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS

1.1.1 General Features

T
he underground mining of minerals involves three general sets of activities:

• the development of physical access to the mineralised zone;

• the extraction of the ore from the enclosing rock mass; and
• the transport of the ore to processing facilities on the mine surface.

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

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

1.1.2 Classification of Underground Mining Methods

Most systems of classifying underground mining methods are based on methods of supporting
the stopes. As Rossouw and Fourie (1996) have argued, the classification of underground
mining methods is not as straightforward as might be supposed. In order to overcome some of
the perceived difficulties with existing systems, they proposed a three-dimensional presentation
which takes into account three forms of support - natural (pillars), artificial (fill) and none

1
 Chapter 1: Introduction

(caving). However, Roussow and Fourie’s presentation is quite complex and has not found
widespread use. The essential features to be considered are the relations between the method of
working, the key orebody properties defining the applicability of that method and the country
rock mass properties that are essential to sustain the method (Brady and Brown 1993).

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

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

As shown in Figure 1.1, the unsupported or caving methods of mining include block (and
panel) caving, sublevel caving and longwall methods. In the longwall method applied to coal
mining, the mineral (coal) is extracted mechanically and the overlying strata cave under the
influence of redistributed stresses and gravitational forces. The longwall methods used to mine
the deep, flat dipping, tabular gold reefs in South Africa are sometimes classified as caving
methods (eg Brady and Brown 1993), although the mechanism by which the overlying rock
displaces to fill the void created by the extraction of the ore usually involves “elastic”
displacement of the rock on the release of extremely high stresses rather than, or as well as,
caving per se. In sublevel caving methods, the ore is drilled and blasted and drawn following
which the surrounding waste rock caves naturally. In the block and panel caving methods with
which this book is concerned, both the ore and the overlying rock cave under the influence of

2
 Chapter 1: Introduction

gravity and the redistributed in situ stresses once the orebody has been undercut. In these
methods, in particular, the caving and caved ore and waste rock behave as discontinuous
materials.

1.2 BLOCK AND PANEL CAVING

1.2.1 Outline of the Method

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

Figure 1.2: Example of block caving with LHD loaders,

El Teniente, Chile (Hamrin 2001)

3
 Chapter 1: Introduction

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

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

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

Inclined drawpoint caving (Laubscher 2000, Laubscher and Esterhuizen 1994) is used when it
is not possible to develop the drawpoints on one level, usually because the orebody has a well-
defined inclined footwall. In this case, the drawpoints are developed at the footwall contact
from the footwall on successive sublevels with the drifts being continued to serve as undercut
drill drifts. In some cases such as that at the King Mine, Zimbabwe, illustrated in Figure 1.4,
local geological conditions may lead to a “false footwall layout” being used in which the
inclination of the plane of the drawpoints is flatter than the footwall contact (Laubscher 2000,
Laubscher and Esterhuizen 1994).

Front caving was developed from the overdraw system used on the two lower levels of the
sublevel caving operations at the Shabanie Mine, Zimbabwe (Laubscher 2000). In recent years,
front caving has been used at the Koffiefontein Mine, South Africa, and the King Mine,

4
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Zimbabwe, where the method is referred to as retreating brow caving. In essence, the method
involves retreating on one or more levels from an initiating slot which can be in the centre of
the orebody as at Koffiefontein, or against the orebody boundary. The lower level is the
production level on which so-called semi-permanent drawpoints are fully developed ahead of
undercutting on the upper level. This upper level also provides initial temporary drawpoints
from which the swell from each blasted ring is drawn. The undercut is retreated in stages to
points above the semi-permanent drawpoints in a manner similar to that used in sublevel
caving. Ideally, the method should work best with two production levels rather than one.
However, this approach may be precluded on cost or other grounds, including space and layout
considerations.

Figure 1.3: Mechanised panel caving, Henderson Mine, Colorado, USA

(Doepken 1982)

There are many more variants of block and panel caving methods of mining than those listed
above. For example, the macrotrench (or macrozanja) method developed at the El Teniente
Mine, Chile, contains elements of panel, inclined drawpoint and front caving methods.
Exploitation starts through a four level sublevel cave that begins from a central slot and is then
retreated to both sides leaving a large trench around the initial slot. The sublevel caving is
stopped in a position which leaves the upper levels and their drawpoints more advanced than
the lower levels (Diaz and Tobar 2000).

5
 Chapter 1: Introduction

(a)

(b)
Figure 1.4: Inclined drawpoint caving, King Mine, Zimbabwe, (a) vertical section
showing extraction level layout, and (b) plan showing sublevel layout (Laubscher and
Esterhuizen 1994)

6
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Caving methods of mining may be classified according to

• whether or not part of the ore column is broken by blasting or other "artificial" methods;
• whether or not a crown pillar is left between mining lifts;
• the undercutting strategy used (see Section 1.3 and Chapter 5); and
• the method of ore loading used.

Figure 1.5 shows an informative classification of caving methods of mining, including sublevel
caving, developed on this basis by Flores and Karzulovic (2002).

Figure 1.5: Classification of caving methods of mining

(Flores and Karzulovic 2002)

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

7
 Chapter 1: Introduction

It will be apparent from this introductory description of block and panel caving methods, that
while their capital or development costs may be relatively high, operating costs can be expected
to be lower than those of other underground mining methods. It is for this reason that caving
methods are attractive for the mass mining or large, lower grade orebodies. Figure 1.6
summarises the underground mining cash costs in $US per tonne at a number of block and
panel caving operations in the years 1999 and 2000. (These data were compiled by
Northparkes Mines, Australia, and shared with ICS sponsors).
Mine

Underground mining cash cost US$/tonne

Figure 1.6: Comparative underground mining cash costs for block and panel caving
mines in 1999 and 2000

1.2.2 Basic Caving Mechanics

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

8
 Chapter 1: Introduction

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

Some of the mechanisms by which caving and arching may occur under these low lateral stress
conditions are illustrated by the simple and idealised distinct element simulation shown in
Figure 1.7. Each pair of drawings in Figure 1.7 represent the geometric configuration of the
blocks and the interblock contact force vectors at different stages in the progressive caving of
the mass. Note that two apparently independent arches form where high levels of inter-block
force traverse the mass. The upper arch is stronger and is sustained longer than the lower arch
but both fail eventually by slip at the rigid abutments.

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

Duplancic and Brady (1999) used a seismic monitoring system to study the early stages of
caving of Lift 1 at Northparkes Mines’ E26 block cave, New South Wales, Australia. From the
data collected and analysed, they developed the conceptual model of caving for this case shown
in Figure 1.8. The model contains five regions described by Duplancic and Brady (1999) in the
following terms:

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

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

9
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1.7: Idealised distinct element simulation of block caving (after Voegele et al
1978)

3. Zone of discontinuous deformation. This region no longer provides support to the

overlying rock mass. Large-scale displacements of rock occur in this area, which is where
disintegration of the rock mass occurs. No seismicity is recorded from within this region.
The zone was estimated to extend 15 m from the boundary of the cave crown.

10
 Chapter 1: Introduction

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

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

Pseudo-continuous domain

Seismogenic zone

Zone of loosening
Air gap

Caved zone

Direction of advancing undercut

Figure 1.8: Conceptual model of caving (Duplancic and Brady 1999)

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

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

A different mechanism from those discussed so far is involved in subsidence caving in which a
large mass of rock subsides rapidly as a result of shear failure on the vertical or near-vertical
boundaries of a block. For this to occur the normal (horizontal) stresses developed on the
vertical boundaries of the block, or the shear strength of the interface, must be so low that the
total shear resistance developed is unable to resist the vertical force due to the weight of the

11
 Chapter 1: Introduction

block. For such a failure to have catastrophic consequences, there would need to exist a large
mined-out void into which the caving mass could fall. This circumstance would not arise in a
block or panel cave if the draw control strategy used did not allow a significant air gap to
develop below the cave back.

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

Estimated caving rates for a number of mines are summarised Table 1.1. It should be
emphasised that these caving rates are estimated. They are notoriously difficult to measure.
Furthermore, they may vary through the life of a cave. For example, as the height of the cave
and of the column of broken ore increases, the induced stresses in the cave back may change, as
may the structure and rock mass strength of the orebody.

Table 1.1: Estimated caving rates

Operation Estimated Caving Rate (mm per day)

CODELCO El Teniente Sub 6 panel cave 200 to 300
CODELCO Esmeralda panel cave 170 to 200
De Beers Koffiefontein (TKB Kimberlite) 200 to 400
De Beers Premier Mine (TKB Kimberlite) 100 to 1200
De Beers Premier Mine (HYB Kimberlite) 60 to 250
Henderson Mine 270
Northparkes E26 Lift 1 block cave 110 to 380 (pre inducement)

Under steady-state production conditions, the average rate of draw will be a function of the rate
of natural caving and the bulking factor of the caved ore. In currently operating block and
panel caving mines, rates of draw vary up to about 700 mm/day with the mean in the range 200
to 250 mm/day (Flores and Karzulovic 2002b). Drawing of the difference between the in situ
and caved volumes following each caving episode will ensure that cave propagation is
controlled and an excessive air gap does not develop. Of course, for this controlled caving to
occur, a small air gap must be created by drawing the caved ore. The major consequence of
allowing an excessive air gap to develop is the danger of massive rock falls and the associated
air blasts to be discussed in Chapter 10.

12
 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.2.3 History of Block Caving

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

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

A good example of the early application of a full block caving method is provided by the
Miami Copper Company’s mine in Arizona. Descriptions provided by Peele (1941) and Lewis
and Clark (1964), and the diagram shown in Figure 1.9, are based on a paper by McLennan
(1930). (Note that the original dimensions in feet have been retained in Figure 1.9. They have
been approximated in metres in the text). The flat lying orebody of considerable lateral extent
varied in thickness to more than 60 m and was over- and under-lain by waste. Early mining
was by top-slicing but this was replaced by shrinkage stoping with sublevel caving of the pillars
and, in the 1920s, by block caving. Initially, caving practice involved undercutting and caving
the orebody across its entire width of 150-200 m, starting at one end and retreating along the
length of the orebody. This approach was unsuccessful and later practice was to cave and draw
alternate 45 m wide panels across the entire orebody. When the waste rock had settled into the
original panels and compacted, the pillar panels were caved. This method was satisfactory for
moderate thicknesses of ore averaging 60 m but was modified to true block caving where
thicknesses were 90 m or more.

The original caving blocks of the thicker ore were 45 by 90 m in plan as shown in Figure 1.9.
Experience showed that 45 m square blocks gave better results and this block size became the
standard. The order of mining was such that a block being mined would be entirely surrounded
by either solid ore or mined-out blocks in which the capping had settled until it was quite
compact (Lewis and Clark 1964). As shown in Figure 1.9, the Miami mine used a gravity
system of ore transfer to the haulage level incorporating grizzlies.

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

13
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1.9: Block caving, Miami Mine, Arizona, USA (Lewis and Clark 1964)

South Africa’s first kimberlite diamond pipe was discovered at Kimberley in 1870 a few years
after the discovery of alluvial diamonds at Hopetown. The early mining of this and other
kimberlite pipes was by surface methods. An initial attempt at underground mining from 1884
was unsuccessful, largely because of the uncooperative attitudes of the many claim holders
(Owen and Guest 1994). The consolidation of the pre-existing companies into De Beers
Consolidated Mines in 1888 provided the impetus for the successful introduction of
underground mining at Kimberley from 1890. A complex mining method known as
chambering was used until it was replaced progressively from the late 1950s to the early 1970s
(Hartley 1981). Peele (1941) describes this method as a combination of shrinkage stoping and
sublevel caving.

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

14
 Chapter 1: Introduction

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

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

Table 1.2: Examples of current caving operations

Mine Country Type Ore Type Annual

Tonnage
Northparkes Australia Block Copper-Gold 4 Mt/y
E26 Lift 1
Freeport IOZ Indonesia Block; LHD Copper-Gold 7 Mt/y
Palabora South Africa Block; LHD Copper 10 Mt/y
CODELCO Chile Panel; LHD Copper 35 Mt/y
El Teniente
Division
CODELCO Chile Panel; LHD Copper 16 Mt/y
Andina Division Grizzly
CODELCO Chile Panel; LHD Copper 2.5 Mt/y
Salvador
Premier Mines South Africa Panel; LHD Diamonds 3 Mt/y
Henderson USA Panel; LHD Molybdenum 6 Mt/y
Philex Philippines Grizzly; LHD Copper
Shabanie Zimbabwe Retreating brow Chrysotile
asbestos
Tongkuangyu China Block; LHD Copper 4 Mt/y
San Manuel USA Block; Grizzly Copper

15
 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.3 BLOCK AND PANEL CAVING OPERATIONS

1.3.1 Overview

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

Table 1.2 lists many of the world’s major block and panel caving operations in the year 2000.
The list is intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive. Because of a paucity of accessible
data, cave mining operations in some countries such as China and the countries of the former
USSR are not well represented in Table 1.2. Three of the major mines listed in Table 1.2 – El
Teniente, Premier and Henderson - are described in the subsequent sub-sections as important
but differing examples of modern cave mining practice. These descriptions may use some
terms that have not been defined so far and which may not be familiar to some readers. In these
cases, reference should be made to that part of the book in which the term is introduced in more
detail or to the glossary of terms presented at Appendix A. Recent accounts of a number of
other block and panel caving operations are given by Hustrulid and Bullock (2001).

1.3.2 El Teniente Mine, Chile

El Teniente is a division of CODELCO-Chile, Chile’s Government-owned copper mining

company. The mine is located 130 km southeast of Santiago in the foothills of the Andes
mountains. With production of about 100,000 tonnes per day, El Teniente is the world’s largest
block or panel caving mine.

The large copper porphyry orebody which was discovered in 1760, reaches a depth of more
than 1 km below surface and almost completely surrounds a roughly 800-1000 m diameter
circular breccia pipe known as the Braden Pipe. The orebody is approximately triangular in
plan and has a radial extent of between 400 and 800 m from the perimeter of the pipe. The
major items of mine infrastructure are conveniently located within the breccia pipe. Figure 1.10
shows a schematic view of the several levels in the El Teniente mine. The early block caving
production level, Teniente 1, is located some 650 m above the main access level, Teniente 8,
which is at an elevation of 1983 m.

16
 Chapter 1: Introduction

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

Figure 1.10: Schematic representation of levels, El Teniente Mine (Kvapil et al 1989)

A major factor influencing the mining of the El Teniente orebody, particularly at increasing
depth in the primary ore, has been the existence of extremely high lateral in situ stresses
associated with the nearby subduction zone in which the Pacific plate is thrust under the edge of

17
 Chapter 1: Introduction

the South American plate. Rock bursts were first experienced on the Teniente 4 level in 1976
(Alvial 1992) and have been a continuing problem since mechanised mining began in the
stronger and stiffer primary ore.

El Teniente now uses mainly mechanised panel caving but there is still some production from
areas which use other forms of caving (Jofre et al 2000). Accounts of successive stages in the
evolution of cave mining methods at El Teniente are given by Ovalle (1981), Kvapil et al
(1989), Alvial (1992), Moyano and Vienne (1993), Rojas et al (2000b), Jofre et al (2000) and
Rojas et al (2001). The following description of recent mining at El Teniente draws on the
accounts of Moyano and Vienne (1993) and Jofre et al (2000).

As has been noted, mechanised panel caving of the primary ore was introduced on the El
Teniente 4 level in 1982. A conventional or post-undercutting method was used with the
undercut being mined after the development of the extraction level below and the excavation of
the drawpoints. (Details of the meaning and implications of post-undercutting and related terms
are given in Chapter 5). In the traditional El Teniente panel caving method, the undercut level
was located 18 m above the extraction level and the undercut drifts were 3.6 by 3.6 m on 30 m
centres. Over time the height of the undercut has been progressively reduced from 16.6 m in
1987 to 10.6 m in 1998 (Jofre et al 2000).

The extraction level layout developed at El Teniente is illustrated in Figure 1.11 for the
Teniente Sub 6 level. The conventional or post-undercutting sequence used until recently
exposed the pre-constructed extraction level to high levels of abutment stress as the undercut
advanced overhead. This resulted in damage to the extraction level pillars and, in some
instances, in severe rock bursts associated with the high horizontal stresses and local geological
features (Moyano and Vienne 1993, Rojas et al 2000a). A series of major rock bursts on the
Teniente Sub 6 level starting in January 1990 soon after it came into production, caused
production to be stopped temporarily and the approach to mining revised. The measures
introduced from 1994 to successfully control the incidence and severity of rock bursts on the
Sub 6 level included reducing the height of the column of intact rock above the undercut level,
ensuring an even spatial and temporal rate of extraction, mining at a slow rate especially
initially, using only remotely controlled production equipment from 1995 and using the results
of seismic and other monitoring to guide production planning. In 2000, the production rate of
Teniente Sub 6 was about 10,000 tonnes per day and the undercutting rate was about 12,000 m2
per year (Rojas et al 2000a).

18
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Notes: 1. Haulage drift and drawpoint drifts section

wide 4.00 m : high 3.60 m
2. Distance between consecutive dump points
located in the same haulage drift will be
that corresponding to 6 drawpoint drifts (103.92 m)

Figure 1.11: Extraction level layout, Sub 6 level, El Teniente Mine (Moyano and
Vienne 1993)

From 1992 a pre-undercut panel caving method was tested at El Teniente. In 1997 the method
was brought into production on the new Esmeralda section on the Teniente Sub 5 level. In this
method, the undercut level is developed and then blasted in advance of the development of the
extraction level and formation of the drawbells. Thus, all extraction level development and
construction takes place in a de-stressed zone below the mined undercut. The undercut drifts
are 3.6 by 3.6 m on 15 m centres. Initial development on the extraction level is kept 22.5 m
behind the undercut, and full construction on the extraction level occurs 45 to 60 m behind the
undercut (see Figure 1.12). Experience and the results of extensive monitoring of the condition
of the pillars and the extraction level installations, clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of this
approach (Rojas et al 2000b, Jofre et al 2000). In early 2000, the average production from the
Esmeralda section was 12,500 tonnes per day with a planned peak of 15,000 tonnes per day.
The pre-undercut method was also being used on the Teniente 3 Isla section.

19
 Chapter 1: Introduction

PRE UNDERCUT

Figure 1.12: Comparison of conventional panel caving and pre-undercut

activity sequences, El Teniente Mine (after Rojas et al 2000b)

1.3.3 Premier Diamond Mine, South Africa

The Premier Diamond Mine is situated 45 km to the east-north-east of Pretoria, Republic of

South Africa. It exploits the Premier Pipe, the largest of South Africa’s kimberlite pipes having
a surface area of 32 hectares. The Premier Pipe is unique geologically in that it is intersected
by a 75 m thick, shallow-dipping gabbro sill which cuts through the pipe at depths of between
380 and 510 m below surface (Bartlett 1992). Figure 1.13 shows a diagrammatic vertical
section and plan of the geology and of the recent and planned mining blocks.

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

20
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1.13: Diagrammatic section and plan, Premier Diamond Mine (Bartlett and Croll
2000)

Mining below the sill started in 1979 using an open stoping method. This method was
unsuccessful and was replaced by block caving. Cave mining using LHDs to transport the ore
from the drawpoints to ore passes started in 1990 in the BA5 mining block on the 630 m level
on the western side of the mine (see Figure 1.13). A second cave was established in 1996 in the

21
 Chapter 1: Introduction

BB1E block at a depth of 732 m in weaker ore on the eastern side of the pipe. Possible future
mining of the C-cut (see Figure 1.13) would involve the exploitation of 170 million tonnes of
ore by caving methods with a production level 1000 m or more below surface (Bartlett and
Croll 2000). The remainder of this Section will discuss recent and planned caving operations at
Premier as reported by Bartlett and Croll (2000). Accounts of the earlier stages of cave mining
at Premier are given by Owen (1981), Bartlett (1992) and Owen and Guest (1994).

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

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

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

The lessons learned from the BA5 block were applied in planning the mining of the BB1E
block (see Figure 1.13) as a panel retreat cave with an advance undercut mining sequence.
Table 1.3 shows a comparison of the design and operational parameters of the BA5 and BB1E
blocks. As Bartlett and Croll (2000) explain, some difficulties were experienced in the BB1E
block, particularly in the early stages of undercutting and cave establishment. However, once
the cave was fully established and the undercut could be advanced at the planned rate,
satisfactory results were achieved. Experience with the BB1E block shows that successful

22
 Chapter 1: Introduction

caving at this depth requires detailed planning, the timely availability of resources, and careful
implementation and control of the entire mining process. Maintaining the planned schedule to
avoid the compaction of broken ore provided a particular challenge in this case.

Table 1.3: Design and operational parameters, BA5 and BB1E mining blocks, Premier
Mine, South Africa (Bartlett and Croll 2000)

Parameter BA5 Mining Block BBIE Mining Block

Column height 80 - 140 metres 148 - 163 metres
Rock mass rating 45 - 65 45 - 55
Hydraulic radius 30 25
Mining sequence Post and advance undercut Advance undercut
Rate of undercutting 900 square metres per month 1100 square metres per month
Tons in mining block 42 million tons 23 million tons
Tons per drawpoint 50 000 to 120 000 tons 100 000 to 200 000 tons
Drawpoint spacing 15 x 15 metres 15 x 18 metres
Distance across major apex 22.6 metres 23 metres
Average rate of draw 180 mm per day (109 tons) 165 mm per day (120 tons)
Initial fragmentation 30 % >2 cubic metres 30 % >2 cubic metres
Fragmentation after 20 % 12 %>2 cubic metres 7 % >2 cubic metres
drawn
Drawpoint support Cable anchors, rockbolts, Cable anchors, rockbolts,
mesh tendon straps and shotcrete mesh tendon straps and shotcrete
Brow wear 0 to 2 metres wear after 50 000 tons 1 to 3 metres wear after 50 000
drawn tons drawn
Tunnel size 4 x 4.2 metres 4 x 4.2 metres
Lhd type Diesel and electric 5 and 7 yard Toros Diesel and electric 5 and 7 yard
Toros
Tons per LHD per hour 118 tons 131 tons
LHD average tramming 154 metres 134 metres
distance
Hangup frequency 30 % of drawpoints per shift 25 % of drawpoints per shift
Fragmentation
Initial 30 % >2 cubic metres 30 % >2 cubic metres
20% drawn 12 % >2 cubic metres 10 % >2 cubic metres
Secondary blasting 40 grams per ton 30 grams per ton

The C-cut mining block is being planned with a pre-undercut mining sequence to avoid
extensive and possibly unsustainable damage to the extraction level at a depth of more than
1000 m. As a consequence, the mining sequence in the existing BB1E mining block is being
changed to gain operational experience with this method in which the undercut is fully
developed before the extraction level. The height of the cave is planned to be between 350 and
450 m compared with a maximum of 164 m in BB1E (see Table 1.3). New mine infrastructure
is being installed to support mining of the C-cut, including two new shafts from surface and a
new processing plant. The mine is being designed to extract and process 9 million tonnes of ore
annually by 2008 (Bartlett and Croll 2000).

23
 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.3.4 Henderson Mine, Colorado, USA

The Henderson mine is located 80 km to the west of Denver, Colorado, USA, and 3170 m
above sea level on the eastern side of the Continental Divide. The top of the molybdenite
orebody lies more than 1000 m below the peak of Red Mountain and the lowest excavation is at
a depth of 1600 m making Henderson one of the deepest caving operations in the world. The
deposit is elliptical in plan with axes of 670 and 910 m. As is illustrated in Figure 1.14, the ore
is transported by conveyor from a crusher complex on the 7065 level at an elevation of 2153 m
to the mill site 25 km away on the western side of the Continental Divide. This discussion of
the Henderson Mine is drawn from the paper by Rech et al (2000). Earlier accounts of aspects
of the operation are provided by Brumleve and Maier (1981), Doepken (1982) and Rech et al
(1992).

Figure 1.14: General section, Henderson Mine (after Rech et al 2000)

Henderson commenced operation in 1976 as a mechanised panel cave with rail haulage from
the 7500 level at an elevation of 2286 m. Figure 1.15 illustrates the original panel caving
method. Approximately 90 million tonnes of ore were produced from the 8100 level (at 2469
m) from 1976 to 1991. In 1992, the 7700 level (at 2347 m) was brought into production and by
the year 2000 had produced more than 45 million tonnes of ore. A particular feature of the
operation of the Henderson mine is that during its life, the world molybdenum market has
experienced several phases of over- and under-supply with the result that the mine’s production
rates have had to vary accordingly. This has required flexible planning and operation of the
mine.

24
 Chapter 1: Introduction

The next production level to come into operation will be the 7225 level located 145 m below
the 7700 level at an elevation of 2202 m. As is shown in Figure 1.14, the eastern section of the
orebody has not been exploited from either the 8100 or the 7700 levels. Columns of ore up to
244 m high will become accessible on the eastern side from the 7225 level (Rech et al 2000).

Figure 1.15 shows a typical isometric section of the recent configuration of the operating
section of the mine on the 7700 or 2347 m level. The undercut level at 2364 m is developed
with 3.7 by 3.7 m drifts on 24.4 m centres. Future undercut drift spacing will be 30.5 m
centres. From the undercut drifts, rings of both short and long holes are drilled on 2 m centres
to mine the undercut and the drawbells simultaneously. Panels are 8 to 12 production drifts
(244 to 366 m) in width.

Figure 1.15: General isometric view, mechanised panel caving, Henderson Mine
(Rech et al 2000)

25
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1.16 shows a plan view of the drawpoint and production drift layout used on the
extraction level located 17 m below the undercut level. The entry angles of 56o are the sharpest
that can be used with the current 7 m3 LHDs. Drawpoints are concrete lined and are fitted with
steel wear plates to protect the openings from degradation over their production lives. The
roadways and drawpoint floors are lined with a 300 mm thickness of concrete which permits
effective clean-up and reduces tyre wear.

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

20.57 m x 30.48 m Drawpoint spacing

Figure 1.16: Extraction level plan, Henderson Mine (Rech et al 2000)

The sequence in which the development of this series of openings takes place must be well
planned and coordinated. Figure 1.17 shows the general two-year sequence in the development
of a panel at Henderson.

26
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1.17: Development sequence, Henderson Mine (Rech et al 2000)

1.4 RISK IN CAVE MINING

1.4.1 Risk Factors

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

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

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

27
 Chapter 1: Introduction

• caveability assessment usually involving a prediction of the hydraulic radius

(area/perimeter) of the undercut at which caving will initiate for a rock mass having given
or estimated geotechnical characteristics;

• cave propagation which is the ability of the cave to continue to propagate once caving has
been initiated. Cave propagation depends on a number of factors including the undercut
design, the rate of undercutting, the stresses induced on the boundaries and above the cave,
the orebody structure and its geotechnical characteristics, and the draw control strategy
employed. Because of the capital intensive, non-selective and relatively inflexible nature
of caving methods of mining, the inability to initiate or sustain caving is one of the greatest
risks faced in cave mining;

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

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

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

• major operational hazards including major excavation collapses, mud rushes, rock bursts,
air blasts, and water and slurry inflows;

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

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

28
 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.4.2 Introduction to Risk Assessment

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

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

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

what we know we don’t know, or parameter uncertainty; and

what we don’t know we don’t know, or conceptual uncertainty.

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

In this book, and particularly in Chapter 11, a series of definitions associated with the
assessment of risk will be used. Some of these definitions will be introduced here.

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

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

29
 Chapter 1: Introduction

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

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

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

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

The application of these concepts and processes to caving methods of mining will be discussed
in Chapter 11. Because the emphasis of this book is on the geomechanics of cave mining, five
principal forms of risk will be considered – caveability, fragmentation, caving performance,
excavation stability and major operational hazards. Each of these issues has been raised in
Section 1.4.1 and will be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters.

1.5 SCOPE AND CONTENTS OF THIS BOOK

This book is intended to provide a digest of the state-of-the-art of block and panel caving from
a geomechanics perspective. It reflects the outcomes of the International Caving Study (ICS)
Stage I, including the Block Cave Manual (Laubscher 2000) but also contains chapters on
several topics that were not part of the ICS research program. Much of the information
presented on current caving operations and key caving issues is drawn from papers presented at
the international mass mining conference, MassMin 2000, held in Brisbane, Australia, in late
2000 (Chitombo 2000).

The subsequent chapters deal with the following topics:

Chapter 2 – Rock mass characterisation reviews the needs for and methods of collecting data
for use in characterising rock masses for cave mine engineering purposes. The chapter
discusses new methods of archiving, correcting, processing and modelling the data developed
as part of the ICS.

Chapter 3 – Caveability assessment addresses a topic that is vitally important in the study and
design of any potential block or panel caving operation. It reviews the available empirical and
numerical methods of predicting caveability with an emphasis on the extended Mathews
method developed as part of the ICS.

30
 Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 4 – Fragmentation assessment reviews the factors influencing the fragmentation

produced by caving, methods of fragmentation measurement and the available methods of
predicting in situ, primary and secondary fragmentation.

Chapter 5 – Cave initiation by undercutting discusses the factors influencing undercut

design and performance, and the undercutting strategies and undercut designs used in practice.
It reports a parametric study of the influence of undercut strategy on the stresses induced in the
undercut and extraction levels and the associated support and reinforcement requirements.

Chapter 6 – Extraction level design is concerned with the layout and design (including the
support and reinforcement) of production and drawpoint drifts, drawpoints, drawbells, pillars
and ore handling facilities on extraction or production levels.

Chapter 7 –Draw control discusses the importance of draw control in caving mines, the
factors influencing the flow of broken ore, the numerical modelling of particle flow, and draw
control practice including computer based techniques.

Chapter 8 – Geotechnical monitoring considers the nature and purposes of geotechnical

monitoring systems and their application to monitoring extraction level and infrastructure
performance, surface subsidence and ground movements in caving mines.

Chapter 9 – Surface subsidence discusses the mechanisms of caving to surface that may be
associated with caving operations and presents methods of analysis of plug subsidence,
chimney caving and progressive hangingwall caving.

Chapter 10 – Major operational hazards associated with block and panel caving are taken to
include major collapses, rock bursts, mud rushes, air blasts and water and slurry inrushes. The
causes, effects and means of prevention or amelioration of the effects of these hazards are
discussed.

Chapter 11 – Risk assessment addresses the increasingly important topic of risk assessment
and its application to cave mine engineering. Concepts are introduced, terms defined, the
available tools outlined and their application to cave mining described through an account of
the tool CaveRisk developed as part of the ICS.

31