See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/290253462

Damage prediction in the extraction level of block caving mine - Case study in
deep ore zone mine, PT Freeport Indonesia

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 546

3 authors, including:

Eman Widijanto
PT Freeport Indonesia
16 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Open Pit-Underground Mine Transition View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eman Widijanto on 26 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ARMA 11-569

Damage Prediction in the Extraction Level of Block Caving Mine – Case

study in Deep Ore Zone Mine, PT Freeport Indonesia
Rubio, E.
Assistant Professor Mining Engineering Department, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Vice Chairman Advanced Technology Center (AMTC)
Widijanto, E.
Mine Geotechnical & Hydrological Services, PT Freeport Indonesia, Tembagapura, Indonesia.
Bayuargo, M.
Mining Engineering Department, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Copyright 2011 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 45th US Rock Mechanics / Geomechanics Symposium held in San Francisco, CA, June 26–29,
2011.
This paper was selected for presentation at the symposium by an ARMA Technical Program Committee based on a technical and critical review of
the paper by a minimum of two technical reviewers. The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of ARMA, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of ARMA
is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgement of where and by whom the paper was presented.

ABSTRACT: Damage on the extraction level of a Block or Panel Cave mine can have tremendous impact not only on the
availability of an open productive area but also in the cost of repairing and the opportunity cost of not producing from a given area
prepared and developed to be in production. The study of the underlying mechanics of damage could facilitate the intrinsic
modeling of computation for active layout availability and therefore produce more reliable production estimates. Several mines
around the world looking at block or panel cave mining as a mining system should be aware that depending on the strength of the
rock mass, the induced stress as a result of mining activities and the dynamic loading as a function of seismicity could facilitate the
occurrence of damage across an active production layout as means of structural damage of drifts and brows, rock collapse and rock
burst. This paper summarizes the experience of DOZ mine of PT Freeport Indonesia in relation with damage of production areas
where the main concern is to be able to forecast potential losses of infrastructure due to damage from migrating between skarn into
a diorite rock mass. The work performed at DOZ consists of analyzing in terms of statistical significance several indicators related
to rock mass behaviour, induced seismicity, mine design and mine planning in a 50 cases database collected over the period 2005
to 2008. It is found that the rock mass behaviour, seismicity, mine design and production planning contribute in 31%, 27 %, 23%
and 19% to explain the damage occurrence at DOZ. Based on this statistical analysis a regression analysis is computed as means of
a methodology that could be mimic at other mining operations. There is no intend that this regression analysis is used as a mine
design nomogram at other mine sites but rather to be used as a methodology to integrate different areas into the design and
planning of a mining system.

• Their mining costs are lower than those other types

1. INTRODUCTION
Block caving is one of underground mining methods
through undercutting its orebody and later on the
overlying rock caves naturally under the influence of
gravity and stress mechanisms surrounding the cave.
Currently, some big copper-gold open pit mines have
been doing their transition to this method since the
orebody get deeper.
For the future this mining method is likely to be a key
part of the way of the future in international mining
because [1]:
• They can be used to mine massive, low grade
orebodies profitably
of underground mining and, in many cases,
comparable with, or lower than, those of open pits
[2].
• They have high productivity per underground
employee compared with other mining methods
• They have safety advantages because of they are
essentially non-entry methods of mining
• They are potentially capable of automation to
produce the “underground rock factory”, and
• Improved understandings, technologies, techniques
and management systems continue to be developed
that will significantly reduce the risks associated
with mass mining methods
Some of block cave fundamental geotechnical issues severity. Damage at the extraction level has been
have been discussed such as cavability, virgin and identified as the result interaction of three main factors:
induced stress information, rock mass quality and strength as function of rock mass, stress as function of
structural features, fragmentation, stability of the cave, mining activities and dynamic loading as function of
material flow path, and design matters [3, 4]. seismicity as described in the figure below:
The stability of the extraction level in block or panel
caving drives production performance of the mine. It is RMR
Lithology Strength
important to ensure its stability to support efficient and Rock Mass
Geo-structural Setting
productive mine during its life of mine. Rock mass
damage which may result in failure in block cave mine,
especially in the extraction level has a tremendous Angle of Draw
Uniformity of Draw
impact on productivity. Some of heavy damage or partial DAMAGE Mining Cave shape Stress

closure of several draw points in DOZ mine PT Freeport Extraction ratio

Indonesia impacted not only to those draw points, also

contributed to the low productivity of the entire panel.
Repair or rehabilitation program for damage areas has Seismicity
Convergence Dynamic
Seismic activity
significant consequences not only in production Loads

achievement and in cost-time matters, also in stability of

the area and its adjacent areas for the future.
The study of the underlying mechanics of damage could Fig. 1. Damage as result interaction of strength, stress, and
dynamic loads [8]
facilitate the intrinsic modeling of computation for
active layout availability and therefore produce more
For Freeport’s underground mine, there are several
reliable production estimates. This paper summarizes a
damage classes to classify their severities as shown in
methodology taken over the DOZ (Deep Ore Zone)/ESZ
table below:
(Erstberg Stockwork Zone) mine at PT Freeport
Indonesia where the main concern was to being able to
forecast potential losses of infrastructure due to damage Table 1. Sample tables with values
from migrating between skarn into the diorite rock mass.
Class Category Conditions Observed
Undisturbed
2. DAMAGE MODEL CONCEPT 0 No Damage No cracks observed

There are major factors influencing stability of Slight cracking observed,

extraction level, such as fragmentation, undercut design
and strategy, geotechnical conditions, and operational
factors [1]. Some reasons for failure in the extraction
level and draw points which required repair or
rehabilitation are: poor undercutting, tonnage drawn,
column loading, wedge failures, secondary blasting, and
brow wear or draw point lining [5]. The observation and
monitoring at Premier Mine and on other cave mines has
shown that induced stress levels and consequent damage
are a function of: the extraction ratio on the undercut and
extraction level prior to undercutting, the shape of the
undercut face, the rate of undercut advance, and the
distance of leads and lags between adjacent tunnels on
the undercut level [6].
Rock mass failure is defined as fracturing or
disintegration of the rock mass resulting in a loss of
bearing capacity. The failure process starts with a failure
initiation phase, progresses through a propagation phase
and ends in rock mass collapse [7].
Damage in the extraction level can be defined as ground
deterioration event or progress in the extraction level
which can be defined in the different ranks based on its
1 Slight Damage
Estimated displacement d < 25 mm,
Posts may be loading – ‘sing’ when tapped
with a hammer
Extensive cracks observed, Slight corner
failures, Estimated displacement
25 mm < d < 75 mm,
2 Moderate Damage Spalling is observed, Posts might be rotated
slightly, Beams may show sag or deflection
in center, Lagging starts to crack/break
Slabbing is observed in back, Shoulder and
ribs
Significant corner failures with heavy
3 Heavy Damage slabbing observed,
Estimated displacement 75 mm < d < 150
mm
End of beams might be twisted or crumpled
Partial closure of drift (< 50%)
All types of damage described in class 1, 2, 3
might be observed, Estimated displacement d
4 Partial Closure > 150 mm,
Large back or brow falls might be observed
Loaders perhaps cannot pass the drift
More than 50% closure of drift till complete
5 Complete Closure closure,
Man cannot pass through the drift
3. DAMAGE DATABASE CONSTRUCTION Based on the above it possible to say that damage in the
DOZ is becoming heavier than it used to be, nevertheless
Damage database for this analysis was constructed based
the frequency of damage has dropped quite substantially.
on regular damage observation by Underground
Geotech-Hydrology section for period 2005-2008 st The 50-selected damage events at the DOZ West were
DOZ mine of PT Freeport Indonesia. Every damage utilized as a base to develop a knowledge database that
event was classified as no damage, slightly damage, could be used for further analysis at the mine aiming to
moderate damage, heavy damage, partial closure, and progress towards having design and planning
complete closure as presented on the table above. nomograms that could assist mining engineering to make
operational and planning decisions. Therefore indicators
The original data which consists of 137 damage
such as rock mass behaviour, mining geometries and
observations during that period was selected and refined
mine planning and mining seismicity were linked to
to create consistent and reliable data for further analysis. every one of the events in order to have the best
50 damage events were selected as shown in the correlation that could explain the causality of damage on
following graph.
the DOZ production layout.
30

25
3.1. Rock Mass
Number of Events

20
The rock mass is the total in situ medium containing
15
bedding planes, faults, joints, folds and other structural
10 features. Rock masses are discontinuous and often have
5 heterogeneous and anisotropic engineering properties
0
[9].
no damage slight moderate heavy partial complete
damage damage damage closure closure
The parameters consist of RMR (rock mass rating),
lithology (rock type), and distance to the closest geology
Damage Class structures.
Fig. 2. The histogram of 50-selected damage events for further
analysis. Marble
Forsterite Skarn

A time series showing damage occurrence at DOZ

shows that as production rate increases more damage is
observed, the same behaviour has been observed at Endoskarn
Codelco mines. Typically, this is explain by the fact that HALO
Diorite
higher production rates requires a higher development
rate which induces to go faster in terms of undercutting Magnetite Skarn
blasting and rock mass support often those activities
Fors-Magnetite
interfere with production activities and logistics. Thus, Skarn
development often is behind the schedule affecting the
quality of the development, most likely causing a fair
amount of the underground damage observed. Fig. 4. Lithology (rock type) distribution and geology
structures at extraction level of DOZ/ESZ (3126/L).
14
12
4 Magnetite Skarn
10
Number of Events

8 3 Fors-Magnetite Skarn

6 5 HALO
Rock Type

4
2
Diorite
2 1
0 Forsterite Skarn
01-01-2005
01-04-2005
01-07-2005
01-10-2005
01-01-2006
01-04-2006
01-07-2006
01-10-2006
01-01-2007
01-04-2007
01-07-2007
01-10-2007
01-01-2008
01-04-2008
01-07-2008
01-10-2008

Endoskarn

0 10 20 30 40 50
Rock Distribution (%)
Percentage (%)
Damage Events (%)

1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 3. Time series of damage class observation from 50- Fig. 5. Percentage of damage events and rock type distribution
selected events at DOZ West. from 50-selected data.
In general, there is a same trend between damage events 80
percentage and rock type distribution percentage, so 70

Deviatoric Stress (MPa)

damage event happen everywhere depend on the 60
exposure of excavation itself. From the figure 5, 50

Endoskarn rock type has the most number of damage 40

events since the mining activities or excavation mostly 30

in this type of rock; however for the future the main rock 20

type will be in diorite since the mine is migrating to this 10

rock as described in the map in the figure 4. 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Geotechnical features such as faults and folds, changes Distance from cave front (m)
15º 30º 45º 60º 75º 90º
in mechanical properties and can be as indicators of local
damage or even regional failure [10]. In this study, the Fig. 7. Deviatoric stress performance for different angle of
distance between damage location to the closest faults draw [12]
was collected to observe how significant its contribution
to the event of damage. Laubscher defines draw control as the practice of
controlling the tonnages drawn from individual
3.2. Mining drawpoints with the object of:
Mining activities change stress in the mine. Induced
stress levels and consequent damage in the mine is a • Minimizing overall dilution and maintaining the
function of the extraction ratio on the undercut and planned ore grade sent to the plant
extraction level prior to undercutting, the shape of the
• Ensuring maximum ore recovery
undercut face, the rate of the undercut advance, and the
distance of leads and lag between adjacent tunnels on the • Avoiding damaging load concentration on the
undercut level [6]. To observe the impact of mining extraction horizon; and
activities to the damage, some of data related to the
• Avoiding the creation of conditions that could lead to
angle of draw, uniformity of draw, cave shape, and
air blasts, mud rushes, etc. [5]
extraction ratio were collected from damage location.
Those parameters will be described more detail in the Convergence monitoring in DOZ Mine showed that
following one: there is significant correlation between draw or
production behavior to the convergence or displacement
The angle of draw is commonly measured in a vertical
rate [13, 14]. The best practical experience to maintain
cross section perpendicular to the mining sequence
stability at the extraction level is consistent-uniform
displaying the height of draw (HOD) of the draw points.
mucking.
There are three main causes for the collapse of the cave
front: shallow angle of draw, steep angle of draw, and Susaeta et. al proposed an index to measure uniformity
sudden changes of the angle of draw between periods of draw [15]:
[11].
(t p −t
min) ⋅ (t
IU = ∆ + Γ
t2
⋅n
∑ max − ti (1)
max

Fig. 6. The maximum shear stress in vertical grid with 60%
angle of draw [12]
Where:
• ∆ , Number of inactive draw points in the vicinity
draw point.
• Γ , Factor of normalization, equal to 99/89.
• t p Tonnage extracted from draw point p under
analysis, in a specific period of time.
• ti Tonnage extracted from draw point i belonging
to draw point p vicinity in the same period of time.
• t max Maximum tonnage extracted in the vicinity of
draw point p in the same period of time.
• t min Minimum tonnage extracted in the vicinity of
draw point p, in the same period of time.
• n , Number of draw points belonging to the vicinity
of draw point p.
Based on that equation, the uniformity index was
calculated for every 5 shifts period from 6 surrounding
draw points.
Different cave shape will give different stress
distribution surrounding certain location. From given
cave shape the stresses were calculated to observe
relation with damage in the extraction level.
Excavation ratio is defined as ratio between excavation
areas to the tributary area. As the excavation ratio
increases, the potential instability increases as well.
Besides the original design factor, there are some
operational factors need to be considered to change
excavation ratio such as blasting practice, damage of the
area due to operational practices (i.e. hit by equipment),
etc. So, the actual excavation ratio of the damage
location was calculated to review the impact to the
damage occurrence in the extraction level.
Lead-lag distance and position of damage relatively to
the cave position also calculated to review those
parameters to the damage.
SomedefinitionsinPosition edge
ofundercutting
Front Inside
edge
Thiswill becalledatedge isdamagelocations
asthepositionisatedgeof
undercut
nearestleadandlagthatbeingcalculated
nearestdistancefromundercuttingfront
Fig. 8. The lead-lag distance and damage position relative to
the cave or undercut.
Although linear stress models were used to assess the
stress performance at the damage locations and it is well
known that stress under caving is highly influenced by
induced dynamic loads. In this first approach to damage
modeling in Block /Panel Cave mines it was decided to
use the excavation ratio, the uniformity of draw, the
angle of draw as geometrical and drawing characteristics
that are added to the analysis as explicit factors in
damage occurrence. It is purpose that those indicators
could be translated into over stress or relaxation using
non linear modeling in a different instance. Thus, the
geometrical and drawing characteristic should be
interpreted as major causes for dynamic loads as well as
deviatoric stress change.
3.3. Seismicity
Cave mining induces micro seismicity in the rock mass
as a result of the fracturing process that takes place
above and below the production and haulage level as
reported by Glazer and Hepworth [16] and Dunlop and
Gaete [17].
So it is essential to include seismicity while modeling
the damage in the extraction level. For this project the
seismicity was clusterized using k-means method to
produce 5 clusters every month. For each damage event
the closest cluster was compute for the previous month
and the month while damage observed, later on detail
seismicity parameters were collected as well (i.e.
moment, energy, magnitude, and number of events).
Finally the refined database is composed out of the
following fields:
• Rock Mass: lithology and rock mass rating
(RMR), distance to major geological structure.
• Mining: excavation ratio, angle of draw, lead lag
of undercutting, distance to undercut line,
uniformity of draw for different percentages of
draw (CU40, CUI80, CUI100), uniform and
semi uniform draw for different percentages
(CUI40 (U+S), CUI80 (U+S), CUI100 (U+S)),
major and minor stress (s1 and s3) at damage
location and abutments.
• Seismicity: distance of the closest cluster of
seismic events during the month of damage
occurrence, identifying: number of events,
magnitudes, energy and moment
A basic statistical analysis of the database for the 50
damage events is summarized on Table 2.
4. DAMAGE MODELING
Once the damage database was compiled, all parameters
were tested using Chi-square test to see the degree of
relevance with damage event. The hypothesis of relation
will be:
H0 : No relation between two variables or Chi-
square calculation < Chi-square critical value
H1 : There is a relation between two variables or
Chi-square calculation > Chi-square critical value
Beside Chi-square test, the coefficient determination
(R^2) between two variables can be used also to
combine previous test, and the hypothesis will be:
H0 : There is no significant correlation between two The test shown before was compared against a
variables or correlation = 0 correlation analysis and regression analysis to identify
potential deviation of the Chi2 method. To perform this
the categorical parameter "Lithology" was converted
H1 : There is correlation between two variables or into an ordinal variable by decomposing this one into 5
correlation ≠ 0 different variables that are 1 or 0 depending if the
The aim of this step is to get idea the significant parameter is involved in the damage or not. The
contributor parameters to the damage in the extraction following chart shows the relevance of every variable on
level. The following chart shows the significance of the occurrence of damage at DOZ production level.
these variables when analyzing damage occurrence on
1-chi2 Corr Modulo
the DOZ production level. 100.0%
80.0%

Exc. Ratio 60.0%

RMR

Relevance
40.0%
CUI100(U)
CUI80(U) 20.0%
CUI100(S+U)
Distance Lead-Lag 0.0%
CUI80(S+U)
Distance Structure -20.0%
Angle of Draw -40.0%
CUI40(U)
Distance from UCL -60.0%
CUI40(S+U)
cl(t1)
S1 (Mpa)
cl(t0)
Position1
Litology
S3 (Mpa)

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Percentage Percentage (%)
Fig. 11. Relevance of variables in the database for different
damage events: Chi2, Correlation coefficient and Regression
Fig. 9. The rank of coefficient determination percentage of Modulus.
each parameter and damage class.
Basically, variable determination to be included in the
Table 2. Damage Database with 26 parameters
predictive model is based on: Chi-square statistical
Location Min imum Maximum Average ST. Deviation analysis, analysis of coefficient correlation among
Ob s2 1 5 2 1 variables, and discussion result with on-site geotechnical
Litology 1 5 2 1 engineers. The proposed variables to be included in the
RMR 34 75 67 11 predictive model of damage prediction are:
Exc. Ratio 30 52 43 5 (i) Lithology and RMR show to have the highest
cl(t0) 15 194 98 45 influence on the damage occurrence
cl(t1) 23 199 105 39
(ii) S3 (MPa), Position respect to the abutment stress
Number of Seis . Events 18 744 263 20 7
area (inside, edge, or front) and distance to the
Magnitud e Sum - 873 - 7 - 251 22 4
closest geological feature
Magnitud e Average - 1 - 0 - 1 0
Moment Sum 1.E+10 3.E+11 1.E+11 7.E+10
(iii) clt0 – distance to the closest seismic cluster in the
Moment Average 2.E+08 4.E+09 5.E+08 6.E+08
same month (meters) and Sum of magnitude events
within the cluster.
Energy Sum 5.E+03 1.E+06 2.E+05 2.E+05
Energy Average 4.E+01 3.E+03 8.E+02 8.E+02 It is interesting than in neither of the analysis performed
s1(MP a) 13 62 33 12 the drawing strategy and angle of draw was relevant
s3(MP a) - 4 22 10 7 enough to consider in the proposed model. In terms of
CU I40(U) 0% 38% 20% 12% the group variables the relevance is as follows:
CU I80(U) 0% 78% 26% 20% • Rock mass variables explain 31% of the events
CU I100(U) 0% 97% 28% 25%
CU I40(S+U) 0% 40% 24% 13%
• Mining variables explain 42% of the events
CU I80(S+U) 0% 80% 30% 23% • Seismicity variables explain 27% of the events
CU I100(S+U) 0% 100 % 32% 28%
Even though the above analysis shows a an even
Angle of Draw 31 82 46 11
distribution of relevance of the three main variable group
Distan ce from UCL 5 120 28 31
studied, when computing cross correlation among
Distan ce Lead-Lag 5 90 29 26 variables it is found that 82 % of the rock mass
Distan ce Structure 1 117 34 33 behaviour and 96% of the seismicity is explained by the
mining characteristics. Thus, more than 93% of the
damage events could be indirectly correlated to mining
characteristics that could be associated to mine design
and planning decisions.
In order to represent the above analysis as a regression
analysis in a form of a damage model, the first analysis
performed consists of showing the distribution of
occurrence conditional to the lithological characteristic
at the damage location shown in the following chart.
4.0
3.0
Damage Class
The direct relevance of rock mass, mining and seismicity
in all the 50 damage events studied in this paper are
31%, 42% and 27% respectively
There was no observed a direct relevance on damage of
mining features such as angle of draw and uniformity
index. These variables must be considered as indirect
factor in damage which shows that those variables are
perhaps correlated with the dynamics and frictional loads
characteristics of the Block and Panel Cave mining.
The work presented in this paper is subjected to the
conditions presented at DOZ/ESZ Mines. Therefore the
criteria proposed should be carefully assessed in order to
use at different sites. Nevertheless the methodology still

valid and meaningful as an exercise to learn about

2.0
damage in the extraction level of block caves mines.

1.0

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
LItology

Fig. 12. Damage class distribution conditional to lithological

characteristic at the damage point.
Based on the chart shown above it was decided to
combine lithology 1 and 3 since there was no enough
data to model lithology 2, 4 and 5. The proposed linear
model to compute the damage class as a result of rock
mass, mining and seismicity variables is as follows:
Damage = 7.8 + 0.24 (S3) – 1.38 (SumMag)-0.04 (2)
(distStruct) -0.29 (clt0) - 0.55 (distUCL)
With R = 0.493

Where,
S3, is the minor stress magnitude (MPa)
SumMag, is the sum of the magnitudes inside the closest
seismic cluster to the damage event
distStruct, is the distance to the major structural
geological feature (m)
distUCL, is the distance to the UCL line (m)
clt0, is the distance to the closest seismic cluster from
the damage event

5. CONCLUSIONS
There were 50-selected damage events in the DOZ West
for 2005-2008 period to analyze relation among damage
events with rock mass, mining impact, and seismicity.
Damage event happen in all rock mass type depend on
the exposure of excavation itself.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to acknowledge Universidad de
Chile for providing the academic support to conduct the
research presented in this paper. The Advanced
Technology Center (AMTC) at the University of Chile,
also PT Freeport Indonesia for supporting this project
and facilitating the edition of this paper. Finally,
Winston Rocher, and Manuel Reyes for their editing and
computational contribution to this publication.
REFERENCES
1. Brown, E.T. 2003. Block Caving Geomechanics. 1th
ed. Brisbane: Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research
Center, University of Queensland.
2. Rubio, E., Troncoso, S., Prasetyo, R. Reliability center
mine planning model for caving operation. In: Vth
International Conference & Exhibition on Mass Mining
MASSMIN 2008. H. Schunnesson, E. Nordlund (eds.),
Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, Sweden, p.
213-226
3. Heslop, T.G., Block Caving – Controllable risks and
fatal flows. 2000. In Proceedings of the Third
International Conference and Exhibition on Mass
Mining, Brisbane, Australia, 29 October – 2 November
2000, eds. New Generation Print and Copy, 437-453.
4. Chen, D., Meeting geotechnical challenges – A key to
success for block caving mines. 2000. In Proceedings
of the Third International Conference and Exhibition on
Mass Mining, Brisbane, Australia, 29 October – 2
November 2000, eds. New Generation Print and Copy,
429-436.
5. Laubscher, D.H. International Caving Study 1997-
2000. In A Practical Manual on Block Caving, 104-105
and 119.
6. Bartlett, P.J. and Nesbitt, K. Stress induced damage in
tunnels in a cave mining environment in kimberlite,
2000, Journal of The South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, P100-06-341.
7. Kaiser, P.K. 1993. Deformation monitoring for stability
assessment of underground openings. In
Comprehensive rock engineering, eds. J. A. Hudson,
Oxford, 607-629.
8. Bayuargo, M. Interpretación de la Sismicidad Inducida
por Minería de Caving. 2009, Master Engineering
thesis, Universidad de Chile.
9. Brady, B.H.G. and Brown, E.T. 2004. Rock Mechanics
for underground mining, 3th ed. Dordrecht: George
Allen & Unwin Kluwer Academic Publisher.
10. Szwedzicki, T. 2003. Rock mass behavior prior to
failure. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Science. 40(2003) 583.
View publication stats
11. Rubio, E. Block cave mine infrastructure reliability
applied to production planning. 2006, Ph.D thesis,
University of British Columbia.
12. Rubio, E, Napitupulu D. Caving Performance through
the integration of microseismic activity and numerical
modeling at DOZ-PT Freeport, Indonesia. International
Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials, Volume
16, Number 1, February 2009, Page 1
13. Rachmad, L. and Widijanto, E., Application of
convergence monitoring at PT Freeport Indonesia’s
deep ore zone mine. 2002. In Proceedings of the
Mining and Tunneling Innovation and Opportunity,
Toronto, Canada, 2 June 2002, ed. University of
Toronto, 181-188.
14. Febrian, I., Yudanto, W. and Rubio, E., Application of
convergence monitoring to manage induced stress by
mining activities at PT Freeport Indonesia deep ore
zone mine. 2004. In Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference and Exhibition on Mass
Mining, Santiago, Chile, 22 – 25 August 2004, eds.
Ediarte S.A., 271.
15. Susaeta, A., Theory of gravity flow (part 2). 2004. In
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference and
Exhibition on Mass Mining, Santiago, Chile, 22 – 25
August 2004, eds. Ediarte S.A., 173-174.
16. Glazer, S. and Hepworth, N., Seismic monitoring of
block cave crown pillar - Palabora mining company,
RSA. 2004. In Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining, Santiago,
Chile, 22 – 25 August 2004, eds. Ediarte S.A., 565.
17. Dunlop, R. and Gaete, S., Seismicity at El Teniente
mine: a mining process approach. 1995. In Proceedings
of the Fourth International Symposium on Mine
Planning and Equipment Selection, Calgary, Canada,
31 October – 3 November 1995, eds. A.A. Balkema,
120.