International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

A new cavability index in block caving mines using fuzzy rock

engineering system
R. Rafiee n, M. Ataei, R. KhalooKakaie
Department of Mining Engineering, Petroleum and Geophysics, Shahrood University, Shahrood, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new cavability index (CI) for block caving mines is introduced. The interaction matrix based on the
Received 19 November 2014 rock engineering system (RES), that analyzes the interrelationship between the parameters affecting
Received in revised form rock engineering activities, is used to study rock mass cavability. Since the value of interaction in the RES
20 March 2015
method is not unique, the fuzzy system is used to minimize subjectivity of the weights which are
Accepted 24 March 2015
Available online 22 April 2015
computed in the RES method. As a result, an index is presented to predict the cavability potential of rock
masses. The Palabora mine was selected as a case study and the proposed index was used to rank the
Keywords: three geological units in this mine. It was observed that the rock cavability index could suitably predict
Cavability index rock masses condition from caving point of view. The newly proposed approach could be a simple but
Rock engineering system (RES)
efficient tool in evaluation of the parameters affecting the cavability of rock mass in block caving mines
Fuzzy system
and hence be useful in decision making under uncertainties.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and is a fundamental issue in establishing successful block caving

Block cave mining is a mass mining method that allows for the
bulk mining of large, relatively lower grade, ore bodies. In terms of
cost and rate of production, bulk mining of this kind yields a
substantial return per ton and has a higher rate of production than
other underground methods. In order for a block caving operation
to be successful, the rock mass must be able to fracture naturally
once an undercut has been applied [1]. In addition, enough
horizontal room must be provided for the ore body to cave in
freely without compromising the strength of the surrounding
waste rock; as separating ore from fallen waste rock or muck is
not economically feasible [2]. Block caving is commonly used in
the large-scale extraction of metals and minerals situated in thick
ore beds in a steep or vertical rock mass.
Cavability is defined as a continuous failure of the rock mass until
all void space is filled with broken rock. Once draw continues, failure
in the cave back continues to propagate [3]. The cavability of the
rock mass is one of the fundamental issues for the current mining
method. The reliable prediction of cavability is critical in determin-
ing the undercut dimensions required to initiate and continuously
cave an ore body [4]. The cavability of the rock mass will control
mine design and economic issues for a given geological environment
mines [5]. If the cavability of the ore body is not assessed with
reasonable accuracy, expensive and time consuming measures may
subsequently be required to initiate or sustain caving [6].
Many researchers have tried to define the rock mass cavability
index. The earliest reported empirical system for predicting
cavability was the cavability characterization of the Climax ore
body according to rock type, fracture spacing and mineralization
[7]. Obert et al. define the cavability index (CI) using several
parameters, including RQD (Rock Quality Designation) and powder
factor for secondary blasting. The method was developed for local
use only and was used to estimate the cavability of the Henderson
deposit [8]. White uses the Barton’s Q value as a predictor of
cavability for the first time [9]. McMahon developed a cavability
index, based on the caving experience from Climax and Urad
mines, to predict the cavability, fragmentation and secondary
blasting requirements [10]. The cavability index defined the ease
of caving using a linear scale from one to ten, with ten being
harder to cave than one. The index was estimated directly from
drill core RQD measurements [11]. Laubscher’s caving chart
[12–15], which predicts cavability based on the MRMR1 value
and hydraulic radius, has been the major method used interna-
tionally to predict cavability in block and panel caving mines. It
has been particularly successful when applied to the weaker and

n
Tel.: þ 98 9131066702.
1
E-mail address: raminlamezi@gmail.com (R. Rafiee). Modified rock mass rating.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.03.028
1365-1609/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Rafiee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76 69

larger orebodies for which it was first developed. However, recent
experiences suggest that it may not always provide satisfactory
results for stronger and smaller orebodies [3]. Mawdesley et al. [5]
extend the Mathews stability chart method of open stope design
by adding a large number of new data points, particularly from
Australian mines, and defining iso-probability contours. Mawdes-
ley then collected data from caving mines and extended this
approach to the assessment of cavability by using logistical
regression analysis [3]. In all those methods, the authors did not
consider completely all the parameters and their interactions.
The rock engineering systems (RES) approach can be used for
the analysis of coupled mechanisms in rock engineering problems
[16]. In this approach the main factors are arranged along the main
diagonal elements of a matrix, a so called interaction matrix, and
the interrelations between pairs of factors are identified in off-
diagonal elements. Many researchers have attempted to develop
this method in various fields of rock mechanic, such as [17–22].
There are several procedures for coding the interaction matrix
in the RES method. One of the generally used techniques is the
“expert semi-quantitative” (ESQ) coding method in which only one
value is deterministically assigned to each interaction. Hence, in
this method no uncertainties are considered in coding the inter-
action matrix. To overcome this problem, we propose a fuzzy
expert semi-quantitative (FESQ) approach. By applying fuzzy
system in the coding process, the subjectivity introduced by
human “experts” is minimized.
listed in the off-diagonal boxes (Fig. 1). The influence of A on B is
located in the top right-hand box. The influence of B on A is
located in the bottom left-hand box.
By coding the interaction matrix components and then summing
the values in the row and column through each parameter, “cause”
and “effect” co-ordinates are generated, indicating a parameter’s
interaction intensity and dominance. From the construction of the
matrix, it is clear that the row passing through Pi represents the
influence of Pi on all the other parameters in the system. Conversely,
the column through Pi represents the influence of other parameters,
i.e. the rest of the system, on Pi. Thus Cpi represents the way in
which Pi affects the system; and Epi represents the effect that the
system has on Pi as illustrated in Fig. 2 [16].
The parameter intensity can be measured along the C ¼E line
and the parameter dominance can be measured by the perpendi-
cular distance of the parameter point from this line in the cause vs.
effect plot (Fig. 3).
The two sets of 451 lines in the plot indicate contours of equal
value for each of characteristics. Whilst the parameter interaction
intensity increases monotonically from zero to the maximum, the
associated maximum possible parameter dominance value rises
from zero to a maximum at 50% parameter interaction intensity
and then reduces back to zero at maximum parameter intensity

2. Rock mass cavability

Cavability stands for the capability of an in-situ rock mass to

unravel when undercut, and considers all three stages of caving:
initiation, propagation and continuous caving [3]. The cavability of
an orebody is strongly influenced by the natural properties of the
rock mass and is also enhanced by induced features that are directly
attributable to the mining process. Predicting the cavability of a rock
mass is an area of primary importance in block cave design [4]. The
cavability of a rock mass is based on many factors, however, it is
generally assumed that any rock mass will cave if a large enough
area is undercut [23]. The challenge is to reliably predict the
undercut area required to achieve continuous caving. This is
particularly important with mass caving systems where the ore- Fig. 1. The interaction matrix with two factors.
body footprint limits the maximum size of the undercut.
The cavability of the rock mass will control mine design and
economic issues for a given geological environment and is a
fundamental issue in establishing a successful block caving mine
[24]. Cavability of an ore body is a critical consideration in the
feasibility stages of a caving operation, not only in terms of overall
mine ability, but also in blasting, fragmentation, crushing and
grade recovery [23].

3. Rock engineering system

The rock engineering systems (RES) approach can be used for

the analysis of coupled mechanisms in rock engineering problems
[16]. The factors and variables involved in a rock engineering
project may have a certain effect on other factors and the whole
system, and contrariwise, may be affected by other factors to a
certain scope. The essence of this approach is that all potentially
relevant variables ought to be considered [25].
In the rock engineering systems, the identification of the
critical parameters, effective pathways and assessment techniques
of engineering judgment, is performed using the interaction
matrix. In the interaction matrix, the main subjects or parameters Fig. 2. Summation of coding values in the row and column through each parameter
are listed along the leading diagonal and their interactions are to establish the cause and effect coordinates.
70 R. Rafiee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76

value [16]. The

pffiffiffi specific numerical
pffiffiffi values of the two characteristics
are ðC þEÞ= 2 and ðC  EÞ= 2 as indicated in Fig. 3.
4. Development of the rock mass cavability index
4.1. Description of the factors affecting the cavability of rock mass in
block caving mines
As was mentioned, many parameters affect cavability of rock
mass. These parameters could be divided in two categories:
induced factors and natural factors. The selection of parameters
has been performed based on recommendations contained in the
literature and experience gained from our own analysis of cava-
bility in block caving mines. As a result, thirteen key parameters
that have the greatest impact on the cavability have been selected.
These parameters are shown in Fig. 4.
All selected parameters are discussed in the following and the
importance and physical ranges of parameters, also the corre-
sponding ratings, are listed in Table 1. It is notable that the values
of the parameters are divided into five classes and each class
changes from 0 to 4.
4.1.1. Natural factors
4.1.1.1. Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS). Uniaxial compressive
strength is one of the most crucial engineering properties of rocks.
Rock material strength is used as an important parameter in many
rock classification systems. UCS is influenced by many characteristics
of rocks such as weathering or alteration rate, micro cracks and
internal fractures, density and porosity [26]. It is clear that cavability
of rock mass decreases when the strength of rock mass increases. To
quantify this parameter, the unconfined compressive strength of
intact rock, based on the RMR classification, is subdivided into five
classes ranging from 25 MPa to 250 MPa (Table 1).

4.1.1.2. In-situ stress. The magnitude and orientation of the

regional stress plays a significant role in caving [3]. Undercut
toward the principal stress will improve the cavability and
fragmentation, but could cause squeezing damage or rock bursts.
Developing away from the principal stress is advisable in the case
of weak ground [27]. Horizontal stress can cause locking blocks in
Fig. 3. Equal parameter interaction intensity and dominance.
each other and stabilize the rock mass against cave propagation in
the absence of low angled discontinuities within the rock mass
[23]. In this study, this parameter is classified into five classes
Cavability based on the ratio of uniaxial compressive strength value to in-situ
stress value (Table 1).

4.1.1.3. Water. Groundwater by reducing the effective stress on the

Induced factor Natural factor discontinuities and thus reducing the shear strength will affect the
cavability of rock mass in block caving mines. Water in the
potential cave zone can assist the cave by reducing friction on
Block Height UCS Spacing joints or with the effect of increased pore water pressure. Water
Undercut In-situ stress Orientation condition in this study, as in RMR classification, is divided into five
Water Aperture classes (Table 1).
Hydraulic radius
Persistence
Discontinuity
Fragmentation
properties Roughness 4.1.1.4. Discontinuities properties. Discontinuities properties have
an obvious and important effect on the cavability of rock mass.
Fig. 4. The main factors affecting the cavability of a rock mass. The most important of these properties, used to describe the

Table 1
Rating of the most influential parameters on the rock mass cavability classification.

Parameters Rating

0 1 2 3 4

UCS (MPa) 4250 100–250 50–100 25–50 254

UCS (σ)n 49 7–9 5–7 3–5 o3
Joint spacing (m) 42 0.6–2 0.2–0.6 0.06–0.2 o 0.06
Joint orientation Very unfavorable Unfavorable Fair Favorable Very favorable
Water Dry Damp Wet Dripping Flowing
Joint aperture (mm) None o 0.1 0.1–1 1–5 45
Joint persistence (m) o1 1–3 3–10 10–20 4 20
Joint roughness Very rough Rough Slightly rough Smooth Slickenside
Joint filling None Hard filling o 5 mm Hard filling 45 mm Soft filling o 5 mm Soft filling 45 mm
Hydraulic radius (m) o 15 15–30 30–45 45–60 4 60
Fragmentation (m3) 128–1024 16–128 2–16 0.25–2 0.031–0.25
Block height o 100 100–150 150–200 200–250 4 250
Undercut Very unfavorable Unfavorable Fair Favorable Very favorable

n
UCS is uniaxial compressive strength of the rock, σ is geostress.
 R. Rafiee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76
discontinuities, are spacing, orientation, aperture, persistence,
roughness and filling.
Fractures with a low shear resistance, favorable incline and closely
spacing are important for caving an ore body [7]. Several sets of
fractures are essential for developing a good caving. Ideally, two
vertical sets, at right angles to each other, and a third subhorizontal
set, are required to ensure good caving performance [1]. Low angle
structures lead to suitable vertical displacement in the rock mass
during the mining operation. They can accommodate both shear and
gravity failure [15]. A combination of one low-angle (01 to 301 dip)
set of fractures and another nearly vertical (751 to 901 dip) set of
fractures is the most effective two-dimensional fracturing configura-
tion for ease of cavability of an ore body. In an actual three-
dimensional situation, one set of low angle fractures and two sets
of nearly vertical fractures will be most effective in improving
cavability. These observations, concerning favorable joint orienta-
tions, may be valid for environments lacking lateral confinement [7].
Filling and persistence of discontinuities have a bearing on the
cavability of the rock mass because these properties have an
important role in the strength of rock mass [3]. Such properties
should be accurately measured by detailed scan-line mapping and
considered when determining cavability. The geology structures
are classified into five classes based on the RMR classification [26]
(Table 1).
4.1.2. Induced factors
The cavability of an ore deposit is a function of natural rock
mass properties, but it is also strongly influenced by induced
factors. These induced factors are a function of the engineering
decisions made regarding the way in which the ore body is mined.
The induced factors are not directly related to the natural proper-
ties or the immediate geomechanical characteristics of a particular
orebody. These factors are as follows:
4.1.2.1. Block height. Block height depends on the geometry of ore,
fragmentation and properties of cap rock. The vertical distance
between mining levels will affect the rock mass cavability [23].
Secondary fragmentation of caving material occurs through attrition
as the ore is drawn down through the column. Thus, the cavability of
ore and cap rock, and the fragmentation result influence the
determination of optimal block height. The qualitative classification
for this parameter is shown in Table 1.
Fig. 5. The interaction matrix of influence parameters on the cavability of rock mass.
71
4.1.2.2. Undercut. Experience has shown that undercutting makes
a critical contribution to the success of block and panel caving [15].
Poor planning, design, implementation and management of the
undercut can jeopardize the ultimate success, productivity and
costs of an operation.
The direction of advance of undercut into the principal stress
direction will influence the magnitude of abutment stresses. To
reduce thus clamping stresses in the cave back, the undercuts is
usually extracted in the direction of the maximum principal stress
[15]. In the San Manuel mine, advancing an undercut from weak to
strong rock led to caving problems and coarse fragmentation;
however, when the undercut direction was changed from strong to
weak rock, caving did occur and the fragmentation improved [15].
This parameter, based on the undercut status, is quantified in five
classes (Table 1).
4.1.2.3. Hydraulic radius (HR). The hydraulic radius is a term used
in hydraulics and is a number derived by dividing the area by the
perimeter. The hydraulic radius is required to ensure that the
propagation of the cave refers to the unsupported area of the cave
back; that is, there is a space into which caved material can move
[15]. Many records of block caving mines were reviewed [2, 24,
28,15,29] to classify this parameter into five classes ranging from
0 to 4 (Table 1).
4.1.2.4. Fragmentation. Ore fragmentation has a great influence on
the performance of a block caving mine. The effectiveness of the
design of the mining layout as well as many significant operational
procedures depend ultimately on the accuracy of the initial
fragmentation estimates [30]. Accurate prediction of fragmentation
can help the mine foresee potential difficulties [31]. There are factors
that influence fragmentation as follows [2]. The first factor is the in-
situ network of discontinuities as defined by their orientation, size,
spacing, condition and termination. The second factor is the in-situ
stresses and the stresses induced in the cave face or back (varying
with cave height) and the other factors are rock strengths, draw
column height and residence times. This parameter is quantified base
on the rock fragmentation sizes proposed by Laubscher [15] (Table 1).
4.2. Definition of the cavability index (CI) using fuzzy rock
engineering system
As was mentioned, in the ESQ coding method, one value is
deterministically assigned to each interaction. Therefore, it is
implicitly considered that there are no uncertainties when the
72 R. Rafiee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76

influence of one parameter on the others is expressed in the 1

mf1 mf2 mf3 mf4 mf5 mf6 mf7 mf8 mf9

Degree of membership
matrix. Therefore, in this study, a novel “Fuzzy ESQ” (FESQ) coding
0.8
approach is proposed to overcome this problem.
The first step is to form the interaction matrix between effective 0.6
parameters on cavability that is shown in Fig. 5. Then, the ques-
0.4
tionnaires were prepared and asked experts to specify the value of
interaction between each pair of parameters. 0.2
To fuzzify the interaction matrix, for each element of the matrix, 0
the number of each state of interaction based on the expert’s
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
judgment is considered, which are named as nA (number of no
output1
interaction), nB (number of weak interactions), nC (number of
medium interactions), nE (number of strong interactions) and nF Fig. 7. Output of fuzzy system.
(number of critical interactions). These values are first normalized
and used as the inputs of the fuzzy system. For each fuzzy system
input, two fuzzy sets “Low” and “High” are considered which are
shown in Fig. 6. For example, if nA is “High” which means that most NO (2)
of the experts mentioned there is no interaction, the probability of
mode A (no interaction) is higher.
If the normalized value considered for each element in the pfuzzy
interaction matrix is less than 0.4, the membership function value weak (2)
of “Low” set is greater and the membership function of “High” set
is lower and vice versa. The selection of “Low” and “High” (mamdani)
membership function for each input of fuzzy system depends on medium (2)
the expert’s judgment.
Nine fuzzy sets (m1 to m9) are defined for output of the fuzzy 32 rules
Interaction (9)
system. To better illustrate the intermediate state of the output
and to increase the accuracy of it, nine fuzzy sets are considered strong (2)
between 0 and 4. The form of output sets is shown in Fig. 7.
There are five inputs and each input has two modes, and so
twenty-five rules could be defined. A fuzzy system with five inputs, critical (2)
one output and thirty-two rules is shown in Fig. 8. For example, for
the interaction of parameter P1 (UCS) on P12 (fragmentation), six Fig. 8. Fuzzy system with five inputs, thirty-two rules, and one output.

persons out of ten experts who filled in the questionnaires men-

tioned “strong interaction”, three persons said “critical interaction”, where Imn represents the interaction matrix element. In these
and one person mentioned “medium interaction”. So the normal- equations, Ci is the sum of the raw values and Ei is the sum of the
ized value of fuzzy system input would be as nA ¼ 0, nB ¼ 0, column values for each parameter.
nC ¼ 0:1, nD ¼ 0:6 and nF ¼ 0:3. The rule base is fired and the output After this step, the influence weight for each parameter can be
would be 3.16. calculated as a percentage of the sum of the system’s cause and
The RES interaction matrix can be coded using fuzzy system. effect for such parameters, according to the following formula [22]:
Then, by using the value of parameters and their corresponding !
MP i  ðC i þ E i Þ
1
“weights”, the cavability index for block caving mines can be wi ð%Þ ¼ P   100 ð3Þ
calculated. j C j þE j
Hudson [16] proposed a method for assigning a weight to each
where MP i is the rating value assigned to the different category of
parameter. In this method to obtain these weights, the cause and
the parameter i (In this study, the maximum of all parameters will
effect values for each parameter in the system is calculated. For the
be 4; MP i  4; 8 i). Therefore, the weight for parameter i, which is
ith parameter, we have [16]:
shown by wi , can be calculated by its “parameter interaction
X intensity” (C i þ Ei ) divided by the sum of interaction intensities of
Ci ¼ I mn ðwith m  iÞ ð1Þ
n
all parameters in the system [22].
After the weights for all parameters (wi ) were calculated, the
cavability index can be calculated from the following equation:
X X
Ei ¼ I mn ðwith n  iÞ ð2Þ CI ¼ w  Pi ð4Þ
m i i

where the wi values are weights of parameters and P i is the

Low High assigned values to each input parameter considered for block
1
caving mine cavability problem. In the following section, the
Degree of membership

0.8 proposed cavability index (CI) is calculated for the Palabora mine
and is used to assess the cavability state in this mine.
0.6

0.4

0.2 5. Palabora mine

0
The Palabora mine is located in the Northern Province of South
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Africa about 560 km north east of Johannesburg. Palabora Mining
Input
is a major producer of copper from an open pit mine at Phala-
Fig. 6. Fuzzy set for each fuzzy system input. borwa, South Africa. In 1996, it was decided to develop a new
 R. Rafiee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76 73

underground mine to continue operations after 2002, when the
current open pit mine would reach to the end of its economic life.
This is hoped to secure production for another twenty years. A
large block cave mine is planned which should produce 30,000 t of
ore a day to supply about 90,000 t of copper a year [28].
The Palabora copper ore body is an elliptically shaped, verti-
cally dipping volcanic pipe. The pipe measures 1400 m and 800 m
along the long and short axes, respectively. The ore body is open at
depth with mineralization proven to be 1800 m below surface.
Copper grades of approximately 1% are found in the central core of
the ore body and decrease gradually toward the peripheries with
no sharp ore/waste contact.
5.1. Geology
The Phalaborwa complex covers an area of 1950 ha, and
consists mainly of a phlogopite and apatite rich pyroxenite. This
pyroxenite is intruded successively by a series of more differen-
tiated rocks—foskorite, and olivine, magnetite, apatite, phlogopite
rock and finally a central intrusion of transgressive carbonatite.
The transgressive carbonatite intrusion shows an intimate rela-
tionship with foskorite. The carbonatite mined by massive mining
methods for copper with magnetite and minute amounts of
platinum and gold as by-products [28].
Mineralization is hosted by three main rock types. Transgres-
sive and banded carbonatites form the central core of the ore body
and are made up of magnetite rich transgressive carbonatite with
minor amounts of apatite, dolomite, chondrodite, olivine and
phlogopite. Barren dolerite dykes, with a steeply dipping north-
east trend are present and account for approximately 8% of the
resource.
5.2. Geotechnical condition
joints have a different morphology from the vertical sets: wavy,
rough and of limited continuity. There are two sets oriented
approximately 201/1601 and 451/3501. The values of the RMR and
Laubscher’s RMR of the transgressive carbonatite formation are
shown in Table 2.
5.3. Undercut design
The design and operation of the undercut is the key mechanism
for initiating the cave. The undercut in Palabora is developed
ahead of opening the drawbells (advanced undercut) to provide a
“stress shadow” to protect the production level. The height of
undercut is 4 m. An inclined face is made over the major apex
creating a chevron shape (Fig. 9) to the undercut, to facilitate
undercut initiation following the construction of the drawbell by
promoting the flow of blasted undercut material into the bell [28].
5.4. Cave height
The design column height for Palabora is approximately 460 m,
varying according to the intersection with the pit walls. This is
high in comparison to most caving operations; however, at these
operations the limitation of cave height is sometimes a function of
orebody configuration and drawpoint life. The high rock quality at
Palabora, a disadvantage in terms of fragmentation, becomes an
advantage when related to potential drawpoint wear [28].
5.5. Fragmentation
Fragmentation problems will be most severe when the cave is
initiated. Estimates using the BCF (Block cave fragmentation)
program indicated that in the first year of production over 70%
of the rock will be greater than 2 m³ and therefore required

The average uniaxial strength of the carbonatites is about

13m
125 MPa, with a variation in values depending on mineralogy 12m
between 90 MPa and 160 MPa.
The in situ state of stress was assumed to be hydrostatic and 35
0

approximately equal to the overburden load of 38 MPa. As a part of

Undercut Level
the numerical and fragmentation analyses, parametric studies
were carried out between the limiting values of horizontal stress
ratio of 0.75 and 1.5 to determine whether the solutions (modeling
18m
solutions) were sensitive to the inherent assumptions about state
of stress [28].
The structure of the carbonatites is dominated by sub-vertical
jointing. These joints are planar and persistent in nature and can
be open or infilled with weak material. There are three steeply 13m
Production Level

dipping sets, striking approximately 0101 (dip direction 2901), 3101

(dip direction 0401) and 0501 (dip direction 1401). The flat lying Fig. 9. Undercut design of Palabora mine.

Table 2
The values of RMR and Laubscher’s RMR.

RMR Laubscher’s RMR

Parameter Value Rating Parameter Value Rating

UCS 120 MPa 12 IRS (s) 137 MPa 10

RQD 75–90 17 IRS (w) 80 MPa
Spacing 0.4–1.5 12 FF/m 1.5/m 24
Length 10–20 m 1 Joint sets 3
Separation 0.1–1.0 mm 4 Large S Straight 75%
Roughness Smooth 1 Small S Smooth und 75%
Infilling Soft o5 mm 3 Alteration None 100%
Weathering Unweathered 6 Filling Nsoft shear 85% 19
Ground water Dry 15
RMR 71 RMR 53
74 R. Rafiee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76

Table 3
Fuzzy interaction matrix of cavability.

P1 1.85 1.75 1.2 0.89 1.89 2.72 0.14 0.157 1.14 3.16 0.75 1.75 1.64

1.2 P2 2.65 3.2 3.29 3.08 3.16 0.29 2.13 3.48 3.07 0.96 3.48 3.84
0.294 1.08 P3 0.29 1.52 1.71 0.74 0.15 1.05 2.83 3.83 1.83 1.95 3.05
0.16 1.71 0.715 P4 0.715 0.81 0.532 0.294 2.43 2.09 3.48 0.76 2.52 3.83
0.15 2.71 0.523 0.15 P5 2.37 2.78 3.08 3.48 3.1 2.07 0.837 0.837 2,12
0.15 1.83 0.927 0.15 0.715 P6 0.923 1.65 2.92 3.21 3.05 1.2 0.988 2.01
0.15 0.923 0.998 0.15 1.92 1.92 P7 3.04 0.98 3.2 3.16 1.83 0.65 3.22
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 3.18 0.23 3.71 P8 2.6 1.92 3.6 1.2 0.3 3.3
1.91 2.17 0.15 0.15 0.998 1.08 2.91 3 P9 2.83 2.29 0.998 0.923 2.27
0.15 1.92 0.837 0.15 1.92 0.927 0.15 0.15 1.08 P10 3.1 2.09 0.998 3.81
0.15 0.523 0.15 0.15 0.23 0.187 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.58 P11 0.998 0.923 3.82
0.15 3.58 1.23 0.15 2.21 2.14 0.31 0.22 0.64 1.54 3.71 P12 1.1 2.52
0.15 0.173 0.15 0.16 0.715 0.485 0.396 0.15 0.173 1.71 3.21 0.837 P13 3.08
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 P14

P1: UCS, P2: in situ stress, P3: joint spacing, P4: joint orientation, P5: joint aperture, P6: joint persistence, P7: joint roughness, P8: joint filling, P9: water, P10: hydraulic radius,
P11: fragmentation, P12: block height, P13: undercut, P14: potential of cavability.

secondary breaking before being loaded. As the cave height is 45

increased, the action of broken rock moving toward the drawbells
40 P12 P11
P15
will further reduce rock size and hence the number of hang-ups
that could occur will be reduced [28]. 35

30
P10
Effect
25
P9 P5
P6 P2
20
6. Determination cavability index (CI) for Palabora mine P14 P7
15 P13
P8
For determination of cavability index in Palabora mine by the 10 P3

RES method, first the interaction matrix must be created. To do 5

this, by applying the judgments of experts to the fuzzy system and
using fuzzy rules on their views (proposed method in Section 4.2),
the fuzzy interaction matrix is formed that is given in Table 3.
As previously mentioned, the interaction intensity and dom-
inance of each parameter in the system can be analyzed according
to its position in the (C, E) plot. Fig. 10 shows the cause–effect
diagram plotted using value of cause and effect of parameters.
As mentioned in Section 3, along the C ¼E line, the value of
(C þE) increases. If the parameter has a large value of (C  E) it is
located in the bottom right portion of the diagram and it is
“dominant” on the system. The mean parameter value lies very
close to the center of the diagram, indicating that the cavability
matrix represents a system that is about 50% interactive and
selected parameters have significant influences on the evaluation
result.
It is clear from the cause versus effect plot that the most
interactive parameter is in-situ stress (P2) and the least interactive
parameter is UCS (P1). The most dominate parameter is joint
orientation (P4) and the most subordinate parameter is potential
cavability (P 14 ). By obtaining the sum of the causes and effects
(C þE) for each parameter, the interaction intensity histogram for
each parameter can be plotted (Fig. 11).
Due to the importance of system interaction, the sum of cause
and effect value is selected as the distinguishing factor between
parameters. Generally, when the value of interaction of a system is
large, the system is potentially unstable. In other words, there is a
greater chance that a small change in a parameter greatly affects
the system’s behavior. Table 4 lists the weightings of the selected
parameters based on Eq. (4).
Putting coefficient weights of each factor, obtained from Eq. (3)
and recorded in Table 4, into Eq. (4), the rock cavability index can
be calculated. The cavability index is an expression of the inherent
potential cavability of rock mass, where the maximum value of the
index is 100 and refers to the most favorable conditions. Fig. 12
shows the presented classification of cavability status for the rock
mass according to the CI values regarding the field observations.
P1 P4
0
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00
Cause
Fig. 10. Cause–effect diagram based on the value of cause and effect of parameters.
Computed CI for 3 rock formations in Palabora mine is given in
Table 5.
7. Validation of the methodology
In order to validate and assess the applicability of the new
proposed cavability index, the cavability of three formations
(Transgressive Carbonatite, Foskorite and Dolerite) in Palabora
mine has been assessed by Laubscher’s caving chart (this chart is
based on the real data collected from block caving mines). The
cavability assessment process using Laubscher’s caving chart is
shown in Fig. 13. As shown in Fig. 13, the results obtained using the
proposed method has a good match with the results of Laubscher’s
caving chart. Thus, it can be concluded that the systemic approach
has a relatively close estimates to the famous experimental
method.
8. Conclusion
In this research work, we present a new cavability index (CI) to
assess the potential of cavability of rock mass in block caving
mines. The approach applies the fuzzy rock engineering systems
(FRES) method to account the intricate interactions that exist
between parameters in real projects. In this way, we selected 14
parameters which affect the cavability of rock mass; then the RES
interaction matrix is coded by using fuzzy system. By applying
fuzzy system into the coding process, the subjectivity introduced
by “expert” human has been minimized.
 R. Rafiee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76 75

60 100

90
50
Foskorite
80
Stable Zone
Cause + Effect

40

Modified Rock Mass Ratiag

70
30
60
Transgressive
20 50
Dolerite
40 Caving Zone
10
30
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 20
Parametre
10
Fig. 11. Interaction intensity for the parameters in considered system.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Table 4 Hydraulic Radius (m)
The weighted coefficients.
Fig. 13. Cavability state of three units of Palabora mine in Laubscher’s caving chart.
Parameter C þE W i ð%Þ

1—UCS 23.951 1.16 Similarly, “caving rate”, “fragmentation”, and “hydraulic radius” have
2—In situ stress 52.599 2.55
also been found to be quite significant parameters.
3—Joint spacing 30.704 1.49
4—Joint orientation 26.246 1.27 The scaled relative interactive intensity along with coefficient
5—Joint aperture 40.54 1.97 weights of all factors was used to develop a cavability index (CI). CI
6—Joint persistence 36.702 1.78 ranges between 0 and 100; CIo30 indicates completely stable
7—Joint roughness 40.772 1.98
condition, 30oCIo50 corresponds to transitional zone, 50oCIo70
8—Joint filling 33.104 1.61
9—Water 39.619 1.92 corresponds to cavable condition, and 70oCIo100 corresponds to
10—Hydraulic radius 45.062 2.19 completely cavable condition. The new index has been used to rank
11—Fragmentation 46.041 2.23 the cavability of rock mass of Palabora mine which was divided in
12—Block height 33.94 1.65 three rock formations (Transgressive Carbonatite, Foskorite and
13—Undercut direction 27.958 1.36
Dolerite). Based on this new index, it was concluded that transgres-
14—Potential of cavability 38.34 1.86
Total 25 sive carbonatite and dolerite are located in the caving zone and the
dolerite formation is located in the transitional zone.
Since in the systems analysis (e.g. RES method) all the parameters’
interaction could be simultaneously considered, these methods have
Class Potential of cavability increased
the ability to solve complex problems in rock engineering. The new
Transitional zone proposed index (CI) based on the system analysis provides a reliable
Completely Cavable
result in the cavability assessment. Future research would be carried
Very Good
Potentially

out to include other parameters, which may influence the cavability

cavable

Cavable
Good of rock mass, to improve the applicability of the proposed index.

Fair
Stable
Appendix A. Supporting information
Bad

Completely stable Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in
Very bad
the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.03.028.

References
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cavability Index (CI)
[1] Julin D.E. Future developments in block caving. 36th Annual Mining Sympo-
Fig. 12. The classification of cavability status. sium. University of Minnesota; 1975. p. 111-115.
[2] Laubscher DH. Cave mining handbook. Johannesburg: De Beers; 2003.
[3] Mawdesley C. Prediction rock mass cavability in block caving mines. Uni-
versity of Queensland; 2002 PhD thesis.
Table 5
[4] Lorig L.J., Board M.P., Potyondy D.O., Coetzee M.J. Numerical modelling of
The final ranking for the cavability status of Palabora mine. caving using continuum and micro-mechanical models. In: Proceedings, 3rd
Canadian conference on computer applications in the minerals industry.
Geological Units Cavability index (CI) Classification Montreal; 1995.
[5] Mawdesley C, Trueman R, Whiten W. Extending the Mathews stability graph
Transgressive carbonatite 53 Cavable for open-stope design. Trans Inst Min Metall A: Min Technol 2001:27–39.
Foskorite 38 Stable (transitional zone) [6] Van As A., Jeffrey R. Hydraulic fracturing as a cave inducement technique at
Dolerite 55 Cavable Northparkes Mines. In: Proceedings MassMin; 2000. p. 165–72.
[7] Mahtab MA, Dixon JD. Influence of rock fractures and block boundary
weakening on cavability. Trans Soc Min Eng AIME 1976:6–12.
[8] Obert L, Munson R, Rich C. Caving properties of the climax orebody. Trans Soc
Min Eng AIME 1976:129–33.
The results obtained from cause–effect diagram show that in-situ [9] White DH. Predicting fragmentation characteristics of a block caving orebody.
M.Sc. thesis.. University of Arizona; 1977.
stress (P 2 ) is the most interactive parameter. In other words, a small [10] McMahon B., Kendrick R. Predicting the block caving behavior of ore bodies.
change in this parameter causes a large change in the system. In: SME-AIME preprint. 1969.
76 R. Rafiee et al. / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 77 (2015) 68–76
[11] Julin DE, Tobie R. Block caving. SME mining engineering handbook. Engle-
wood, CO: Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration; 1974.
[12] Diering J. Practical approach to the numerical stress analysis of mass mining
operations. Inst Min Metall Trans A: Min Indust 1987:96.
[13] Laubscher DH. A geomechanics classification system for the rating of rock
mass in mine design. J S Afr Inst Metall 1990;90:267–73.
[14] Laubscher DH. Cave mining—the state of the art. J S Afr Inst Metall
1994;94:2279.
[15] Laubscher DH. A practical manual on block caving. Brisbane: Julius
Kmttschnitt Mineral Research Centre; 2000.
[16] Hudson JA. Rock engineering systems, theory and practice. Chichester, UK:
Ellis Horwood; 1992.
[17] Shang Y, Wang S, Li G, Yang Z. Retrospective case example using a compre-
hensive suitability index (CSI) for siting the Shisan-Ling power station, China.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2000;37:839–53.
[18] Zhang L, Yang Z, Liao Q, Chen J. An application of the rock engineering systems
(RES) methodology in rockfall hazard assessment on the Chengdu-Lhasa
Highway, China. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2004;41:833–8.
[19] Rozos D., Pyrgiotis L., Skias S., Tsagaratos P. An implementation of rock
engineering system for ranking the instability potential of natural slopes in
Greek territory. An application in Karditsa County. Landslides 2008;5:261-270.
[20] Budetta P, Santo A, Vivenzio F. Landslide hazard mapping along the coastline
of the Cilento region (Italy) by means of a GIS-based parameter rating
approach. Geomorphology 2008;94:340–52.
[21] Younessi A, Rasouli V. A fracture sliding potential index for wellbore stability
analysis. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2010;47:927–39.
[22] Zare Naghadehi M, Jimenez R, KhaloKakaie R, Jalali S-ME. A new open-pit
mine slope instability index defined using the improved rock engineering
systems approach. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2013;61:1–14.
[23] Kendorski FS. Cavability of ore deposits. Min Eng 1978:628–31.
[24] Brown E.T. Block caving geomechanics: international caving study 1997–2004:
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, The University of Queensland;
2007.
[25] Jiao Y, Hudson JA. The fully-coupled model for rock engineering systems. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 1995:491–512.
[26] Bieniawski ZT. Engineering rock mass classifications. New York, NY: Wiley;
1989.
[27] Brady BHG, Brown ET. Rock mechanics for underground mining. Berlin:
Springer; 2004.
[28] Ngidi NS. Competent persons report on the mineral assets of Palabora mining
company, South Africa. In: Ngidi NS, editor. .
[29] Umar SB, Sjöberg J, Nordlund E. Rock mass characterization and conceptual
modeling of the Printzsköld Orebody of the Malmberget Mine, Sweden. J Earth
Sci Geotech Eng 2013;3:147–73.
[30] Eadie BA. A framework for modelling fragmentation in block caving. PhD
Thesis: University of Queensland; 2003.
[31] Chen D. Meeting geotechnical challenges a key to success for block caving
mines. MassMin 2000. Melbourne: AusIMM; 2000. p. 429–36.