End of Project - ICS II Report 67

Table 1 - Mines visited

Country Mine Mining Method(s)

Cadia Hill OP.

Mount Keith OP considering a transition to UG.

Australia
Northparkes Mine that developed a transition from OP to UG by BC.

Ridgeway UG by SLC.

Canada Kidd Creek Mine that developed a transition from OP to UG by SOP.

Andina OP and UG by BC/PC.

Chuquicamata OP considering a transition to UG by PC.

Chile
El Teniente UG by PC.

Salvador UG by PC.

Grasberg OP.
Indonesia
Grasberg DOZ UG by PC.

Finsch Mine that developed a transition from OP to UG by SOP.

Mine that developed a transition from OP to UG by

South Africa Koffiefontein
SOP/SLC/FC.

Palabora Mine developing a transition from OP to UG by PC.

Sweden Kiruna Mine that developed a transition from OP to UG by SLC.

Bingham
OP considering a transition to UG by PC.
USA Canyon

Henderson UG by PC.

OP Open pit mine/mining

UG Underground mine/mining
SLC / SOP Sublevel caving / Sublevel open stoping
BC / PC Block caving / Panel caving

The interpretation of the data collected in this study has allowed current trends and practices in
underground mining by caving methods to be identified. Table 2 summarizes the currently used values of
the most relevant parameters. This compilation may be of value in scoping and pre-feasibility studies.

Final Report
Confidential to ICS Sponsors
68 End of Project - ICS II Report

Table 2 - Typical parameters for block and panel caving mines based on 2002 surveys

Parameter Typical Value Comments

If RMR > 60 rock mass cavability must be

Rock Mass Quality 50 RMR < 60
evaluated carefully.

Currently 70% of mines prefer declines, and 20%

Accesses Decline
use both declines and shafts as mine access.

Block Height 210 m This typical block height could vary by ± 20%.

< 50,000 m
2
30,000 m
2 These typical areas could vary +20%. It is
Footprint 2 2
recommended to use equal or larger areas, but not
50,000 to 100,000 m 75,000 m
Area smaller than the typical values. Also, square areas
2 2
> 100,000 m 170,000 m are better than the rectangular ones.

2
Smaller areas are not recommended, especially in
Area 10,000 m
massive rock masses.

Caving Internal corners must be avoided (eg an L shaped

Shape Square
Initiation area).

Measures to Facilitate Slot Highly recommended to facilitate cave initiation.

Hydraulic Radius 20 to 30 m Avoid being close to the limit in Laubscher’s chart.

Spacing 15 m This is the current practice.

Drifts

Height 4m
Could be increased but not decreased.
Width 4m
UCL

Could vary, but be careful if using small

Undercut Height 8m
undercutting heights.

Could be increased but be careful with induced

2
Undercutting Rate 2100 m /month seismicity, especially if in a high stress

environment.

Could vary by ± 20% (measured from UCL floor to

Crown-Pillar 17 m
EXT floor).
Drifts
EXL

Spacing 30 m Could vary from 26 to 36 m.

Height 4m
Could be increased but not decreased.
Width 4m

Draw Spacing 15 m Could vary from 13 to 18 m.

Points Influence Area 225 m

2
Could vary from 169 to 324 m .
2

This is an average value. Typically lower values

Draw Rates 0.20 m/day are used at the beginning of caving, and higher

values are used when more than 30% of the block

Final Report
Confidential to ICS and MMT Sponsors
 End of Project - ICS II Report 69

height has been extracted.

LHD Capacity 11 tonnes Could vary by ± 20%.

Equipment Tramming Distance 140 m Smaller tramming distances are preferable.

Powder Factor 400 g/tonne For undercutting blasting. It could vary ± 20%.

3
Oversize Limit 1.8 to 2.0 m Could vary by ± 20%.

RMR < 70 ! > 45°

Subsidence is the angle of break.
RMR > 70 > 60°

The project must take account that collapses, rockbursts, subsidence,

Geotechnical Hazards
water inflows and mudrushes, and hangups could occur.

The most common monitoring systems include displacements and

Instrumentation & Monitoring seismicity. It is recommended to include a seismic monitoring system,

especially in massive hard rock and/or high stress environments.

(1) These typical values are intended only for the scoping and pre-feasibility stages of a mining project.

(2) RMR values are for Laubscher’s 1990 system.

Final Report
Confidential to ICS Sponsors