THE

 EVOLUTION  AND  OPTIMIZATION  OF  SUBLEVEL  CAVE  

DRILL  AND  BLAST  PRACTICES  AT  RIDGEWAY  GOLD  MINE  –  
PRODUCTION  RINGS  

Luca I. Popa, Newcrest Mining Limited, Australia

Leslie P. Trout, Perilya Limited, Australia

Clive E. Jones, Newcrest Mining Limited, Australia

The Sublevel Cave (SLC) mining method has evolved through technological advances to be accepted
as a viable low cost and productive method that is representative of modern underground operations.
A number of mines have implemented SLC as a primary extraction method to achieve good ore
recovery results. The recent success of SLC mines is largely attributed to better understanding of the
caving process, improved mining equipment and innovative technical and operating practices. A
critical success factor has been the ability to effectively fragment and mobilise the rock mass using
confined blasting techniques.

Ridgeway Gold Mine is an example of an innovative modern SLC operation. The mine was designed
to produce 4 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) however, within three years, Ridgeway reached 5 Mtpa
(2002/2003) and in the subsequent years production rates of over 6 Mtpa were achieved. The smooth
rampup and sustained production was made possible by the implementation of innovative drill and
blast practices and a methodical approach to understanding and improving operational performance.

SLC production rings are designed to fragment ore between sublevels such that the ore flows under
gravity into the temporary drawpoint formed by the blast. The requirement to blast in choked, or
confined, conditions creates additional complexity. At Ridgeway, the design objective for production
rings was to maximise ore recovery while sustaining high production rates and stable drawpoint
conditions throughout the draw cycle. Examples of the systematic methodology implemented to
achieve these objectives are detailed in this paper which is the second of two publications that
describe the evolution and optimisation of these practices at Ridgeway. The companion paper (Popa,
Trout and Jones, 2012) details the practices for the excavation of rises and slot rings required to
initiate production on each SLC sublevel.

   

1  |  P a g e  
 
INTRODUCTION  
Ridgeway Gold Mine is located 25 km west of Orange, New South Wales (NSW) and 250 km from
the city of Sydney, Australia. It is part of the Cadia Valley Operations (CVO), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Newcrest Mining Limited, which also includes the Cadia Hill Open Pit and Cadia East
Panel Cave Project. Full descriptions of the application of the sublevel caving (SLC) method at
Ridgeway are detailed by Trout (2002).

The Ridgeway Mine feasibility study identified that drill and blast design and practices were essential
requirements for a successful SLC operation. The mine’s initial operational focus was to implement
the feasibility study recommendations which provided the basis for understanding the rock mass and
blast performance. This experience enabled a succession of incremental technical and operational
changes that further increased the efficiency and reliability of the SLC process that was fundamental
to the mine production rate increasing from 4 Mtpa to over 6 Mtpa.

The purpose of this paper is to present the evolution of Ridgeway SLC drill and blast practices
including methodologies considered unique or innovative when compared to current industry practice.
Rather than outlining past experience (Trout, 2002), the paper focuses on the latest methodologies and
practices and, as such, it includes knowledge developed by the principal author from recent
experience with other CVO underground operations (Ridgeway Deeps Block Cave and Cadia East
Panel Cave). This experience has caused the authors to better appreciate the complexity and
challenging nature of SLC confined blasting while strengthened the belief that tailored drill and blast
design and implementation are essential to the success of SLC mining. This paper addresses SLC
production ring design, drilling and blasting practices while a companion paper focuses on the
practices applied to slot rings, rises and variants that have been applied to block and panel cave
drawbell establishment.

STAND-­‐UP  RINGS  
The stand-up rings from the crosscuts to slot are designed using the same principles as the stand-up
rings for slot rises (Popa, Trout and Jones, 2012). More recently, the practice is to design the stand-up
rings in manner that allows the rings to be fired either individually or together (Figure 1). At
Ridgeway and throughout CVO the first ring is typically designed 3.5 m laterally from the slot. The
stand-up rings are collared at least 1.5 m apart to ensure that the collars of the next ring are protected
when the rings are blasting individually. For stand-up rings at an open intersection, the rings must be
drilled prior to the slot rings being retreated through the intersection so that safe working conditions
are maintained. However, with the exception of a few connecting intersections, the majority of the
crosscuts were not developed to breakthrough until after the slot rings were retreated past the crosscut
thus providing significant benefits in terms safety, productivity, time and cost. The following
methodology was implemented in these situations.

1. A 3 m pillar was maintained between the crosscut and the slot drive with the slot rings drilled
and ready to be charged.
2. The drilling of the crosscut stand-up rings commenced after the slot ring blasts retreated
sufficiently to provide a 10 m separation between precharged slot rings and the stand-up
rings.
3. The stand-up rings were precharged and then the pillar was charged and fired in a
development blast.

2  |  P a g e  
 
 4. The resulting blasted material was then removed and an additional 200 t drawn from the slot
to mobilise the rock that was broken by the slot blasts. If necessary, a water cannon and/or
single concussion blast was used to loosen the slot material and, if these methods failed to
release the broken rock, the stand-up rings would be fired individually until the slot material
mobilised.

Figure 1: 5010 Level XC19 stand-up ring geometry and SLC rings to 5010 Level SW00

DRILL  PATTERN  DESIGN  

SLC drill pattern design is dictated by several geometrical, drilling, blasting and rockmass parameters.
Choke blasting in the SLC environment further complicates the ring design process with no
universally accepted design process. Consequently, a number of empirical “rules of thumb” have
been used to guide the SLC ring design process at Ridgeway.  

Geometry  
SLC ring geometry is controlled by crosscut spacing, crosscut dimensions, shoulder hole angle and
sublevel interval. In combination, these parameters define the pillar apex dimensions for the
underlying sublevel. In turn,   the ring geometry influences blasthole toe spacing for a specified hole
diameter.

Hole  Diameter  
The 102 mm hole diameter was initially specified in the Ridgeway Feasibility Study and has been
well suited to SLC ring designs. This hole diameter provides a reasonable compromise between
drilling accuracy, drilling density (explosive distribution), explosive retention and the ability to charge
past minor hole dislocations.

Spacing  to  Burden  Ratio  

The spacing to burden ratio provides a simple measure of three dimensional blasthole geometry.
Values below unity indicate a presplit geometry that produces a high degree of hole interaction but
does not provide effective fragmentation. Large values (greater than two) imply that adjacent
blastholes act independently and can lead to poor fragmentation. Spacing to burden ratios between 1.1

3  |  P a g e  
 
and 1.4 have been used at Ridgeway with the best fragmentation resulting from 1.1 to 1.2 in eight-
hole pattern ring trials on 5100, 5070 and 5010 levels.

Burden  
Ring burdens can be derived from the spacing to burden ratio after a suitable ring design has been
established. The standard burden at Ridgeway Gold Mine has been 2.6 m horizontally however
smaller burdens of between 2.2 - 2.4m have been on used on occasion. The results showed improved
fragmentation and reduced hang-up frequency from the smaller burden rings but this must be traded
off against cost and brow conditions.

Dump  Angle  
The Feasibility Study ring design assumed a 20° forward dump angle. Dump angles of 20°, 15° and
10° were evaluated on the undercut level 5330. The 10° dump proved to be the most suitable of these
options and was used as the basis for the SLC rings.

Design  Process  
The seven-hole ring pattern was predominant at Ridgeway although the final eight-hole pattern
designed in 2007 and selectively used in 5100, 5070 and 5010 yielded very good results. Figure 2
compares the 5100 Level seven-hole and the 5010 Level eight-hole patterns. The final seven-hole
pattern was designed in 2004 and remained unchanged (Figure 2). The methodology to design the
seven-hole ring, and subsequently the eight-hole pattern, was as follows.

1. The ring boundary was generated from the vertical sublevel interval (25 m, 27.5 m or 30 m),
crosscut centreline spacing (14 m), crosscut width (6 m) and pillar apex angle on the sublevel
above.
2. One drill rig setup position was specified to minimise setup and alignment error. Multiple
collar positions within the rig’s range of lateral movement were used to improve explosive
distribution and widen the drawpoint throat. Holes 5, 6 and 7 are a mirror image of holes 1, 2
and 3 and were drilled from equally spaced offsets that were symmetrical about hole 4 (Figure
2).
3. “Control” blastholes (holes 2, 4 and 6) were placed 1.5 m short of breakthrough in areas that
were considered critical to the explosive distribution, corners and pillar apex.
4. The remaining blastholes were positioned between the control holes and shuffled to equalise
the nominal 3.4 m toe spacing. The first and last holes were positioned using the same toe
spacing and no lower than 60° from horizontal.
5. Holes 1, 2, 6 and 7 were not drilled outside the ring boundary because this practice had
previously led to sympathetic detonation from adjacent precharged rings despite these rings
being drilled on an offset (staggered) pattern in adjacent crosscuts.

4  |  P a g e  
 
 Figure 2: Ridgeway seven and eight-hole ring pattern

CHARGE  PATTERN  DESIGN  

Early  Practice  
Prior to 2005, production rings were conventionally charged and initiated as shown in Figure 3 with
uncharged collars at 1-3-8-1-8-3-1 m in a clockwise rotation. The central hole was initiated first and
the other holes were initiated symmetrically outwards at 50 ms intervals. Hole 4, immediately above
the centre span of the brow, was charged with a lower density emulsion explosive in the lower portion
of the hole to minimise brow damage. Despite this practice, there were occasions where brow
remediation was required due to blast related damage. This was particularly significant when the
damage affected the hole collars of the next precharged ring. The brow rehabilitation work disrupts
the production process by removing machinery and personnel from other duties, which interferes with
production and development schedules, and exposes mine personnel to hazards near the damaged
drawpoint brow.

Figure 3: Early uncharged collar configuration

5  |  P a g e  
 
 ms 1

not to scale

ms 3 ms 3
ms 5 ms 5

ms 7 ms 7

Another extremely important effect associated with brow integrity is ore recovery. Damaged brows
reduce the depth and width of draw with ore flowing preferentially from the centre of the blasted ring
instead of evenly across the width of the drawpoint.

Consequently an alternative collar configuration was developed to reduce brow damage. A series of
experiments were conducted in 2004 which subsequent led to the adoption and implementation of a
new uncharged collar configuration across all sublevels.

Design  Trials  
The new uncharged collar configuration was introduced during the 5180 trials where rings were
precharged and blasted with an unconventional set of uncharged collars (1–7–1–7–1–7–1 m). An
illustration of this new set of collars and conventional MS detonators is shown in Figure 4. The
central hole (4) was initiated first with a 7 m uncharged collar followed by the two adjacent holes (3
and 5) with 1 m uncharged collars. Lower emulsion explosive density was used in the lower
explosive column of holes 3 and 5 to reduce the potentially destructive effect of their simultaneous
initiation at the brow of the drawpoint.

Figure 4: Recent uncharged collar configuration

6  |  P a g e  
 
 ms 1

not to scale

ms 2 ms 2
ms 4 ms 4

ms 6 ms 6

The following methodology was used for the trial.

• A panel of five adjacent crosscuts, XC04 - XC12, was established on 5180 Level where the
new collar configuration was trialled.
• The trial started with the firing of R24 and finished with the firing of R29.
• Brow photos were taken to establish a basis for comparative evaluation between the old (R20
to R23) and the new (R24 to R28) collar configurations.
• Marker trials were conducted in XC08 R27 and XC10 R27. During these trials, brow
conditions and blast fragmentation were continuously monitored by shift technicians.
• The Drill and Blast Engineer inspected this panel daily to collect data and photographs of the
brow and muckpile conditions.
• The information collected during the trial was collated and analysed with respect to:
o blast performance,
o blast fragmentation,
o ore recovery and
o brow condition.

Analysis  and  Results  

Blast  Performance  
The powder factor was identical for both the old and new collar configurations because the sum of the
uncharged collar length was identical for each pattern. The explosive distribution was modelled using
JKSimBlast software which illustrated that there was little variation in explosive energy apart from
the central (red) zone (Figure 5). However, the blast monitoring waveforms suggested that the new
configuration was superior in terms of explosive energy efficiency and therefore blast fragmentation.
Figure 6 shows graphic representation of the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) measured from the 5180
Level XC26 R25 blast relative to a waveform that is representative of the early configuration.

7  |  P a g e  
 
 Figure 5: JKSimBlast analysis of the old and new collar configurations

Figure 6: Typical blast vibration waveforms recorded for old and new collar configurations

Blast  Fragmentation  
Based on visual assessments by technical personnel during drawpoint sampling and inspection, the
fragmentation was observed to be very good throughout the draw cycle. This was certainly the case
each time the muckpile photographs were taken. Technicians and loader operators made comments
such as “fragmentation in these drawpoints is very nice, it is like sugar”. These observations support
the very good flow results, in terms of depth and width of draw, obtained from the accompanying
marker trials. Figure 7 shows a typical photograph showing muckpile fragmentation after 1,850 t
drawn (approximately 75% of the in-situ ring tonnage).

8  |  P a g e  
 
 Figure 7: Muckpile fragmentation from a blast using the new collar configuration

Ore  Recovery  
Ore recovery was measured using marker trials comprising three equidistant rings of magnetic
markers inserted within the blast burden for XC08 R27 and XC10 R27. The magnetic markers were
recovered after the mucking process and, based on the known starting location of the recovered
markers, the primary recovery from these rings was calculated to be at least 75% which is the highest
value recorded at Ridgeway using this method. Markers shown in the red sections of Figure 8 were
recovered from all areas of the ring at full width and at least as deep as the last marker ring which was
positioned parallel to, and 1.95 m forward of, the blastholes. It was impossible to estimate the true
depth of draw because the last 0.65 m of the burden did not contain markers. Backbreak, shaded in
yellow in Figure 8, was minimal and estimated to be 3% in XC10 and 1% in XC08.

Figure 8: 5180 Level ring marker trial results

9  |  P a g e  
 
Brow  Conditions  
The brows of the rings fired with the new uncharged collar pattern were generally undamaged after
blasting and maintained their integrity even after 120% of the ring tonnage was drawn. More
importantly, all these rings were easily and safely accessible for initiation hook-up. None of these
brows displayed the damage normally associated with the firing of the conventional uncharged
collars. Nonetheless, some superficial damage was observed when fibrecrete and some rock peeled
away during blasting. It was generally observed that the brows were at full burden, deep and solid.
Figure 9 illustrates a typical drawpoint brow that is characteristic of rings designed with the new
collar pattern. Note that the number “28” marked in yellow paint (identifying the just fired R28
plane) is still visible on the right corner of the drawpoint.

Figure 9: 5180 XC12 R29 brow conditions

The success of these trials resulted in a decision to adopt the new uncharged collar configuration
across on all sublevels. Unfortunately very few marker trials were conducted afterwards to establish
the true impact of this change on the overall ore recovery so the true effect of this practice on width
and depth of draw could not be adequately determined. Nevertheless, the new design has virtually
eliminated poor brows, greatly improving productivity, safety and costs while also delivering
improved and visible fragmentation results.

As no universally accepted design process exists, the evolution and optimisation of Ridgeway drill
and blast practices was the outcome of a continuous and systematic analysis. A combination of tools
and technologies was used to improve understanding of the drill and blast process in confined blasting
conditions. These included borehole camera surveys, hole deviation measurement, muckpile
photographs, a remotely operated drawpoint video camera, ring markers, JKSimblast and JKSplit
software, blast vibration monitoring, velocity of detonation measurement and database records of
observations from routine drawpoint inspections.

CONCLUSIONS  
Drill and blast design and practices for SLC rings were important for the safe and productive
extraction of ore at the Ridgeway Gold Mine. The initial designs were progressively refined through
the application of technical and operational principles which led to the development of design
principles and incremental improvements to design and operating practices. The effect of these
practices is partly reflected in the sustained SLC production expansion from the design rate of 4 Mtpa
to 5 Mtpa within three years followed by a further production increase to more than 6 Mtpa. The

10  |  P a g e  
 
smooth rampup and sustained production was made possible by the implementation of a methodical
approach to understanding and improving drill and blast performance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  
The authors would like to thank the many people who have worked at the Ridgeway Gold Mine and
contributed to the advancement of SLC drill and blast practices. We would also like to thank
Newcrest Mining Limited for authorizing the publication of this paper. Finally we acknowledge those
people who, during recent years, have encouraged us to prepare this paper so that this knowledge can
be shared with the international mining community.

REFERENCES  
Popa, Trout and Jones, 2012 [ Luca – insert the full details of the slot and rise paper here ]

Trout, L.P., 2002, Production Drill and Blast Practices at Ridgeway Gold Mine, in Eighth AusIMM
Underground Operator’s Conference, 29 to 31 July 2002 Townsville Queensland, publication 5/2002,
The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp 107-117.

11  |  P a g e