ESTERHUIZEN, GS, and LAUBSCHER, D.H. A comparative evaluation of production Level layouts for black caving, MASSMIN 92. lobtanesbur, 'SAIMM, 1992 p. 63-70, A Comparative Evaluation of Production-level Layouts for Block Caving G.S. ESTERHUIZEN* and D.H. LAUBSCHER* * Department of Mining Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa ¥ Steffen Robertson & Kirsten In, Johannesburg, South Africa Four drawpoint layouts are evaluated based on stability and operational factors. The stability evaluation is supplemented by the results of three-dimensional stress analysis. The stress-analysis, models were used to assess potential rock failure around the excavations and to indicate the stress concentrations. Various field-stress situations and the effects of cave loading were considered, ‘The operational aspects that were considered included ease of development, orientation of the 20mPa Figure 7. Maximum principal stress contours I m above the roof ofthe drifts MASSMIconsidered to be less stable than the offset layout, which forms an acute comer opposite a solid sidewall. Drawpoint Brow ‘The drawpoint brow is inclined to the direction of the crosscut in all the cases except the El Teniente layout, which has its brow at the desired right angle. Stress Concentrations ‘The El Teniente and Henderson layouts result in slightly higher concentrations of stress in the major and minor apices (5 m above the roof of the drifts). In the immediate roof, the stresses in the Henderson layout are considerably higher than in the other layouts. Potential Rock Failure ‘The model results show that the zones of potential rock failure are similar in all the layouts, only with minor differences. The brow area of the offset layout is shown to be the most stable. The side walls of the El Teniente model, are slightly more stable than in the other layouts. The roof of the drifts and crosscuts is the most stable in the El ‘Teniente layout, followed by the offset layout. There is very litle difference in terms of the stability of the minor and major apices. The minor apex of the El Teniente layout is slightly more stable because of its reduced length, Assessment of Operational Aspects Ease of Development The El Teniente layout is considered (o be the easiest to develop because the drifts and erosscuts are all in straight lines. After the production drifts have been developed, th crosscuts will be developed easily. The other layout require bends in the crosscut development, and sliping 0 breakaways, which is more difficult and time-consuming. Angle of Brow to Crosscut The drawpoint brow in the El Teniente layout is at right angles to the crosscut, which means that loading and drav control are optimized. This also ensures that LHDs will b. in a straight configuration while loading. In all the othe layouts, the brow is inclined to the direction of the crosscut Back-up Facilities LHD equipment can back into opposite crosscuts in thy Henderson and El Teniente layouts. This is not possible in the other two layouts, Although this is not such ar important consideration, it will have an effect on the flexibility of the operations and productivity. ‘Turning Circle ‘The available space for turning into the crosscuts is the widest in the Henderson layout, and narrowest in the E Teniente layout. Enlargement of the turning space woul. result in a reduction in stability Conclusions ‘The stability assessment shows that the differences betweer the layouts are small, and operational factors are probably ‘more important in the selection of a layout. The El Teniente layout is considered to be the mos efficient in terms of operational considerations. In terms of overall stability, itis concluded that the offse DFFSET MODEL EL_TENENTE Hoe Key: STRESS 25 TO 30 MPa FEE] staess> 20 wpa Figure 8. Failure ofthe rock 1 m above the roof ofthe drifts PRODUCTION-LEVEL LAYOUTS FOR BLOCK CAVING 69and El Teniente layouts are more stable than the Henderson and herringbone layouts. ‘The understanding of the stress distribution around the production-level excavations was improved by the numerical modelling. The following observations that could assist in the design of new layouts were made. + Once the undercut has passed over the production level, the stresses in the horizontal direction are reduced. The result is that the entire production level is, ina state of reduced stress. High horizontal stresses are not concentrated along the minor or major apices. + The roof, floor, and sidewalls of the drifts are more stable in the El Teniente layout than in the other layouts. This is thought to be because the intersection is in line with the drawbells, which protect it from horizontal stresses. In addition, the intersection area is smaller than in the other layouts. + The minor apex of the El Teniente layout is the most stable, probably because the drawbells are not positioned in a square grid pattern. The minor apex is therefore much shorter than in the other layouts. 70 + The orientation of a layout in the stress field is important. For example, it was shown that, if the Teniente layout was rotated through 90 degrees in stress field so that the major horizontal stress parallel to the minor apices, the potential amoun rock failure increased considerably. Acknowledgements “The authors thank the Andina Division of CODELCO permission to publish the results of this study Contribution of Be Beers Consolidated Mines is gratet acknowledged. References 1. DIERING, J.A.C. Advanced three-dimensio boundary element techniques. Ph.D. thesis, Univer of Pretoria, 1986. 210 pp. 2. HOEK, E., and BROWN, E.T. Undergro. excavations in rock. London, Institution of Mining Metallurgy, 1980. MASSME,