Production Capacity of a Mass Caving PA. — Me Capacidad Productiva de un Hundimiento Masivo 24/me/ Alfonso Ovalle Consultor Asociado, Metalica Consultores S.A. José Pesce Gerente General, Metalica Consultores S.A. ABSTRACT JT This paper reviews the factors affecting the maximum production capacity of a mass caving operation (block caving, panel caving). Afier analyzing the planning, design and operating factors that traditionally are considered 10 affect the determination of the maximum possible production capacity, itis concluded that there are only two factors that have an influence: column height and caving rate. Surprisingly the extraction rate has no influence in determining the maximum production capacity of a mass caving. The definition of the column height and its feasible range are analyzed, describing how to determine the minimum, maximum and optimal column heights. Regarding the undercutting rate, a discussion about the theoretical and practical aspects is presented. There is reference in the paper to practical examples. 1 FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF A MASS CAVING OPERATION The factors normally considered in the planning, design and operation of a mass caving operation are presented in Table 1. Some of these factors are basically used to define the applicability of the mass caving mining method, such as cavability, primary fragmentation, stability of mine openings, dilution, repairing of openings, water and mud inflow and the undercutting sequence. If any of these factors is unmanageable, the applicability of the method will be at stake. It can be argued that excessive primary fragmentation size can be solved inducing the caving. If the evaluation parameters of the project justify it, it means that induced mass caving is a solution This analysis supposes that the mentioned factors fall in the range that allow applicability of the mass caving method to the ore body. Consequently, the focus will be on those factors that affect the determination of the maximum capacity of the ore body under study. The authors, through their experience, have reduced the factors of Table 1, to only three basic independent factors affecting the maximum capacity of a mass caving: undercutting rate or development velocity (measured in square meters to undercut per year), extraction rate or draw down rate (measured as mm/day), and the panel or column height (measured in m). Therefore, the interrelation between these three factors affecting the maximum capacity of a mass caving will be analyzed,Table 1 FACTORS AFFECTING A MASS CAVING OPERATIO! DEPENDENCY ON BASIC FACTORS BASIC FACTORS OVERALL FACTORS SPECIFIC FACTORS Trderetting | Exwaction | Column ate rate | height | inierirence wih oer producine secors | 2 Base ara geometry > Global geometry [Column height | a [Overall extraction sequence emer | Design and [Quantity of independent fronts > constuction Extraction grid Coy | Desing of operating modal 7] | Design Materials fandlng system tot “Modality of undercut >» I Undereuing sequence T_T Primary /seconday fagmentacion a | Geoteehnies __[Staity of openings and constructions Y Nature inst nd induced sresses | ¥ ae Water nd mod v Charaseristie of went material ¥ , [Wait processes > Y Operations es {Secondary fragmentation 2 Availabiliy of Fesures > 7 Uilization of esouees > 7 2 DISCUSSION OF COLUMN HEIGHT. The column height of a mass caving operation is firstly limited by the geometry of the ore body to mine. There are caving operations with column heights ranging from less than SO m to more than 600 m. For very high ore bodies the definition of the average column height to select should follow the following criteria, of course with due consideration to the business aspects of the exploitation searching to maximize profits or returns: * The column height must be able provide a profit. The most frequent incentives to choose a low column are: accelerate the start up time of the project (minimize the initial capital cost); restrict the exploitation to a high grade sector (improve the cash flow); adapt to existing infrastructure (less capital expenditure), as for example the existence of a main transport level. + The selected column height must be the maximum which is compatible with technical criteria. The incentives to choose a big height are to minimize development cost and to maximize the production capacity. The optimum column height is determined by both strategic an economic criteria, Shown in figure 1 is the production cost curve as a function of total column height. Some components of this curve increase with column height and some decrease with column height. There exists therefore, a column height or a range of column heights, with a minimum net present value of the cost. There are four technical factors whose relationship with column height needs to be underlined: stability of openings, useful life of drawpoints, dilution, and the risk of ore loss. ‘© The stability of openings, especially those of the production level (which are the greater part of the permanent openings of the mining method) depend mostly on the type of rock and geology, on the stress environment, on the extraction grid selected, on the design of reinforcement, on the correct undercutting sequence and on the regularity of draw. On one hand development cost per ton decreases with theincrease of column height, and on the other hand reinforcement of openings increases with the increase of column height, Nevertheless the total effect is decreasing cost with increasing column height, up to a certain limit. Figure 1 COSTS AND COLUMN HEIGHT 120 cost (ussity } | ere CSR RERRE EES ‘COLUMN HEIGHT (m) ‘preparation cost = . ~ .repair cost — = «boss of reserves _—— TOTAL cost dition cost The useful life of a drawpoint is a function of the design and of the construction quality, of the secondary blasting and of the abrasion caused by ore flow. In general, the draw point repair cost is increasing with column height. ‘The dilution has a behaviour related to column height, to extraction management and to the number of faces exposed to diluents. It is possible that with proper extraction management, dilution will be decreasing with increasing column height. The risk of loosing ore because of broken and lost ground is an increasing function of column height. The instability of openings can cause the loss of productive areas, the loss of reserves and unfulfillment of the production program. 3 DISCUSSION OF THE UNDERCUTTING RATE The undercutting rate or the velocity to incorporate new production area depends on the number of faces and the advance rate per face. The advance rate per face depends on the space available and on the modality of work. For example, there is a great difference in the undercutting rate between the systems called “previous undercut”, “post undercut” or the intermediate situation named “advanced undercut”. This is due to the space and access restrictions of the previous undercut system, which limits the rate of development and constructions, basically due to the coordination difficulties of the different units involved in the undercutting. In a normal or “post undercut system” it is possible to achieve an undercutting rate of around 36,000 m*/yr in one face, while in a system of “previous undercut”, for the same situation, it is difficult to surpass 24.000 m*/yr, The undercutting rate depends ultimately on the following factors: + Design of the undercutting system Number of faces and rate per face * Resources and space * Organization of work © Sequence restrictions 4 PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF PRODUCTION CAPACITY A simulation of the production capacity of a mass caving operation is presented in figure 2, based in a mass balance between the amount of material incorporated by undercutting and the amount of material consumed by production. Two ore bodies are considered, each with the same base area of 300.000 m’. The first ore body has a 150 m high column and the second one, a 300 m high column. For both ore bodies, two extraction rates are considered: 150 mm/day and 300 mm/day. 0, € Ge 0,3 Ge ataa neha