-
Cave Tracking Technology
Monitoring the material flow in block caves has not been
possible previously, leading to poor control of block
cave operations and catastrophic outcomes. For more effective
caving based mining methods, technologies must
be developed to better control the caving process in a manner
that ensures good fragmentation and minimises ore
dilution.
The key to this is to measure the direction of flow of material
within the caving zones as well as its degree of
fragmentation. This information is necessary in order to control
the ingress of waste material from outside the ore
zone into the ore. It also provides necessary data to develop
and validate caving models to improve cave designs
and ensure improved cave performance.
Our cave tracking technology uses unique 3D position systems to
enable real-time monitoring of sensors in the block cave, which
move in line with the ore. The proposed technique attempts to track
the location of beacons
placed in the cave. Our approach uses a modulated magnetic
carrier approach to track the beacon through the
caving rock. The cave tracking system has three major
components:
Beacons Devices that are placed in the cave and tracked during
caving; Detectors Detectors that measure the signal generated by
the beacons; and Central Cave Tracking unit Collects measurements
made by each detector to determine the 3D location of the
each beacon detected.
The system also requires a communication infrastructure to
transmit the detector measurements to the central
cave tracking unit.
System benefits for the mining industry include:
Real-time mapping of caving material movement; Minimise dilution
and maximise recovery from cave; Test validity of existing caving
models and develop new models; and Design better cave layouts using
improved models.
CRCMining established the concept for the Cave Tracker before
inviting Newcrest Mining and Elexon
Electronics to develop the concept into a commercial cave
tracking system. Commercial development of the
Cave Tracker technology remains on track with Rio Tinto recently
joining the partnership between CRCMining,
Newcrest Mining and Elexon Electronics. This will allow
continued progress towards cave deployment testing as
a first generation commercial product in multiple operational
mines by mid 2014.
See the CRCMining Cave Tracker video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cqvHBUxM3yc
CATERPILLAR has developed a new technology that is meant to
improve the way in which ore is moved in
block caving mines from draw point to crusher. Cat Rock Flow is
achieved through continuous caving, removal
from the drawpoint and conveying.
-
The Caterpillar Rock Flow system for block cave mines.
The Cat Rock Flow system comprises of several components, all
centrally controlled from a remote location - the
Rock Feeder RF300 to remove ore from the drawpoint, the Rock
Mover RM900 (a newly developed chain
conveyor) to feed ore into a crusher and an automation unit to
control and smooth the production process.
Block cave mining is a mass-mining technique used in many
underground mines around the world. The
innovative Cat Rock Flow System jointly developed with the
Chilean mining company Codelco greatly improves productivity by
making use of continuous haulage technology as compared to the
conventional use of
LHDs. An automation system, featuring remote operation from
surface, allows draw and quality control and records operational
data.
Features of the Rock Flow system include:
Innovative continuous mass mining production system -
Combination of Rock Feeder (RF300) and Rock
Mover (RM900) brings high productivity and improved equipment
utilization for caving operations.
High-performance continuous ore handling system multiplies
extraction rates - Improves traditional hard
rock block caving operation.
Highly automated system with Real Time Draw Control - Remote
controlled extraction and haulage of
ore without vehicles or underground personnel.
System flexibility - Easy removal of Rock Feeder for maintenance
and clearance work as well as panel
moves.
High level of health, safety and sustainability - Only electric
drives, increasing safety, reducing cost and
improving underground climate and carbon footprint.
-
Caving Initiation, Propagation and Subsidence
Artists rendition of material movements into a fictional
inclined cave, following slope failure. In this case the
failure is a similar scale to the cave.
To better estimate the likely performance of caves, a tool that
properly accounted for the physical coupling of the
caved material to the un-caved rock mass and the draw schedule,
driven by the known physics of both parts of
the problem was needed. No such tool was available.
After analysing a number of alternatives, a coupled Discontinuum
Finite Element (DFE) Cellular Automata (LGCA, or Newtonian CA)
scheme was developed, making use of our existing DFE capability and
our partners cave simulation tools.
In this scheme, the CA part computes the particle movements
within the cave and changes in airgap geometry,
while the DFE part computes a new solution for stress,
deformation, damage and fault movement hundreds, or even thousands
of explicit faults can be incorporated in the DFE models.
As a consequence of the draw and the solution for stress and
strain in the rock mass, an unstable zone in the cave
back develops at each coupling step and sloughs into the cave,
at which point these elements become available to
be drawn in the CA step. The process is repeated, following the
draw schedule, and is able to simulate most cave
propagation phenomena including stalling and chimneying.
-
Example of 3D non-linear mine-scale block cave modelling
results
The coupled DFE-LGCA simulation procedure enables rapid
simulation of cave propagation, flow and induced
deformation driven by the cave draw schedule with a level of
reliability shown to exceed any other available tool
in all comparative studies undertaken so far. The method can be
calibrated directly using observations of cave
back location, grade and recovery, seismicity, tunnel damage,
tomography or ground movement.
BE believes that this technique represents best practice for
cave simulation in the world today. The key
ingredients are the coupling, the improved represantation of
structures to a smaller scale, capturing of the
changing swell and flows and realistic discontinuous
deformation.
-
Geotechnical factors
Geotechnical factors influencing selection of mining method
Contents [hide]
1 Geotechnical factors influencing selection of mining method 2
Mining Method Classification 3 Change of Mining Method in a Mining
Operation 4 Thickness and Orientation of Mineralization 5 Ore and
Country Rock Strength 6 Distribution of Mineralization within the
Orebody 7 Depth of Mineralization and Surface Conditions 8
Geotechnical Environment 9 Geotechnical Factors of Underground
Mining Methods
o 9.1 Pillar Supported 9.1.1 Room and Pillar Mining 9.1.2
Sublevel Open Stoping
o 9.2 Artificially Supported 9.2.1 Cut-and-Fill Mining
9.2.1.1 Case Study: Kristineberg Mine 9.2.2 Bench-and-Fill
Stoping 9.2.3 Shrink Stoping
9.2.3.1 Case Study: Mouska Gold Mine 9.2.4 Vertical Crater
Retreat (VCR) Stoping
o 9.3 Unsupported 9.3.1 Longwall Mining 9.3.2 Sublevel Caving
9.3.3 Block Caving
10 Summary 11 References
The characteristics of the orebody itself form the basis for
geotechnical factors, including the thickness and
orientation of the mineralization, the ore and rock strength,
the distribution of mineralization within the orebody,
the geotechnical environment, and the depth of mineralization
and surface conditions. In some cases, these
conditions change in a single mining operation. If significant
enough, a change in mining method in one ore
deposit can occur.
Geotechnical considerations when selecting a mining method are
becoming increasingly important, due to the
increased dimensions and production rates required of mining
operations in order to meet growing expectations
of profitability. Since these larger projects require a longer
period of satisfactory performance in terms of ore
recovery and ground support, more formal and rigorous
methodologies are necessary in mine design (Brady and
Brown, 2006). Geotechnical factors include in-situ mechanical
properties of the orebody and country rocks, the
geological structure of the rockmass, the ambient state of
stress and the hydrogeological considerations in the
zone of potential mining influence (Brady and Brown, 2006). The
goals of geotechnical consideration in mine
design, regardless of the mining method, are to:
Ensure the overall stability of the complete mine structure,
defined by the main orebody, mined voids, ore remnants (pillars)
and adjacent country rock;
To protect the major service openings and infrastructure
throughout their design life; To provide safe access and working
places in and around the centres of ore production; and To preserve
the mineable condition of unmined ore reserves (Brady and Brown,
2006).
-
Mining methods have evolved significantly in the last several
decades as improvements have been made on
machinery used to extract the ore, understanding and experience
with the behaviour of the rockmass and
underground stresses has developed, and as newly discovered ore
bodies are located in increasingly difficult
conditions.
Mining Method Classification
From a geomechanical perspective, mining methods can be
classified based on the type and degree of support
required in mining operations. Supported mining methods include
open stoping and room-and-pillar mining,
where natural support is provided by ore remnants (e.g.
pillars), or cut-and-fill mining and shrinkage stoping,
where support for the walls of the void remaining after ore
extraction is provided by backfill or by fractured ore
temporarily retained in contact with mined stope walls. Cave
mining methods include block caving and sublevel
caving, where no support is used because fragmented rock fills
and flows through the stopes. A classification of
underground mining methods, subdivided based on pillar supported
and unsupported groups, is shown in
Figure 1.
Figure 1: A hierarchy of underground mining methods and
associated rockmass response to mining (Brady and Brown,
2006)
The distinction between these two broad categories of mining
methods can be made by comparing the
displacements induced in the country rock and energy
redistributions in the rockmass caused by mining
activities. Supported mining aims to restrict displacements in
the country rock to elastic behaviour and prevent
failure of the rockmass. The success of these methods depends on
the ability of the near-field rockmass to sustain
compressive stresses in order to maintain elastic behaviour. The
mining issue therefore becomes prevention of
unstable energy releases (e.g. rockbursts) associated with
increased near-field stress, which could cause failure of
support elements, sudden closure of stopes, or rapid fracture
generation in the surrounding rock. A schematic of a
supported mining method (room-and-pillar) is shown in Figure
2.
On the other hand, cave mining purposefully induces large
displacements following fragmentation of the
rockmass, resulting in energy dissipation in the caving
rockmass. The success of this method depends on
exploiting the discontinuous behaviour of a rockmass when
confining stresses are relaxed
(Brady and Brown, 2006). The mining issue here is to maintain
steady displacement of the fragmented orebody
so to prevent the development of unstable voids. The rate of
slip and fragmentation of the rockmass must be
proportional to the rate of ore extraction. A schematic of a
caving mining method (block caving) is shown in
Figure 3.
-
Figure 2: Schematic of a supported (room-and-pillar)
method of mining (after Hamrin, 2001)
Figure 3: Schematic of a mechanized block caving operation
method of mining at the El Teniente Mine, Chile (after
Hamrin, 2001)
Change of Mining Method in a Mining Operation
In practice, it is possible for a mining operation to utilize
different mining methods, which can even be classified
by different geomechanical concepts, at different stages of
orebody extraction. The transition between methods
of different geomechanical behaviour can have significant
consequence on the stability of permanent openings,
which lends to the importance of defining a mine plan for the
entire mine life that will be able to successfully
accommodate the necessary mining methods and induced behaviours
of the rockmass. However, in underground
mines, a complete change of mining method once operations have
begun is uncommon. Slight variations in the
method occur when faced with minor changes to the ore body and
mining environment, but a complete overhaul
of the initial method requires a change that significantly
impacts the mine output and its overall profitability. In
general, mines that have experienced continuous problems are
more willing to adopt new mining techniques to
improve their operations with a changing mining situation
(Laubscher, 1994).
Thickness and Orientation of Mineralization
Orebodies can occur in a variety of geometries, related to the
deposits geological origin. Tabular or stratabound deposits are of
sedimentary origin and are extensive in two dimensions
(horizontally if in unmetamorphosed
sedimentary rock). Veins, lenses and lode deposits are also
generally extensive in two directions but are formed
by hydrothermal and/or metamorphic processes. Massive deposits
have a more regular orebody shape that are
controlled less by geologically imposed boundaries (Brady and
Brown, 2006). The details of preferred orebody
shapes are discussed in the section for each mining method. A
detailed discussion of oil and gas deposits is not
included in this article.
Ore and Country Rock Strength
The strength of the ore and the surrounding rock is one of the
most significant geotechnical factors in mining
method selection. The strength and related stability of the
rockmasses are important for all types of excavation,
and are assessed using rockmass classification systems
throughout a mine. Common rockmass classification
systems include Bieniawskis Rock Mass Rating (RMR) system
(Bieniawski, 1989), the Modified Rock Mass Rating (MRMR) system
developed by Laubscher (1990), the Q system developed by Barton
(Barton et al.,
1974), and the Geological Strength Index (GSI) by Hoek and Brown
(1997). Ground support requirements within
the guidelines of a mining method are determined based on the
strength of the rockmass as well as the intended
use of the excavation (e.g. permanent service excavations versus
stopes) and the related risk of failure to the
mine.
-
The RMR system was developed to assess the stability of an
excavation, while the MRMR system addresses
cavability of an orebody being mined using caving methods.
Although the MRMR system has been used
successfully for the weaker and larger orebodies for which it
was first developed, more recent experience in
stronger, smaller and isolated or constrained orebodies has not
provided satisfactory results (Brown, 2003).
The mineralization in a rockmass that defines the orebody
changes the geomechanical properties of that
rockmass. The intact rock strength as well as the amount and
quality of joint sets and fractures of an ore body are
usually different from the surrounding rock. The type and grade
of mineralization affects the sharpness of the
contact between the rock types, which is an important control on
dilution during mining.
Distribution of Mineralization within the Orebody
The variation of ore grade through the volume of an orebody
influences the mining strategy. The critical
parameters are average grade, cut-off grades, and grade
distribution. The average grade determines the degree of
flexibility for method selection as related to the operating
costs and current market conditions that define the
monetary value of the deposit. The amount of dilution of ore
expected during extraction is also related to the
value per unit weight of ore. For deposits with a lower average
grade, there is a higher economic sensitivity to
the effects of dilution.
General grade distribution in an orebody may be uniform,
uniformly variable, or irregular. Uniform ore grades
are found in massive ore deposits, uniformly variable grades
exhibit a spatial trend in ore grade, and irregular ore
grades are found in deposits with high local concentrations of
ore minerals, including vein, lens, and nugget
deposits.
Depth of Mineralization and Surface Conditions
The depth of the mineralization and surface conditions are the
main considerations when choosing between an
open pit and underground mining method. As a brief discussion of
open pit mining, the ore deposit must be
shallow enough to maintain an economic ore grade with
construction of the pit walls. The angle of the pit walls is
controlled by the strength and stability of the rockmass. In
general, a less stable rockmass requires a shallower pit
slope angle, while a more stable rock enables steeper slope
angles to be used. More stable rock is preferred so the
excavation is more focused on the ore body, which results in
less excavation of waste rock. An open pit mine has
a much larger footprint at surface, and therefore must be
located further away from existing infrastructure and
population than an underground mine.
The depth of an underground mining operation can impact the mine
or the surrounding ground in both shallow
and deep conditions. In shallow conditions, the effects of
subsidence in the mine can extend to surface and
impact nearby surface infrastructure. Supported mining methods
frequently have no visible subsidence effect at
surface; however, ground subsidence has been known to occur in
unsupported mining methods, including
longwall mining of coal (Brady and Brown, 2006). Caving methods
generally have a more pronounced impact at
surface through subsidence (Brady and Brown, 2006). In sublevel
caving of a massive ore body near surface,
subsidence is included in the mine design and is controlled by
the rate of ore extraction. The most effective mine
closure plan for this scenario is to flood the mine and create a
lake at surface.
In addition to ore and rock strength, the in-situ stresses
associated with deep mining are a significant factor in
mining method selection. This is important to consider for
pillar supported methods, since pillar size correlates to
stress conditions. Pillar size affects the overall profitability
of the mine since a major design focus of pillar
supported mining methods is to minimize pillar size in order to
maximize the amount of ore extracted. In low
stress environments, pillars are small, which results in a
higher ore recovery. For more information on pillar
design, see the pillar design article.
Geotechnical Environment
The geotechnical environment of an ore deposit is characterized
by the intact rock and rockmass properties, in-
situ stress in the host rock, and chemical properties of the ore
(Brady and Brown, 2006). Intact rock properties
-
include strength, deformation characteristics and weathering
characteristics. Rockmass properties are defined by
the influence of joint sets, faults, shear zones, and other
penetrative discontinuities.
Adverse chemical properties of ore rock may prohibit caving
methods of mining, which generally require the ore
to be chemically inert (Brady and Brown, 2006). For example, a
sulphide ore subject to rapid oxidation by
fragmentation of the orebody may create difficult ventilation
conditions in working areas and even break down
into smaller pieces of rock after predicted primary and
secondary fragmentation have occurred. These smaller
rock fragments could reduce the effectiveness of the height of
draw in the stope and the transport and handling
facilities for the ore.
There are certain cases where a pervasive geological feature can
be influential enough to control the entire
mining method selection and mine plan, including large fault or
shear zone systems, highly fractured rock linking
to an aquifer, and the local tectonic setting (Brady and Brown,
2006). Faults and shear zones may separate the
orebody into multiple sections that would otherwise be able to
be mined using large scale caving. Similarly,
aquifers existing in or near the zone of mining influence where
large fractures occur in the rockmass may provide
hydraulic connections to other water sources during mining. An
active tectonic setting would be problematic for
large voids left by mined stopes, due to the possibility of
local instability induced by a seismic event. Also,
mining activity in a stope near an existing fault has the
potential to cause a local seismic event. In addition to the
direct dangers of structural failure of the rockmass in the
stope, an indirectly caused an air blast is a
consequential risk for mine safety.
Geotechnical Factors of Underground Mining Methods
The discussion of specific underground mining methods is
organized based on the type and degree of support
required in mining operations: pillar supported, artificially
supported, and unsupported. Case studies are
presented on mining methods at the Kristeneberg Mine
(cut-and-fill) and the Mouska Gold Mine (shrink
stoping).
Pillar Supported
The successful performance of a pillar supported system is
related to both the dimensions of the individual pillars
and their geometric location in the orebody (Brady and Brown,
2006). A good understanding of in-situ stress
conditions is necessary for a successful pillar supported mine
design. If there is a high horizontal maximum
stress in a particular direction, the orientation of both the
room advance through the orebody and rectangular
pillars should be planned in order to maximize support in that
direction. Many very shallow room-and-pillar
operations may have very little horizontal stress such that the
orientation of the rooms and pillars has a minimal
effect. However, very deep operations in high stress
environments may have rockburst issues. As such, the
sequence of extraction in addition to pillar orientation is
important (Bullock and Hustrulid, 2001). A more
detailed discussion on pillar design can be found here.
Room and Pillar Mining
Room and pillar mining generates ore pillars as remnants as
extraction progresses, in order to control the stability
of the roof rock and the global response of the surrounding
rockmass (see Figure 2). Regular patterns of pillars
are typically developed in order to simplify planning, design,
and operation. The roof may or may not be
artificially supported for worker safety, depending on the
competency of the rockmass. Pillars can either remain
intact upon mine closure or extracted at the end of mine life,
allowing the stope to collapse afterward (Brady and
Brown, 2006).
Room and pillar mining is best suited for tabular deposits that
also must be relatively shallow to limit the size of
the ore pillars. Examples of tabular ore bodies or host rocks
include copper shale, coal, salt and potash,
limestone, and dolomite (Hamrin, 2001). There are three typical
variations of room and pillar mining that
account for changes in dip of the ore body.
-
1. Classic room and pillar mining is used for horizontal
deposits with moderate to thick beds, as well as inclined deposits
with thicker beds. Mining progresses downward from the hangingwall
in slices and the required ground support is installed in the
hangingwall.
2. Post room and pillar mining is used for thick, inclined
deposits that have a dip between 20 and 55. The mining sequence
here begins from the bottom and advances upward. Backfill is used
to increase the support capacity of the pillars in the mined out
areas, and to create a platform from which to mine the next section
of ore.
3. Step room and pillar mining is used for ore deposits that are
only 2 to 5 m thick and have a dip angle between 15 and 30. In this
case, mining advances downward from the hanging wall (Hamrin,
2001).
A suitable geomechanical setting for room and pillar mining
requires a strong, competent orebody and near-field
rockmass, with a low frequency of cross jointing in the
immediate roof rockmass (Brady and Brown, 2006).
Mississippi Potash Inc.s underground operations are a good
example of room and pillar mining of soft rock. The salt ore is
surrounded and intruded by clay seams which form zones of weakness
that are controlled by rock bolts
or cribs. Since the stability of the salt layers is much easier
to control with ground support, the roof of the mine
excavations are designed to be developed in salt (Herne and
McGuire, 2001).
Sublevel Open Stoping
Sublevel open stoping requires extensive development in and
around the orebody during preproduction. Stope
faces and side walls remain unsupported during ore extraction,
while support for the country rock is developed as
pillars are generated by stoping (Brady and Brown, 2006). The
pillars may be left in place or extracted at a later
time (Bullock and Hustrulid, 2001). Bighole stoping is a larger
scale variant of sublevel open stoping that uses
longer blast holes. This results in vertical spacings between
sublevels of up to 60 m instead of 40 m for sublevel
open stoping. Sublevel open stoping is applied in massive or
steeply dipping stratiform orebodies. For an
inclined orebody, the inclination of the stope footwall must
exceed the angle of repose of the fragmented rock in
order to promote free flow of rock through the stope to the
extraction horizon. Since stopes in these methods are
unsupported, the strength of the orebody and surrounding
rockmass must be sufficient to provide stable walls,
faces, and crown for stope excavations. Additionally, the
orebody boundary must be regular to minimize dilution.
Due to the blast hole drilling and blasting technique, the
minimum orebody width for open stoping is
approximately 6 m (Brady and Brown, 2006). Pillar recovery is a
common practice in open stoping, made
possible by the use of backfill placed into primary stope voids.
The backfill replaces the support provided by the
ore pillar, allowing for pillar extraction.
Artificially Supported
Artificial support in mine openings is intended to control both
local, stope wall behaviour and near-field
displacements. There are two main categories of artificial
support for ground control: mechanized support (e.g.
rockbolts) and backfill. Potentially unstable rock near an
excavation boundary may be reinforced with rockbolts.
Backfill is used to fill stope voids and can prevent the
progressive disintegration of near-field rockmasses in low
stress conditions (Brady and Brown, 2006). Artificially
supported methods include bench-and-fill stoping, cut-
and-fill stoping, shrink stoping, and vertical crater retreat
(VCR).
Cut-and-Fill Mining
Cut-and-fill mining is a very versatile method that can be
adapted to an orebody with any shape (Bullock and
Hustrulid, 2001). It is a very selective mining method that most
commonly advances up-dip in an inclined
orebody. Mining costs are relatively high compared to other
methods; recovery is also high, and dilution is low.
As such, it is an appropriate method for high grade orebodies
(Bullock and Hustrulid, 2001). Cut-and-fill is a
very controlled cycle of mining that is repeated many times in a
single deposit. The simplified steps are:
1. Drilling and blasting, where a 3 m thick slice of rock is
stripped from the crown of the stope; 2. Scaling and support, where
loose rock is removed from the stope crown and walls and
lightweight support is
installed; 3. Ore loading and transport, where ore is
mechanically transported in the stope to an ore pass; and 4.
Backfilling, where a layer of backfill with a depth equal to the
thickness of the ore slice is placed on the stope floor
(Brady and Brown, 2006).
-
The success of this method depends on continued stability of the
rockmass surrounding the work area where
miners work continuously. This is achieved through controlled
blasting, application of local rock support, and
more general ground control using backfill. Cut-and-fill stoping
is applied in veins, inclined tabular orebodies
and massive deposits. When mining a large enough orebody, mining
can be divided into multiple sections
separated by vertical pillars. This method is suitable for
orebodies dipping 35-90 degrees in either shallow or
deep locations. The backfill allows for a weaker country rock,
but the orebody itself must be a competent
rockmass (Brady and Brown, 2006). However, if the orebody
strength is very poor, a variation on cut-and-fill,
underhand cut-and-fill, may be used (Bullock and Hustrulid,
2001). The ore grade must be sufficiently high to
withstand dilution from backfill, but the grade can also be
variable since lenses below the cut-off grade can be
left unmined (Brady and Brown, 2006).
Case Study: Kristineberg Mine
Cut-and-fill mining is the primary mining method at the
Kristineberg Mine, which is located in northern Sweden,
approximately 130 km west of Skellefte. The orebody is a typical
vein structure with a dip varying between 45
and 80. The host rock is a schistose sericitic quartzite and the
rock immediately adjacent to the orebody is often
highly altered, frequently very weak, talcy sericitic schists
that vary in thickness between 0 and 3 m. The rock
strength of both wall rocks and ore decreases from the
hangingwall to the footwall as a result of metamorphic
folding and faulting. Ground control problems, including roof
collapse and wall slabbing, arose from a
combination of variable rock quality and high in-situ stresses.
Ore in the roof of the backfilled stope is subjected
to large horizontal stresses, which results in the failure of
both the roof and sidewall. In response to the resulting
decline of ore production in the 1980s, extensive investigations
of the feasibility of cut-and-fill mining at greater
depth under these conditions were undertaken. The continuation
of successful mining at greater depths is a result
of the following findings:
Dense support is necessary to maintain stability, and efficient,
mechanized support is necessary to reduce costs and maintain
reasonable production capacity; and
The combined effect of changes in support strategy, more
efficient support capability, and reduced level intervals has
resulted in increased production reliability and capacity, with
improved mining costs (Krauland et al., 2001).
Bench-and-Fill Stoping
Bench-and-fill stoping is a more productive alternative to
cut-and-fill where geotechnical conditions permit.
Here, initial drilling and excavation drives are mined along the
length and width of the orebody. Mining
advances by the sequential blasting of production rings into the
advancing void and the ore is mucked remotely
from the extraction horizon (Villaescusa, 1996). Following
mining, the stopes are backfilled to provide support
for the stope walls. An example of bench-and-fill stoping
geometry is shown in Figure 4. This method may be
used at several scales and variants. In some cases it has become
the preferred method of narrow vein mining
(Brady and Brown, 2006).
Figure 4: Bench-and-fill stoping geometry in the Lead Mine,
Mount Isa Mines, Queensland, Australia; (a) longitudinal
section, and (b) cross-section (after Villaescusa, 1996)
-
Shrink Stoping
Shrink (or shrinkage) stoping involves vertical or subvertical
advance of mining in a stope, where the fragmented
ore provides both a working platform and temporary support for
the stope walls, as shown in Figure 5. This
method is similar to cut-and-fill stoping, where the fragmented
ore fulfills a similar function to backfill used in
cut-and-fill. It is generally applied to very narrow extraction
blocks that have traditionally not been suitable for a
high degree of mechanization (Bullock and Hustrulid, 2001). The
suitable orebody type, orientation,
geomechanical properties and setting for shrink stoping are
virtually the same as those for cut-and-fill. However,
the chemical properties of the ore become more important for
shrink stoping where the rock must be completely
chemically inert. The ore rock must also be competent and
resistant to crushing during draw in order to maintain
flow through the stope (Brady and Brown, 2006). Shrink stoping
remains one of the few methods that can be
practiced effectively with a minimum investment in machinery but
is still not entirely dependent on manual
labour (Hamrin, 2001).
Figure 5: Layout for shrink stoping (after Hamrin, 2001)
Case Study: Mouska Gold Mine
Shrink stoping has been implemented at the Mouska gold mine,
located 80 km west of Val-dOr and 20 km east of Rouyn-Noranda. 72%
of the ore is produced in shrink stopes, 20% from longhole mining,
and the remaining
8% from development work of the mine infrastructure. The minimum
width of the shrink stopes is 1.6 m, and
three major joint sets are present in the rockmass. Most of the
ground control problems can be attributed to (i)
brittle failure of the diorite country rock under high stress;
(ii) unstable blocks formed by the intersection of
major joints; and (iii) major changes in orientation of the ore
veins. The choice of shrink stoping at Mouska is
based on the following factors:
It is a selective method that allows daily assessment of the
orientation of the vein being mined; It is a flexible method that
permits better recovery of the ore in the extremities of the
stopes; Ore inventory left in the stopes during the mining phase
provides additional wall support; and Pillars can occasionally be
left inside the stope, improving ground stability and mining grades
(Marchand et al.,
2001).
-
Vertical Crater Retreat (VCR) Stoping
Vertical Crater Retreat (VCR) stoping is a larger scale variant
of shrink stoping, made possible by advancements
in large-diameter blasthole drilling technology and explosive
design. It is applicable in many places where shink
stoping is feasible, except for orebodies that are narrow in
width (less than approximately 3 m). It is particularly
suitable for orebodies where sublevel development is impossible
(Brady and Brown, 2006).
Unsupported
Unsupported mining methods include longwall mining and caving
mining. These methods are distinguished from
other mining methods because the near-field rock undergoes, by
design, large displacements where mined voids
become self-filling. Longwall mining is classically used in the
deep mines of South Africa, where the near-field
rock is usually strong and in-situ stresses are high (Brady and
Brown, 2006). Several caving mining methods are
generally well suited for massive ore bodies, including iron
ore, low-grade copper, molybdenum deposits, other
massive sulphide deposits, and diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes
(Hamrin, 2001). These include block caving,
sublevel open stoping and bighole stoping, and sublevel caving.
Cave mining refers to all mining operations
where the orebody caves naturally after undercutting and the
fragmented material is recovered through
drawpoints. Cave mining has the lowest cost for underground
mining, provided the drawpoint size and handling
facilities are appropriate for the caved material in a given
mine (Laubscher, 1994).
Longwall Mining
Longwall mining is best suited for thin ore deposits that have a
large horizontal extent. Ground support is used to
maintain the excavation opening near the face, while the
hangingwall behind the excavation can be allowed to
subside. Hydraulic props, cribs, and pillars of timber or
concrete are common ground support systems (Hamrin,
2001). This method can be used for both hard rock mining of
metal ore and coal mining in soft rock. In both
cases, the method maintains continuous behaviour in the
far-field rock. An orebody must be dipping less than 20
and have a relatively uniform grade distribution. Additionally,
any displacement along a fault must be less than
the thickness of the orebody. In hard rock mining, longwall
mining aims to maintain near-continuous behaviour
of the near-field rockmass, which requires a strong and
competent hangingwall and footwall rockmass. A generic
layout of longwall mining in hard rock is shown in Figure 6. In
cases where only a single pass of the orebody is
mined, movement and closure of the hangingwall and footwall
occur as mining advances. Once the hangingwall
and footwall are in contact, the ground stresses at that
location are invariant with further mining. This allows for
the use of lighter rockmass support in the vicinity of mining
activity (Brady and Brown, 2006).
-
Figure 6: Schematic of longwall mining in hard rock (after
Hamrin, 2001)
Sublevel Caving
Sublevel caving is a true caving technique that seeks to induce
free displacement of the country rock overlying
an orebody. Mining progresses downwards in an orebody where each
sublevel is extracted as mining proceeds,
as shown in Figure 7. Since gravitational flow of the fragmented
ore rock controls the ultimate yield,
development of the caving rockmass and the setup of the drill
headings are the important aspects of the mining
method. Generally, sublevel caving is suitable only for steeply
dipping orebodies, with reasonably strong
orebody rock enclosed by weaker overlying and wall rocks. The
average grade must be high enough to sustain
dilution to amounts that are perhaps greater than 20%. This
method results in a significant disturbance of the
ground surface, limiting its application to areas with suitable
local topography and hydrology. Close control of
draw is required to limit dilution of the ore stream.
Geomechanics issues are prone to arising in production
headings as a result of high concentration of field stresses in
the lower abutment of the mining zone (Brady and
Brown, 2006). This method has been most commonly applied to
mining magnetic iron ores that can be easily and
inexpensively separated from the waste rock (Bullock and
Hustrulid, 2001).
Figure 7: Schematic of transverse sublevel caving (after Hamrin,
2001)
Block Caving
In block caving, disintegration of the ore and country rock
takes advantage of the natural fractures in the
rockmasses, the stress distribution around the boundary of the
cave domain, the limited strength of the
rockmasses, and the tendency of the gravitational field to
displace unstable blocks from the cave boundary. A
schematic of block caving is shown in Figure 3. This method is
distinct from all others discussed thus far as the
primary fragmentation is achieved by natural mechanical
processes. Block caving is a mass mining method,
capable of high, sustained production rates at relatively low
cost per tonne. It can only be applied to large
orebodies where the height exceeds approximately 100 m.
Productive caving in an orebody is prevented if the
advancing cave boundary spontaneously stabilizes into, for
example, an arched crown of blocks. Important
geotechnical factors to consider when evaluating the caving
potential of an orebody include the pre-mining state
of stress, the frequency and surface condition of joints and
other fractures in the rockmass, and the strength of the
intact rock material. The most favourable rockmass structural
condition for caving is one that contains at least
two prominent subvertical joint sets, plus a subhorizontal set
(Brady and Brown, 2006). It should be noted that in
-
high stress fields, it has been observed that too rapid a draw
can result in the creation of rockbursting conditions
(Bullock and Hustrulid, 2001).
Summary
A summary of the geotechnical factors for each underground
mining method, including the suitable orebody
geometries, orebody grades, orebody and country rock strengths,
and depths are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of geotechnical factors for each underground
mining method
Method
Class Method
Relative
magnitude of
displacements
in country rock
Strain
energy
storage in
near field
rock
Suitable
orebody
geometry
Suitable
orebody
grade
Suitable orebody,
country rock
strength
Suitable
depth
Pillar
supported Room-and-pillar Very low Very high
Tabular,
maximum dip
55
High
Both strong and
competent, low
frequency of cross
jointing in roof
Shallow
Pillar
supported
Sublevel open
stoping Very low Very high
Massive or
steeply
dipping
stratiform,
regular
boundary
Moderate
Must be sufficient
to provide stable
walls, faces, and
crown for stopes
Variable
Artificially
supported Cut-and-fill Low High
Veins,
inclined
tabular,
massive; 35-
90 dip
High; variable
with lenses is
acceptable
Competent
orebody, can be
weaker country rock
Shallow
or deep
Artificially
supported Bench-and-fill Low High
Narrow vein
mining High
Competent
orebody, can be
weaker country rock
Shallow
or deep
Artificially
supported Shrink stoping Moderate Moderate
Very narrow
extraction
blocks; veins,
inclined
tabular,
massive
High; variable
with lenses is
acceptable
Competent orebody
(and resistant to
crushing), can be
weaker country rock
Shallow
or deep
Artificially
supported VCR stoping Moderate Moderate
Mininum 3 m
width
orebody;
veins,
inclined
tabular,
massive
High; variable
with lenses is
acceptable
Competent orebody
(and resistant to
crushing), can be
weaker country rock
Shallow
or deep
-
Unsupported Longwall mining High Low
Thin with
large
horizontal
extent, less
than 20 dip
Uniform
grade
distribution
Hard (e.g. gold) and
soft ore (e.g. coal)
rock; hard ore rock
requires strong and
competent
hangingwall and
footwall rockmass
Shallow
(soft) or
deep
(hard)
Unsupported Sublevel caving High Low
Steeply
dipping
orebodies
High enough
to sustain
dilution
(perhaps
>20%)
Reasonably strong
orebody rock
enclosed by weaker
overlying and wall
rocks
From
shallow
to deep
Unsupported Block caving Very high Very low
Large
orebodies
where height
>100 m
High enough
to sustain
dilution
Rockmass of limited
strength, containing
at least two
prominent
subvertical and one
subhorizontal joint
set
Shallow
or deep
References
Barton, N.R., Lien, R. and Lunde, J. 1974. Engineering
classification of rock masses for the design of tunnel support.
Rock Mech. 6(4), 189-239.
Bieniawski, Z.T. 1989. Engineering rock mass classifications.
New York: Wiley. Brady, B.H.G. and Brown, E.T. 2006. Rock Mechanics
for underground mining, 3rd Ed. The Netherlands: Springer. Brown,
E. T. 2003. Block Caving Geomechanics. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre: Brisbane. Bullock, R. and Hustrulid, W. 2001.
Chapter 3: Planning the Underground Mine on the Basis of Mining
Method. In:
Underground Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and
International Case Studies (eds W. A. Hustrulid and R. L. Bullock),
29-48. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton,
Colorado.
Hamrin, H. 2001. Chapter 1: Underground mining methods and
applications. In: Underground Mining Methods: Engineering
Fundamentals and International Case Studies (eds W. A. Hustrulid
and R. L. Bullock), 314. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration: Littleton, Colorado.
Herne, V. and McGuire, T. 2001. Chapter 13: Mississippi Potash,
Inc.s, underground operations. In: Underground Mining Methods:
Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies (eds W. A.
Hustrulid and R. L. Bullock), 137-141. Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton, Colorado.
Hoek, E. and Brown, E.T. 1997. Practical estimates of rock mass
strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 34:8,1165-8,1186.
Krauland, N., Marklund, P.-I., and Board, M. 2001. Chapter 37:
Rock support in cut-and-fill mining at the Kristineberg Mine. In:
Underground Mining Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and
International Case Studies (eds W. A. Hustrulid and R. L. Bullock),
325-332. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton,
Colorado.
Laubscher, D.H. 1990. A Geomechanics Classification System for
the Rating of Rock Mass in Mine design. Journal of the South
African Institute of Mining & Metallurgy, vol. 90, no 10, pp.
257-273.
Laubscher, D.H. 1994. Cave mining the state of the art. The
Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
94(10): 279-93.
Marchand, R., Godin, P., and Doucet, C. 2001. Chapter 19:
Shrinkage stoping at the Mouska Mine. In: Underground Mining
Methods: Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies
(eds W. A. Hustrulid and R. L. Bullock), 189-194. Society for
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton, Colorado.
Villaescusa, E. 1996. Excavation design for bench stoping at
Mount Isa mine, Queensland, Australia. Trans. Instn Min. Metall.,
105: A110.
-
Written by J.J. Day, Dept. of Geological Sciences and Geological
Engineering, Queen's University