Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ubc MSM

    Uploaded by

    Mark Silva B
    11 views5 pages
    prueba1

    Original Title

    UBC MSM

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    prueba1

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views5 pages

    Ubc MSM

    Uploaded by

    Mark Silva B
    prueba1

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 5
    ‘Mine Planning and Equipment Selection 1995, Siighal etal. (eds) 1995 Bakoma, Rotterdam. ISBN 90 54105690 UBC mining method selection L. Miller-Tait, R.Pakalnis & R. Poulin University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C, Canada ABSTRACT: The only selection technique that uses a numerical basis to evaluate the suitability of a mining method is the Nicholas approach. This paper provides an empirically derived modification to the Nicholas approach in an attempt to use his numerical procedure for analyzing the selection process. As with the Nicholas approach, this selection process is only a preliminary analysis identifying the more likely and favourable mining method, considered during the pretiminary feasibility staze. ‘The Nicholas method ‘The Nicholas method numerically ranks deposit characteristics of ore geometry and rock mechanics characteristics of the ore zone, footwall, and hanging wall. The rankings are then summed together with the higher rankings being the more favourable or likely mining methods. Each ranking consists ofa number “O to 4” or "49". 49” completely eliminates a mining method from being feasible. A value of “O” strongly suggests that this characteristic makes that particular rmining technique less attractive. The value of “I or 2” indicates that a characteristic should not have a negative impact on a method. A ranking of “3 or 4” indicates a very favourable characteristic for that particular mining method. The rock mechanics characeristics are scaled with a weighting factors scale according to ore zone, hanging wall, or footwall, This system provides a ‘quantitative approach for selecting a mining method. UBC mining method selection ‘The UBC approach is simply a modified version ofthe Nicholas approach, This numbering system follows 1 very similar pattem to the Nicholas method. A value, -10, was introduced to strongly discount a method without totally eliminating it as with the -49 value, Moreover, the rock mechanics ratings were adjusted to reflect improvements 163 It is not an analysis to determine the final method selected and should be with ground support and monitoring techniques. ‘The UBC selection process is listed below. UBC mining method selection 1) general shape/width equisdimensional all dimensions are on the same order of magnitude platy-tabular two dimensions are many times the thickness, which does not usually exceed 35m inregular dimensions vary over short distances 2) ore thickness very narrow 3m narrow 310m intermediate 10-30 m thick 30-100 m very thick >100m 3) plunge dat «20 degrees intermediate 20-55 degrees steep >S5 degrees 4) depth below surfice shallow 0-100 m cermediate 100-600 m deep >000 m 5) grade distribution 6}rock mass ratings: veryweak 0-20 ‘usiform - the grade at any point in the deposit war goo does not vary significantly from the mean grade moderate 40-60 for that deposit, strong, 60-80 gyadational - grade values have zonal Noverng 80-100 ‘characteristics, and the grades change gradually from one to mother. ‘7)rock substance strength: very weak <5 cratic - grade velues change radically over short (uniaxial strengthiprincipal stress) weak 5-10 distances and do not exhibit any discernible moderate 10-15 patter in their changes. strong >15 Ranking of geometry/grade distribution for different mining methods raining general gnde method shape ore thickness oreplunge distribution dept MTP 1 WNT sit ‘open pit mining 4 12 block caving sublevel stoping sblevel caving Tongwall mining ~#9 room and pillar 0 shrinksge stoping 0 cut & fill topiog 1 top slicing 1 square set stoping 0 se “101 -49 49 1 3 0-49-49 1 1 4 3 eee eel ova gbbeauala on-cgbbeueels Serena a3 2 3 2 4 4 4 ° ' 4 3 M= massive VN=very narrow F = fat uniform $= shallow TIP = tabular N= narrow 1 intermediate G ~ gradational | = intermediate imernediae $= seep E=erraic — D~=deep T= thick VI=very thick Rock mechanics characteristics Rock mass ratings footwall ining method mining metho vs is 2 = tune ale ‘open pit mining block caving sublevel stoping sublevel caving Jongwall mining room and pillar shrinkage stoping ccut and fill top slicing square set atkunls Boucousouulsz beeen Soonele aun euls bee oaeuuule Rouwodk mm eu evenale Here eeuualee Buco Ceuswunanalnd Howes lous RMR ratings = VW= 0-20, W=20-40, M=40-60, $= 60-80, VS = 80-100 Rock substance strength mining method ore zone ‘hanging wall footwall wwMs www s wwwm-s ‘open pit mining 4333 3344 3344 block caving 4210 43.20 4321 sublevelstoping «04 o1r4as 0133 sublevel caving 2332 4321 1222 ongwall mining = 6 «5 2 1 65 22 - tee room and pillar 003 6 0026 - 2: shrinkage stoping = O13 4 o134 0233 ccut and fll 0133 35 42 1322 top slicing 3.210 30222 2211 43 10 4210 3.20 0 _square set RSS ratings Nicholas approach modifications The UBC version modifies all rankings and each characteristic except grade distribution and plunge ‘The Nicholas approach was modified in an sMtempt to put mare emphasis on stope mining rather an mass mixing techniques such as caving. The reason for tis is that most Canadian Underground mines wilize open stoping, room and pillar, or cut and fill mining techniques. Table 1 sts the mining methods used during 1994 in Canada Table 1. Mining methods utilized by Canadian ‘mines (source: 1994 Canadian Mines Handbook) mining method approximate (76) useaze ‘open stoping 529% cut and fill 20% room and pillr 14% sublevel caving Improved rock support techniques, monitoring, and the use of remote operated equipment now make it possible to mine by opea stoping techniques rather than caving in poor ground conditions. For example, Detour Lake Mins successfully utilizes a sub-level retreat method of open storing using remote operated scoop trams (Pakaltis 1995), Moreover, as caving deposits require extensive rock mechanics and geotechnical analysis, this firs. pass approach would not justify recommending block caving or sublevel caving ‘anil further evaluation had been carried out. ‘Many mines, panicularly vein gold deposits, are usvally less than 10 metres thick. Therefore, VW very weak, W = weak, M = medium, § = stroag. this selection technique adds a category, very narrow, to provide a more specific description for narrow vein mining. Very narrow is clastfied as 0-3 metres. ‘The reason for this thickness is to distinguish a range where open stoping, duc to control problems, becomes impractical When thicknesses become less than three metres, stoping is generally conducted with stopers or jacklegs, This is a slower, less productive approsch but provides a more accurate mining method with less development and dilution. For example, a dill jumbo would not be able to sccurately dail a fokled two metre thick gold vein, Funhermore, bast induced dilution, while tolerable in a wider stopes, may be unacceptable in a very narrow stope, One metre of dilution in a ten metre wide stope would represent ten percent dilution whereas one metre of dilution in a three metre Wide stope would result in 33 perceat dilation The UBC section method utilizes deposit depth primatity to eliminate or restrict the use of open pit mining. Open pit mining is such a Versatile mining method that it is virtually skways, the most applicable mining method when depth is not considered. This modification reduces the applicabiity of open pit mining for deeper deposits. The UBC mining method selection classifies rock mechanics into two parameters: namely rock mass rating (RMR) and rock substance strength (RSS). The rock mass rating consists of the Bieniawsk?s rock mass rating (CSIR - 1973). This rating classifies six parameters into a rating from 0-100 in which 0 is the worst aad 100 is the best, Table 2 summarizes these classification parameters and their range of values. 165 Table 2 Bieniawski (CSIR) rock mass rating, classification parameters range of values strength ofntact rock material O15 rock quality designation (RQD) 3-20 ng of joims 3-30 condition of joints 0-25 sround water conditions 0-10 ‘The main reason for using Bieniawski's rock ‘mass rating is to utilize a more general rating, which is more applicable for # frst pass analysis. Moreover, the universal use of the rock mass rating allows for a more consistent analysis of data ‘The modified version of rock substance strength is very similiar to the Nicholas approach. However, as mary Canadian mines have horizontal pressures in excess of twice the overburden pressure, maximum in sita stress is used instead of overburden pressure. Another category, very weak, was added to provide further definition to rock substance strength. ‘The very weak category represents a range where, despite the rock mass rating, it would be unsafe for man entry without ground support. ‘The weak category represents 4 range where it may be dangerous for man entry without ground support. The moderate category represents. a range where rock pressure should not pose a mujor hazard for mining operations. A strong rating suggests that ground pressure should have litle effect on intact rock. ‘These categories regarding rock strength were then applied to each mining method and given a rating according to applicability. The weaker ratings lent themselves to either strong support ‘methods or methods where there is no man entry. ‘The moderate methods lent themselves to partial support teckniques such as cut and fill, The strong catezories were fivourable for open stoping methods, shrinkage stoping, or room and pillar mining The ore zone, hanging wall, and footwall have varying importance for mining operations. The UBC mining method selection addresses theit relative importance by weighting the factors dicectly into the table. For example, the footwall rock mechanics characteristics are not given a value when considering room and pillar ot Toagwall mining. However, to make up for removing a category, the hanging wall and ore 166 zones were each given a possible rating of 6, rather than 4. Several other modifications to the Nicholas method were considered but not implemented, An initial consideration was to utilize hydraulic radius {Laubscher 1976) in the rock mechanics section of the report. However, it was decided that this would get too detailed for a firs. pass analysis. Moreover, if there was only drilhole data, it ‘would be difficult to get an accurete prediction of what hydraulic radius would be required for failure, Lastly, if there was limited geotechnical data available, the hydraulic radius would largely reflect the rock mass rating values, Another consideration Was to use the avoca mining technique as a separate mining method. Limited information and the similarity ta shrinkage stoping, however, led to the decision to classify it under shrinkage stoping where it would be applicable for medium dipping deposits. The following case example portrays a typical gold mine located in the Canadian shield. Input data description general deposit shape tabular ore thickness 15 metres ore phinge 70 degrees grade distribution sgradational depth 650 metres ore zone rock substance strength 190 MPa RQD 60 percent joint spacing 0.5 metres joint conditions slightly rough surface separation

    You might also like