Caving Mining Systems: 6.1 Chapter Objectives and Expected Outcomes

Mine Planning and Design MN 471
CHAPTER 6
CAVING MINING SYSTEMS
6.1 Chapter Objectives and Expected Outcomes
The objectives of this chapter are:

 To explain the basis of caving mining systems and discuss their advantages and
disadvantages;
 To present sublevel mining systems as a typical example of caving mining systems.
 To explain the principles of designing sublevel caving system;
 To discuss the design of a typical block caving mining system.
At the end of the chapter, the student is expected to:

 Understand the philosophy and techniques of naturally supported mining systems;
 Be able to design sublevel caving mining systems;
 Be able to understand the design of block caving mining systems.
6.2 Nature of Caving Mining Systems
In caving mining systems, the orebody and the surrounding rock are induced to cave and fall
into excavated areas. Caving mining systems are therefore employed when the orebody and
country rock are of weak to medium strength and are susceptible to caving. The caving action
may be due to gravity alone or may be induced by mining technique. The philosophy of caving
mining systems is in direct contrast to that of supported mining systems (both naturally and
artificially supported) where there is a positive effect to resist any tendency of the ground to
collapse. Successful caving is dependent on the ability to control the failure of rock mass under
load. To some extent, control can be exercised by the way in which caving is allowed to develop.
The advantages of caving mining systems are the following:
 They can be mechanized and therefore have high productivity;
 Miners work in safe conditions.
Caving mining systems however do have the following disadvantages:

 They do disrupt the overlying strata, causing ground subsidence;
 They can be associated with high dilution.
6.3 Sublevel Caving Mining Systems (SCMS)
The method of mining in SCMS aims at stoping the orebody from sublevels (from top to bottom)
so as to induce caving (that is free displacement) of the country rock. SCMS are therefore
employed when the country rock is of weak to medium strength. For easy flow of the broken ore
and caved material, the orebody must be steeply dipping or massive. Fig. 6.1 is an isometric view
of a typical SCMS.
Lecture notes prepared Assoc. Prof Raymond S. Suglo Course Lecturer: B.O. Afum 6-1
Fig. 6.1 An Isometric View of a Typical Sublevel caving System
A mining block is developed with a raise (ore pass) that connects a lower and an upper main
levels outside the orebody, and a series of production sublevels in the orebody which serve for
both drilling and ore tramming to the ore pass. The layout of the development openings is such
that the sublevels may be transverse or longitudinal in relation to the general strike of the
orebody. The transverse sublevel caving is employed in wider orebodies; in this case, the
production sublevels are crosscuts driven across the orebody from footwall to hanging wall (see
Fig. 6.1). The longitudinal sublevel caving is employed in narrow orebodies; in this case, the
production sublevels are drives driven in and on strike of the orebody. Fig. 6.2 is a typical SCMS
at the Obuasi Mine of Ashanti Goldfields Company with longitudinal layout of the production
sublevels.
In SCMS, stoping of a sublevel of a starts with development of a slot to provide free space for
blasting. Drill holes with fan-shaped geometry are then drilled using a rig. The broken ore is
trammed with LHDs into the ore pass.
The main advantages are:
 Men work in relatively safe conditions under cover;

 High production rates can be achieved at high productivity, using mechanized
equipment.
The main disadvantages are:

 Ventilation of the large number of dead-end headings is difficult;
 If caving does not quickly follow the removal of broken ore, unsafe conditions can ensue;
 The development efficiency and hence the cost can be very high;
 Dilution can be high so the ore must be of sufficient grade to accept some dilution (up to
20%) or high ore losses will occur.
6.3.1 Design Considerations
In SCMS, the major concern is to design the mining layout so as to achieve maximum ore
recovery (minimum ore loss) and minimum dilution while ensuring stability of production and
service openings, and prevent surface subsidence. The design of the layout is greatly influenced
by the geomechanics involving the gravity flow of blasted ore and caved waste.
6.3.2 Gravity Flow of Broken Ore
The subject of gravity flow of caved ore has been studied by various authors using physical
model experiments, by analogy with the flow of other granular materials or numerical modeling
(Kvapil, 1965; Jenike, 1966), by mathematical modeling using the theory of plasticity (Pariseau
and Pflieder (1968), by numerical modeling using probability theory (Jolley, 1968)) and by full
scale field studies based on marker (Janelid and Kvapil, 1966).
A most satisfactory approach to the study of gravity flow of broken ore in SCMS is that provided
by Janelid and Kvapil (1966). Central to their approach is the concept of flow ellipsoid
illustrated in Fig. 6.3a. Broken ore is considered to be contained in a bin or bunker; when the
bottom outlet is opened, the material will begin to flow out by gravity. After a given time, all
discharged material will have originated from within an approximately ellipsoidal zone known
as the ellipsoid of motion. Material between the ellipsoid of motion and a corresponding limit
ellipsoid will have loosened and displaced, but will have reached the discharge point. The
material outside the limit ellipsoid will remain stationary. As draw proceeds, an originally
horizontal line drawn through the broken material in the bunker will deflect downwards in the
form of an inverted cone. The shape of this draw cone indicates how the largest displacements
occur in a central flow channel. Laboratory and field observations have shown that the ellipsoid
of motion is not always a true ellipsoid. Its shape is a function of the distribution of particle sizes
within the more elongated is the ellipsoid of motion for the small discharge opening width. The
upper portion of the ellipsoid of motion tends to be flattened or broadened, compared with a
true ellipsoid, particularly for large draw heights and irregular particle size (see Fig. 6.3b).
Despite these observations, Janelid and Kvapil’s concept of the ellipsoid of motion provides a
useful basis to develop some understanding of the mechanics of the gravity flow of broken ore in
SCMS.
The shape of a given ellipsoid of motion can be described by its eccentricity, , which is
calculated as:
 
1
1 2
ε a n  b 2n 2 (6.1)
an
Where an and bn are the major and minor semi-axes of the ellipsoid, assuming that the
horizontal cross section of the ellipsoid is circular. In practice,  varies between 0.9 and 0.98
with values in the range 0.92 and 0.96 begin found to apply most commonly. If En is the volume
of material discharged from an ellipsoid of motion of known height h n, then the corresponding
value of the semi-minor axis of the ellipsoid can be calculated as:
1
 En 2
b n    (6.2)
 2.094h n 
or as:
 
1
h
bn  n 1  ε 2 2 (6.3)
2
For a given ellipsoid of motion of volume En there will be a corresponding limit ellipsoid of
volume Eg, beyond which the material remains stationary. The material contained between the
boundaries of the two ellipsoids will loosen and displace, but will not report to the discharge
point. Janelid and Kvapil (1966) describe this loosening by a factor:
Eg
β (6.4)
Eg  En
The value  varies between 1.066 and 1.100. For most broken ores,  tends towards the lower
end of this range which gives:
E g  15E n (6.5)
Assuming that the limit ellipsoid has the same eccentricity as the ellipsoid of motion, Equations
(6.2), (6.3) and (6.5) can be used to calculate its height as:
h g  2.5h n (6.6)
As material is progressively discharged, the size of the ellipsoid of motion, and of the
corresponding limit ellipsoid, continues to grow. A dimension required in the design of sublevel
caving layout is the radius of the limit ellipsoid, r, at the height h n (see Fig. 6.3a). This is
calculated as:
 
r  h n h g - h n  1  ε 2 
1
2 (6.7)
The analysis so far assumes that the flow is symmetrical about a vertical axis. In SCMS, the
boundary conditions are often such that the ellipsoid of motion and the corresponding limit
ellipsoid are not fully developed. Fig. 6.4 shows a cross section of draw patterns observed in
model studies of longitudinal sublevel caving for Granduc Mine Canada by Sarin (1981).
Fig. 6.4 Influence of Orebody Width and Dip on the Draw Patterns observed in
Model Studies of Longitudinal Sublevel Caving. [Numbers on the flow ellipsoids
are the number of 4 m3 buckets of ore removed from the drawpoint at a given time
(after Sarin, 1981)
In this case, the narrowness and dip of the orebody inhibit the development of fully ellipsoidal
motion. In a vertical section through the longitudinal axis of a production level in the general
case, the ellipsoid of motion is deviated away from the wall by an angle, , which varies with the
ring gradient, , and with angle of friction developed between the broken and unbroken ore. For
an approximately vertical wall,  is typically about 5o.
The flow pattern in the wall of the slice is shown in Fig. 6.6 If it is assumed that the flow may be
described by Equations (6.1) to (6.7) and that hn  2S where S is the slice height, then the semi-
width of flow, r, can be found from Equation (6.7) as:
 
1
r  S 6 1- ε 2 2 (6.8)
The analysis so far assumes that the flow is symmetrical about a vertical axis. In SCMS, the
boundary conditions are often such that the ellipsoid of motion and the corresponding limit
ellipsoid are not fully developed. Fig. 6.4 shows a cross section of draw patterns observed in
model studies of longitudinal sublevel caving for Granduc Mine, Canada by Sarin (1981). In this
case, the narrowness and dip of the orebody inhibit the development of fully ellipsoidal motion.
In a vertical section through the longitudinal axis of a production level in the general case, the
ellipsoid of motion is truncated by the wall of the unblasted ore (see Fig. 6.5).
In addition, the centre line of the ellipsoid is deviated away from the wall by an angle,, which
varies with the ring gradient, , and with the angle of fraction developed between the broken
and unbroken ore. For an approximately vertical wall,  is typically about 5o.
The flow pattern in the wall of the slice is shown in Fig. 6.6. If it is assumed that the flow may be
described by Equations (6.1) to (6.7) and that hn  2S where S is the slice height, then the semi-
width of flow, r, can be found from Equation (6.7) as:
 
1
r  S 6 1- ε2 2 (6.8)
Where is the unknown eccentricity, dependent on the height of flow and the particle size. Fig.
6.7 is a chart developed by Janelid and Kvapil (1966) for making a preliminary estimate of the
eccentricity for broken ore. Using this as a starting point, the semi-width of flow, r, and other
geometric parameters, may be estimated. A more exact determination of the flow parameters for
a particular case can only be obtained from large-scale tests, when mining has started.
Fig. 6.7 Eccentricity as a Function of the Height of the Ellipsoid of Flow

(after Janelid and Kvapil, 1966)
6.3.3 Design of Sublevel Caving Layout
Following Janelid and Kvapil (1966), the parameters that must be determined in the design of
sublevel caving layout are described by the following symbols and nomenclature:
A = width of slice (Fig. 6.8)

H = height of extraction drive or crosscut (Fig. 6.8)
B = width of extraction drive or crosscut (Fig. 6.8)
P = width of pillars between extraction drive (Fig. 6.8)
V = ring burden (Fig. 6.5a)
K = factor of particle size distribution in broken ore (0.5 ≤ K ≤ 1.5)
an, bn = major and minor semi-axes of ellipsoid of motion (Fig.6.5b)
C = width of extraction point (Fig. 6.9)
r = semi-width of the limit ellipsoid at height hn (Fig. 6.6)
X = digging depth of the loader (Fig. 6.10)
 = gradient of slice (Fig. 6.5a)
 = angle of repose of the ore at draw point (Fig. 6.10)

 = eccentricity of the ellipsoid of motion
The relations between these design parameters are complex, making universally acceptable
design equations difficult to establish. However, the theory of gravity flow of broken ore does
lead to some relations that are of good use in layout design. Consideration of the progress of the
gravity flow of broken ore and waste indicates that a staggered arrangement of extraction drives,
as shown in Fig. 6.8, is generally preferable to one in which the drives on successive sublevels
are aligned vertically. With the staggered arrangement, hn = 2S. The optimal burden for my slice
height may be related to the minor semi-axis of the ellipsoid of flow (Fig. 6.5b). To reduce ore
loss, it is necessary that:
V  bn 
hn
2

1- ε 2  or
V  S(1 - 2) (6.9)
Value of V greatly in excess of those given by the right-hand side of Equation (6.9) will lead to
high dilution. If V is fixed by operational considerations, Equation (6.9) can be used to establish
the slice height, S. To minimize dilution, the width of the slice, A, should be less than or at most
equal to the width of flow, i.e:
A  2r (6.10)
Where r may be estimated from Equation (6.8), so that:
 
1
A  4.9S 1 - ε 2 2 (6.11)
If the flow ellipsoid for adjacent extraction drives do not intersect, the volume of unrecovered
ore will increase. If on the other hand, the ellipsoids overlap, dilution will increase (Fig. 6.8).
Just et al. (1973) developed equations for calculating the ore recovery and waste dilution
percentages from the volume of intersecting and overlapping draw ellipsoids. For the case
shown in Figs. 6.5 and 6.6 where the ellipsoid has a circular cross section, the volume of
material drawn, Vd, is:
Fig. 6.8 Geometry of Sublevel caving Layout in the Plane of the wall of a Slice
 
2

 h  an  h  an  1 h  h
Vd  a n b 1 
2   2     2  1   (6.12)
  
n
3 an   d  2 an  a n

And the corresponding volume of waste, Vw, is:

2
1  h  an  V   2  h  an  V 
π 2 sin    sin 
Vw  a n b n     (6.13)
3  d   d 
   
b 2n
d a 
2
tan 2
n
From these and other equations, design charts may be prepared to assist in evaluating
alternative layout designs case. If the slice width, A, is determined from Equation (6.11) or from
results of simulation trials or from field trials, the trial pillar width, P, can be calculated as:
P=A–B (6.14)
The width of the extraction drive, B, should be such as to promote a satisfactory shape of the
gravity flow with minimum dilution and even runoff of lumpy ore with minimum hang ups and
blockages. Janelid and Kvapil (1966) suggest that an approximate value of B can be determined
from:
B  1.2 KD (6.15)
Where D is the maximum particle size of the broken ore, and K varies from about 0.5 to 1.5
depending on the particle size distribution of the broken ore. The best results are obtained if ore
is drawn from across the full width of the production drive rather than from a narrower
extraction point. This promotes more closely parallel flow of the ore and ensures that the ore-
waste interface is flatter, resulting in less dilutions (Fig. 6.9). Parallel flow may be achieved if B 
A. In this case, Equation (6.14) indicates that the pillar width ,P, approaches zero, which is
clearly untenable. Under conditions of closely parallel flow, the required relation becomes:
A B P (6.16)
Increasing B to achieve parallel flow can introduce additional difficulties and costs in
maintaining drive and brow stability. These factors have to be weighed against the
disadvantages of the lower recovery and higher dilution that may result if narrower extraction
drives are used.
Janelid and Kvapil (1966) suggest that, as shown in Fig. 6.10, the optimal digging depth of the
loader, x, is:
  φ 
x  Hcot φ - tan 45o   (6.17)
  2 
If for example, =35o and H=3.0 m, Equation (6.17).
Finally, the slice or ring gradient, , must be chosen so as to minimize the intermixing of ore and
waste while maintaining operational practicability. The relative particle sizes of broken ore and
caved waste have an important influence on the optimal value of . A finer material will tend to
migrate through an underlying coarser material under the influence of gravity. Thus if the ore
has a larger particle size than waste, the ring should be drilled with  < 90o (Fig. 6.5).
Operationally, it is usually most convenient to drill the ring with  slightly less than 90o. This is
a common practice when the ore and waste have similar particle size. If the ore is finer than the
waste, loss of ore by migration into the waste can be reduced if  > 90o. However, values of  in
excess of 90o can introduce inefficiencies in drilling and can exacerbate difficulties experienced
with brow instability. Accordingly, such values are used only in exceptional circumstances. In
practice, the ring gradient can vary between about 60o and 110o.
6.3.4 Illustrative Example
Question: A 20 m thick auriferous orebody dipping steeply at angle of 70o is to be exploited by

underground mining technology using a SCMS with a trial inter-sublevel distance of 10 m.
(a) Using Janelid and Kvapil chart for estimating the eccentricity of the ellipsoid of flow
(Fig. 6.7), and assuming that the loosening factor for the broken ore  = 1.08,
calculate possible values of the major and minor semi-axes and volume of the flow
and limit ellipsoids?
(b) What values of ring burden and slice with are required to minimize dilution and ore
loss during stoping operation?
(c) Present in three standard views a possible design of a mining block for suck SCMS.
(d) Work out the number of men required for mining in a block of the mining system you
have designed.
(e) If the efficiency of the mining system is assumed to be 50 t/employee-shift, estimate
the number of blocks to be developed prior to mining to ensure continuous
production rate of 5000 t per day of 2 shifts.
Solution:
(a) Trial height of ellipsoid of flow, hn = 10 m

From Fig. 6.7, corresponding value of the eccentricity, ε  0.95
   
1 1
h 10
The semi-minor axis, bn  n 1  ε 2 2  1  0.95 2 2 = 1.56 m
2 2
The semi-major axis, an, can be found from:
1
1  2 2 2
ε  an - bn 
an  
1
 b2  2 bn
an   n  
1.56
  5.0 m
 1- ε 2 
 
1 1
1  ε 2 2 1 - 0.95 2
 
The volume of ellipsoid of flow, En, can be found from:
1
 En  2
bn   

 2.094h n 
1
 En  bn
2
2.094h n   1.56 2 2.094 (10)  50.96 m3
The volume of ellipsoid, Eg, can be found from:

Eg
β
E g - En
βE n 1.08 50.96 
 Eg    687.96 m3
β -1 1.08 - 1.00
b) The ring burden, V, to minimize dilution and loss is given by:
V  bn  1.56
V  2 m is a pratical value
The slice width to minimize dilution and ore loss is given by:
A  2r
Where r is the radius of the limit ellipsoid at hn:
  
1
r  s 6 1- ε 2 2
  
1
h 
  n  6 1- ε 2 2
 2 
 
1
 10  2
  6 1 - 0.95 2  3.82 m
 2
 A  2(3.82)  7.64 m
A = 7.6 m is a practical value.
The design of the layout of sublevels may be transverse of longitudinal. In this particular case,
the longitudinal is more appropriate since the orebody is not too wide. A typical design of the
layout is shown in Fig. 6.2 which is in fact the case at the Obuasi Mine of AGC in Ghana. The
design shows the dip direction, strike section and plan pertaining to the orebody:
The design also shows:

 The method of the mining system;
 The layout of the mining system;
 The technique of the mining system.
The design also shows:

 Dimension.
 Ventilation.
(b) Number of men required to work in a block per shift must be estimated according to the
labour requirements of the system. With reference to Fig. 6.2, for example, the number of
men required may be as follows:
1 LHD operator + 1 helper

1 Sublevel ring driver + 1 helper
1 jumbo driller for development + 1 helper
1 Blast man + 1 helper
1 Supervisor + 1 ‘chop boy’
Total number of men required = 10 men
This means in a block, the tonnage of ore produced, Tb, is:
Tb  50 t/man  shift 10 men   500 t/shift
Tonnage produced per day  500 t/sh2 sh/day   1000 t/day
The number of blocks that should be working in a day, Nb, is:
N 
5 000 t/day   5
b 1 000 t/day 
6.4 Block Caving Mining System (BCMS)
In BCMS, the mining method is such that a block of the ore is undercut to induce natural caving
of the ore and country rock. Drawing of the caved ore at the bottom of ore column causes the
caving action to continue upward until all of the ore above the undercut level is broken into sizes
suitable for handling. Figs. 6.11a and b show the design of a typical a BCMS. In the layout of the
development openings, main haulage ways from the shaft are interconnected by cross-cuts to
ensure good ventilation and to provide adequate access to orebody and thus enhance loading
operations. One or more sublevels are required for grizzly or slusher operations.
To provide ore-drawing facilities, chutes, drawpoints, or trenches are prepared in the orebody to
serve as orepasses are then driven to the slusher or grizzly sublevels above, if any, and to the
undercut sublevel, where they are belled out. Other finger raises may serve as manways. The
most critical development operation is the undercutting, which is carried out with the intention
of initiating caving.
The techniques of BCMS consist of the following:

 Drilling (undercut): This is carried out using pneumatic or hydraulic drill rigs which may
be percussive or rotary-percussive, the hole diameter being 50 - 80 mm;
 Blasting (undercut): This is carried out with ANFO, or slurries and bulk charging by
pneumatic loader or pumps. Firing may be electric or detonating force;
 Secondary blasting (on sublevels or in haulage drive): This may be carried out by
dynamite e bomb or drill and blast;
 Loading (through bells and orepasses): This is carried out by gravity flow to chute at
draw points or by LHDs, FEsL or slushers;
 Haulage (on main levels): This is carried out by LHDs, FELs, rail, trucks, belt conveyor
or slushers.
BCMS are applicable when the orebody and country rock are of weak or moderate strength and
cavable. The deposit may be massive, thick or tabular. The main advantages of BCMS are
following:
 They can be easily mechanized;
 They have high productivity and low cost.
The main disadvantages of BCMS are that:

 They need good ground control;
 They can have high dilution.
6.4.1 Design Considerations
The major objective in BCMS is to achieve induced caving. To achieve this objective the areas
and volume of the ore removed at the bottom of the block during undercutting, and the W/h
ratio of the resulting cross section must be sufficiently large to induce caving in the mass of the
orebody above which will then continue progressively on its own. Steady drawing of the caved
ore from the bottom of the block provides space for more broken ore to accumulate and cause
the caving action to continue upward until all the ore in the original block has caved and been
drawn. For successful ore caving and drawing in BCMS, the following need to be determined
and controlled:
 Cavability of the orebody;
 Dimension of openings;
 Positioning of drawing points;
 Extraction rate.
Taking cognizance of all these factors has led to the development of computerized draw-control
programs to regulate ore production at some mines. Such programs include economic analysis
because of large investment and tonnages associated with BCMS. Caving mechanics provide the
basics for understanding and controlling the operating factors as it does in SCMS.
Determining the cavability of the orebody is the first major task. Save and efficient block caving
is not possible if the ore rock forms stable arches or breaks into fragments of excessive size,
defined as being too large to pass through the system of drawpoints, bells and finger raises.
Several rock mechanics indices have being proposed as a measure of cavability (McMahon and
Kendrick (1969)). The most practical approach to determine cavability of orebody is by studying
the fracture pattern in the orebody, either from diamond drill cores or from the development
openings in the orebody. The only way of doing this is by visual inspection and physically
counting the fractures (100 mm or larger) within given lengths of 3 m. The ROD, which is
basically the percentage of core recovery from a drillhole, is a practical way of predicting the
cavability of the orebody. If the recovery is less than 60%, the orebody is likely to cave.
After determining the cavability of the orebody, the dimensions and drawpoints spacing must be
determined so that drawing of the caved ore can be controlled. The basis for determining the
dimensions and spacing of the drawpoints is the gravity-flow ellipsoid concept that was dealt
with during the discussion on SCMS. Excessive spacing deficient spacing produces zones of
draw which may yield unsatisfactory grade control and create weight problems on sill pillars.
The best option is to ensure that, the ellipsoids of flow are contiguous better with minor
overlapping and square or hexagonal arrangement. In practices, drawpoint spacing ranges from
4 to 12 m.
The extraction or drawing rate needs to be controlled to avoid excessive dilution. Depending on
the cavability of the ore, the practical draw rate in BCMS varies from 0.2 m to 12 m per day with,
mine production rates varying between 5 000 t/day and 6 000 t/day.

Caving Mining Systems: 6.1 Chapter Objectives and Expected Outcomes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Caving Mining Systems: 6.1 Chapter Objectives and Expected Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mine Planning and Design MN 471

The objectives of this chapter are:

At the end of the chapter, the student is expected to:

6.2 Nature of Caving Mining Systems

Caving mining systems however do have the following disadvantages:

6.3 Sublevel Caving Mining Systems (SCMS)

Fig. 6.1 An Isometric View of a Typical Sublevel caving System

The main advantages are:

 Men work in relatively safe conditions under cover;

The main disadvantages are:

6.3.1 Design Considerations

6.3.2 Gravity Flow of Broken Ore

Fig. 6.7 Eccentricity as a Function of the Height of the Ellipsoid of Flow

6.3.3 Design of Sublevel Caving Layout

A = width of slice (Fig. 6.8)

 = angle of repose of the ore at draw point (Fig. 6.10)

V  S(1 - 2) (6.9)

Where r may be estimated from Equation (6.8), so that:

And the corresponding volume of waste, Vw, is:

If for example, =35o and H=3.0 m, Equation (6.17).

6.3.4 Illustrative Example

Question: A 20 m thick auriferous orebody dipping steeply at angle of 70o is to be exploited by

(a) Trial height of ellipsoid of flow, hn = 10 m

The semi-major axis, an, can be found from:

The volume of ellipsoid of flow, En, can be found from:

The volume of ellipsoid, Eg, can be found from:

b) The ring burden, V, to minimize dilution and loss is given by:

Where r is the radius of the limit ellipsoid at hn:

The design also shows:

The design also shows:

1 LHD operator + 1 helper

Total number of men required = 10 men

This means in a block, the tonnage of ore produced, Tb, is:

Tb  50 t/man  shift 10 men   500 t/shift

Tonnage produced per day  500 t/sh2 sh/day   1000 t/day

The number of blocks that should be working in a day, Nb, is:

6.4 Block Caving Mining System (BCMS)

The techniques of BCMS consist of the following:

The main disadvantages of BCMS are that:

6.4.1 Design Considerations

You might also like