ARMA 11- 282

The implication of high block heights on cave flow and recoveries

van As, A.
Rio Tinto, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Power, G.P
Power Geotechnical, Diamond Valley, QLD, Australia
Van Hout, G.J.
Rio Tinto, Antwerp, , Belgium

Copyright 2011 ARMA, American Rock Mechanics Association

th
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 45 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: Over the past decade mining companies have adopted aggressive mining strategies when designing their new block
cave mines, ultimately driven by NPV. Block heights have typically doubled or even quadrupled compared to those of the past
and similarly drawpoint spacings have increased by up to 30%. The poor track record experienced from several of these new
mines brings into question whether the ‘state of the art’ in cave flow and recovery prediction tools can be confidently applied, both
empirical and numerical methods. Empirical models are by definition only applicable when applied within the constraints of the
data that supports them. Thus there is an urgent need to both re-examine and expand the empirical models to incorporate the
experiences from these ‘outlier’ mines or to develop new models. Numerical models, on the other hand, face different challenges,
the greatest being the inability to model the required level of detail on a mine-wide scale, i.e. computational limitations.

1. INTRODUCTION
Unlike most mining methods, block cave mines demand
a large capital investment for the development and
construction of a significant portion (if not all) of the
mine prior to the commencement of any production.
Thus mining engineers are tasked to design and optimize
the resource recovery to ensure the maximum return on
investment whilst still tempered by practical mining and
geotechnical constraints. In the past, one of these
mining constraints has been the height of the block to be
caved. The main reasoning behind the imposed block
height constraint is to ensure that the orebody is able to
cave easily, that dilution entry is minimized and that the
drawpoint brow integrity is maintained until all of the Figure 1. Evolution through time of the trend for the block
economic ore above is extracted. Benchmarking studies height in block/panel caving mines (after ISC-II 2004).
conducted by Florez and Karzulavic for the International
Caving Study II [1], clearly show the increasing trend to derived from observations of laboratory scale physical
model experiments (using sand or rock aggregates),
develop caves with higher block heights. The latest
limited mine scale field trials (using marker recovery
proposed block heights being up to twice the maximum
experiments), mine observations and numerical methods
presented on the chart in Figure 1.
(numerical and stochastic models).
The main mechanisms of cave flow and mixing within
The main reason for relying on empirical rather than
the caved ore column are arguably either poorly
mine-calibrated numerical methods has simply been due
understood or over simplified in the predictive
modelling tools used in estimating the resource recovery. to the vast scale of the problem, as mine scale modelling
To date the basis for most cave flow and resource of interparticular flow behaviour demands extensive
recovery prediction tools are based on empirical rules computation power.
However recent experiences from modern, higher block
height caves as well as recent advances in cave flow
research in conjunction with the development of
improved modelling tools and sophisticated flow
monitoring systems have challenged the conventional
wisdom regarding cave mass flow. Consequently the
suitability of using existing empirical rules, for recovery
predictions where the block heights are ‘poles apart’
from those from which they have been derived, is
justifiably questionable.
2. CURRENT THEORY AND DEBATE
Empirical theory for cave flow is founded on three main
flow mechanisms, namely granular flow, mass flow and
void diffusion.
2.1. Dynamic Ellipsoids or Static Cylinders of Draw?
Granular flow is described by Kvapil [2] as the
movement of material within an ellipsoidal volume
beneath a flowing drawpoint. These ellipsoids of
motion are characterised by higher velocities in the
centre, with lower velocities closer to the boundary at
which these become zero. The ellipsoid of material
movement is termed either the ‘limit ellipsoid’, draw
zone or ‘isolated movement zone’ (IMZ) whilst the
ellipsoid of material extraction is termed either the
‘ellipsoid of draw’ or ‘isolated extraction zone (IEZ),
refer to Figure 2. Kvapil [2] also established a direct
relationship between the diameter to height ratio of the
ellipsoids and the average fragmentation size.
Figure 2. Terminology used to describe the zones of material
movement and material extraction
It is important to note that numerous other physical
modelling studies [3,4,5] and mine-scale marker
experiments [6] have demonstrated that draw zones may
also eventually form as cylinders with a constant
diameter dependant on the drawpoint width and the
fragmentation distribution.
Pierce [7] has commented that in coarse material the
occurrence of stable arching plays and important role in
narrowing the IMZs. Pierce postulates that under such
conditions it is possible for the stagnant material outside
the IMZ perimeter to form a stable hoop and restrict
lateral growth of the IMZ. This phenomenon could well
explain why in operational caves, which typically have a
bi-modal fragmentation distribution at the drawpoint,
that the observed IMZs are narrower than that predicted
by flow codes based on ellipsoidal IMZs.
Pierce [7] has also suggested that this phenomenon of
cylindrical IMZ shapes should be expected to develop in
caves where the column heights exceed several hundred
particle diameters, a real scenario for most modern block
caves.
2.2. Does Draw Zone Interaction and Mass Flow
Occur at the Cave Scale?
Laubscher [8] describes mass flow as the uniform
downward movement of material without any form of
mixing. According to Laubscher, mass flow occurs
above the height at which the draw zones above all
operating drawpoints coalesce and interact. Below this
zone of draw zone interaction, termed the height of
interaction zone, (HIZ), is the region characterised by
granular flow, as illustrated in Figure 3.
Surface Rill
Dilution
Ore
Limit Ellipsoid
Mass Flow
Even draw down
Rapid Draw in Centre Height of Interaction Zone
Interactive zone Low pressure
Elipsoid of draw
High pressure
Figure 3. Illustration of Mass Flow and Interactive Gravity
Flow (after Laubscher 1992).
Thus in order to maximise recovery and minimise
dilution it is imperative that drawpoints are spaced
sufficiently close to ensure that draw zones interact and
mass flow prevails. However if draw zone interaction
fails to occur or if poor drawcontrol results in highly
differential rates of draw between adjacent drawpoints,
then mass flow will not eventuate and any overlying
waste will rapidly flow down into the drawpoints, in
particular if it is finer than the underlying ore. This early
dilution entry has the obvious unwanted effect of
reducing the value of the ore, or in some cases even
prematurely sterilising the orebody.
Thus the concept of the HIZ is fundamental to the
successful prediction of ore recovery. As stated by
Laubscher [8], “If interactive theory is accepted then the
higher the draw column the lower the dilution. This is
on the basis that the ore/dilution interface will be
maintained as a distinct zone and that dilution will only
enter the ore column when the ore/waste contact reaches
the height of the interaction zone”. For the successful
prediction of ore recovery the design engineer must
answer the non-trivial question of what height above the
extraction level the HIZ occurs (or whether it occurs at
all). The higher the interaction zone, the earlier granular
flow, material mixing and consequently dilution occurs.
The question being debated though is whether drawpoint
interaction implies that the IMZs must overlap for mass
flow to occur? The early work by Kvapil [2] suggested
IMZs must overlap yet later studies by Laubscher [5, 8]
et al argued that IMZs need only be spaced within 1.5
times the IMZ width. Furthermore Laubscher postulated
that interacting draw zones within the same drawbell
increase to up to 1.5 times their combined diameter,
similar interaction across the minor apex, between
drawbells also caused an 1.5 times increase in combined
diameter, thereby arguing that interaction across the
major apex was indeed possible if drawpoints were
drawn in unison.
Figure 4. Progressive draw zone interaction between adjacent
drawpoints, and drawbells (Laubscher 2000).
Contrary to Laubscher’s theory for the progressive
development of interacting draw zones and drawbells,
recent physical modelling experiments by Castro [9],
using aggregate material, demonstrated that interaction
of these movement zones did not increase the size of the
extraction zones, see Figure 5.
Isolated & interactive draw
plan view at 1600 mm L
800
Interactive draw
Isolated drawbell
600
400
200
S-N axis (mm)
0
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
E-W axis (mm)
Figure 5. Plan view above the physical model showing the
negligible difference between measured isolated widths and
draw zone widths when concurrently drawing drawpoints
spaced at a distance equal to 1.5 times the IMZ
2.3. Is Void Diffusion a More Appropriate Mechanism
at the Cave Scale?
Laubscher also described a third flow mechanism that
can take place in non-uniform material where a high
porosity, highly mobile zone above a drawpoint is
bounded by compacted, stagnant material. Essentially
this is a form of isolated draw, conceptualised as the
upward movement of voids and thus described using
‘void diffusion’ theory. The hypothesis is that this type
of mechanism dominates flow during the early stages of
cave development and early draw, until granular flow
develops. “It is postulated that chimneying, piping or
funnelling may occur when a succession of voids work
their way through the caved material to surface. Once
the path is established and filled with mobile fine
material, it becomes a preferred flow channel providing
a path for the migration of dilution” [8].
3. LEARNINGS FROM OPERATING CAVES
Experience from modern operations with relatively high
block heights (though considerably shorter than those
currently proposed) has lead to valuable insights that
have sparked the debate over the correct evaluation of
the ‘super’ high column caves. Due to the sensitivity of
the subject the operations are kept anonymous and only
a summary of the learnings are itemised below.
• Where a void forms between the cave back and the
caved muck pile, free surface rilling is a
significant mechanism of material flow,
particularly where differential draw prevails.
Under these conditions the shear dilation of the
material leads to a porosity increase causing IMZs
to grow quite wide and rilling occurring as the
predominant mechanism for lateral movements.
 This scenario is very different to that for high
column caves with no airgap.
• Similarly, an important observation from borehole
cameras and flow marker recoveries is that
surface/interface rilling is a dominant mechanism
of lateral movement where the cave boundaries
(cave back or cave walls) are inclined and develop
‘overhangs’. Interestingly, it appears that
boundary drawpoints are often characterised by a
distinct large proportion of both fines and coarse
fragmentation (i.e. a bimodal fragmentation
distribution). A plausible explanation is that the
material up against solid boundary walls tends to
dilate and shear, thereby increasing the porosity of
the material and promoting fines migration (well
described by void diffusion theory). An example
of the extremely mobility of this zone is illustrated
by the recovery of a physical marker which
travelled around 420m in just 6 days.
• Cave boundaries must be incorporated as a
constraint into all cave flow / resource recovery
models. Best results will undoubtedly be
produced from coupling cave propagation and
cave flow models where the dynamic relationships
between the two can be simulated iteratively.
• Cave flow markers installed in areas unaffected by
surface rilling tend to reveal near vertical
movement in the cave column.
• Cave markers have reaffirmed the obvious
conclusion that IMZ width is directly related to the
competency of the rock mass (i.e. average
fragmentation size).
• Dilution entry, measured from unambiguous
marker horizons and physical markers, has
revealed that draw zone diameters (IEZ) are
significantly narrower than predicted or modelled.
Back-analysis of draw zone diameters (assuming a
constant bulking factor of 20%) have verified
widths of as low as 6m-9m (or greater than 50%
reduction from predicted and modelled).
This finding, although alarming, is contrary to
findings arrived from back-analysed end-of-life
resource recovery calculations which typically
demonstrate high metal recovers overall. It is not
uncommon for caving operations to claim over
95% recovery from around 120% of the tonnes.
• Where IMZs appear narrow the rate of cave
propagation is more rapid. This is not to say that
narrow IMZs result in rapid propagation (in fact
there is considerable evidence to prove that
propagation is often unrelated to production), but
rather that rapid cave propagation tends to lead to
the formation of narrower draw zones.
• IMZ diameters do not appear to grow laterally
with height in the far field (i.e. away from the
influence of the drawpoint). There have been
numerous observations in the field where draw
zone geometries resemble narrow cylinders rather
than ellipsoids.
• Generally speaking, resource recovery modelling
results (which are based on ellipsoidal IMZs and
IEZs) tend to understate initial grades and
overstate grades in the latter mine life. The likely
reason being that in the models the lateral IMZ
ellipsoidal growth occurs too early in the
production cycle thereby stinting the early vertical
IMZ growth and forcing early interactive draw.
As a result any overlying dilution is intercepted
and mobilised too late thereby under-predicting
the real impact of dilution.
• For short block heights (particularly in panel
caves), rilling may well prove the dominant flow
mechanism occurring at the advancing cave front
and thus mask or avert the effects of narrow draw
zones. However in caves with high block heights
and overlying waste, narrower (than modelled)
IMZs will inevitably accelerate dilution entry and
if no draw interaction occurs before this time then
the potential for early drawpoint shut-off is a
significant risk.
4. MODELLING THE RECOVERIES FOR
MULITPLE CAVE BLOCK HEIGHTS
Numerical models offer significant advantages in flow
modelling, as they enable the user to apply flow rules to
block model data and produce recovery results for scales
up to life of mine. For most modern mines, budgeted
grade recovery is predicted through the use of numerical
flow models. The way these models work and how
those are used therefore has a significant influence on
the assessment of the viability of a project.
Inexperienced model users may incorrectly believe that
these models are capable of predicting for the user what
the draw zone (IEZ) diameters will be. In fact, it is the
user of the model who inputs parameters which
determine the flow width to be modelled. As such, these
models are the means by which assumptions on IEZ
width are translated into revenue forecasts. This can
lead to significant problems if insufficient scrutiny is
placed on the modelling parameters being input into
these models, or on the capacity of the models
themselves to model flow and recovery in a complex
environment.
The choice of model to be used for a specific task fine and very fine fragmentation profiles (fragmentation
depends on the requirements of the user but calibration was modelled as uniform) and for a single (600m block
for forward prediction is required for each of the height), double (2 x 300m block heights) and triple (3 x
methodologies chosen. 200m block heights) block caves (as depicted in Figures
6-8).
• If a large number of modelling simulations are
needed under non-complex cave propagation and coarse Medium fine Very fine
flow circumstances, or the generation of
schedules, empirical rules based models can be
appropriate. Where possible in Greenfields
situations, models should be calibrated against
appropriate benchmarks. Rule based models are
most effective at brown-fields operations when
site calibration data is well established from
periods of previous operation, allowing reasonable
calibration of the model.
• If it is required to determine realistic flow shapes
or which need to retain some integrity with
physical properties then hybrid empirical-physical
laws models can be used These models produce Figure 6. CA model illustrating the collective IEZs that
less rapid results, but can calibrate results to develop in a single lift cave for varying fragmentation profiles.
realistic flow profiles (dependent on the skills of
coarse Medium fine Very fine
the user).
• If more detailed understanding of the particle to
particle interaction is required, leading to an
understanding of mixing and variability, or the
impact of cave propagation variations, particle to
particle based models may be more appropriate
These programs have the capacity to model such
particle to particle interactions, and produce output
that is more in keeping with what is understood
about flow in full scale. Unfortunately these
models demand significant computer processing
power and as such the size of the model is limited
to simulate a handful of drawpoints at best.
4.1. Example Evaluation Of an Orebody Using a
Cellular Automata Flow Model Figure 7. CA model illustrating the collective IEZs that
Model Design develop in a two-lift cave for varying fragmentation profiles.
coarse Medium fine Very fine
To demonstrate how modelling is used to evaluate the
viability of a high block orebody, several simplistic,
cellular automata (CA) models of a hypothetical orebody
were constructed and run for various block heights and
various fragmentation profiles.
The hypothetical model comprised of a 200m wide by
200m long by 1200m high block, the lower 600m
orebody contained a uniform grade throughout and was
overlain by 600m of waste at zero grade.
The mining footprint contained an area of 150m x 150m
and comprised of 64 drawpoints spaced on a 14m x 14m,
offset herring bone layout. Production assumed uniform
draw down and excellent draw control (rarely achieved).
Figure 8. CA model illustrating the collective IEZs that
The objective of the modelling was to evaluate the develop in a three-lift cave for varying fragmentation profiles.
percentage recovery of the orebody for coarse, medium,
It should be noted that the CA model implicitly
Grade Profile For 1, 2 & 3 Three Lift Caves
simulates the effects of fragmentation size as a function
100
of the drawzone dimensions, i.e. coarser fragmentation is
represented by a short, wide ellipsoid whilst finer
fragmentation is represented by a taller, narrower

Grade %
ellipsoid. This is controlled through the use of a 80
probability factor setting in the CA modelling software.

60
Model Results
27 29 31 33 35
Production Draw 37 39 41
The results proved typical of all flow models based 1 Lift Very Fine 2 Lifts Medium 3 Lifts Coarse
on the concept of ellipsoidal draw zones. The final
recoveries are tabulated in Table 1 below. Figure 10. CA Modelled recoveries for more realistic
fragmentation profiles associated with comparative multi-lift
# Lifts block caves.
Fragmentation
1 2 3
coarse 99.99 99.57 98.79
medium 99.82 98.50 96.76 5. THE EFFECTS OF CAVE COLUMN HEIGHT
fine 99.45 96.93 94.29
Very fine 97.53 91.32 87.49 Assuming interactive theory is accepted, to determine
the height of the HIZ the engineer must calculate the
Table 1. CA modelling recovery results run for multi-lift caves average width of the draw zones to determine where and
with varying fragmentation profiles. when they will interact. In doing so the engineer must
first decide whether the draw zones develop as
expanding ellipsoidal IMZs or cylinders with a constant
In essence, the results demonstrate that the greater the diameter as under draw.
number of lifts the lower the recovery, particularly for
orebodies with fine fragmentation, the reason being that A summary of the important issues and risks to be
the waste is ‘tapped’ sooner and dilutes the orebody considered in the evaluation of high lift caving projects
earlier (refer to Figure 9). are:
However if one assumes that the fragmentation for the
single lift cave is finer due to the greater overburden (i) Interactive draw may never be fully achieved for
loads and greater comminution in the column, then high column caves, particularly across the major
recoveries may prove contrary, as indicated by the apices. And void diffusion may prove the
hypothetical line in Figure 9. Furthermore, Figure 10 dominant flow mechanism.
illustrates that although dilution entry may be delayed by (ii) Where interactive draw does occur, it could well
reducing the number of lifts, the rate of dilution disappear in time with increasing draw column
increases with lift height. heights due to extensive fining of material through
secondary fragmentation and higher confining
Modelled Recoveries For 1, 2 & 3 Lift  (tangential) stresses around the draw zone. Thus
the draw zone diameters could ‘shrink’ as a
Block Caves function of the diminishing fragmentation and any
100 uniform mass flow (i.e. the HIZ) will disappear.
Modelled Block  Recovery %

95 (iii) The possible reduction in draw zone width over

time would serve to accelerate the vertical
90 movement of material from above, if this is waste
then dilution entry may well occur earlier than
85 predicted by models that assume interactive draw
1 2 3 over the life of the cave.
# Lifts
coarse medium fine Very fine Anticipated Trend
This reduction in draw zone widths over time
could sterilise large portions of the ore column.
Figure 9. Modelled recoveries for multi-level block cave lifts
with varying fragmentation profiles. (iv) High abutment stresses are inevitable, thus an
advanced undercut methodology with minimal
extraction level development ahead of the
 undercut must be adopted to minimise/avoid
abutment stress damage.
(v) Vertical point loading from the overlying column
will prove a common phenomenon that can only
be controlled through strict draw control practice
and uncompromising draw compliance.
(vi) The drawpoint and brow should be very well
supported with a strong lining to minimise brow
wear. Remedial support activities often lead to
undesirable consequences such as exacerbating
point loading and irregular draw ultimately
leading to poor recoveries.
(vii) The shape of the cave boundaries may vary
significantly due to the orientation and magnitude
of the induced stresses and thus a vertical
projection of the cave walls from the footprint is
highly unlikely and unrealistic.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Current flow models are an integral part of the reserve
estimation process, but presently do not completely
explain outcomes we see in operating block caves and
thus warrant further development. For example, the
importance of the propagating cave back and cave walls
on cave flow is clearly evident and is instrumental in
promoting the rilling mechanism often observed in
operating mines. In addition, the development of static,
cylindrical draw zones or ellipsoids that develop
adequately narrow draw columns close to cylindrical,
must also be incorporated into flow models so that their
effects on recoveries can be quantified and financial
implications evaluated.
The arguments presented for a critical review of the
empirical methods used for designing and evaluating the
viability of high block caves is not a criticism of the
pioneering work conducted in the past. On the contrary
it is a criticism of the ‘blind application’ of the empirical
methods and failure to incorporate new learning’s to
improve the tools for current applications. Laubscher
clearly understood and articulated the problems that face
design engineers and his following statements ring truer
now for modern, high lift caves than for those during the
time at which it was written:
“Drawpoint spacing is one of the most important and
controversial items in cave mining. Often mine planners
will only consider spacings that have been or are in use
regardless of the mining environment or the rock mass.
The object of this investigation is to present sound
design parameters backed by underground experience.
There are good reasons to increase drawpoint spacing so
as to improve the strength of the extraction level, larger
and longer drawpoints for larger LHD’s and to reduce
the amount of development, provided there are sufficient
drawpoints. This all is only permissible if an
economically viable quantity of ore is recovered at an
acceptable dilution content” [8].
The ultimate decision facing the design engineer is what
drawpoint spacing to adopt that will ensure the greatest
recovery of the resource over the life of the cave. It may
well be that other constraints (such as rock mass strength
and stress) ultimately dictate the final drawpoint spacing
so as to ensure the integrity of the production and/or
undercut levels over the life of the cave, nevertheless the
models used to predict resource recovery, which
ultimately feed into the financial evaluation, must
represent reality so that an informed assessment is made
of the project risk. Experience from operating caves
suggest that this has not been the case and as a result
significant reserves have been unrecovered.
REFERENCES
1. International Caving Study II, 2005. End of Project
ICSII Report. JKMRC and Itasca Consulting Group,
Inc: Brisbane.
2. Kvapil, R., 1965. Gravity flow of granular material in
hoppers and bins-Part 1. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences. Vol. 2,. 35-41.
3. McCormick, R.J., 1968. How wide does a drawpoint
draw? Engineering and Mining Journal, June. 106-116.
4. Marano, G. 1980. The interaction between adjoining
drawpoints in free flowing materials and its application
to mining, Chamber of Mines Journal, Zimbabwe, May
2001. 25-32.
5. Laubscher, D.H. 1994. Cave mining – the state of the
art, The Journal of The South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy. October 1994.
6. Janelid, I. 1972. Study of the Gravity Flow Process in
Sublevel Caving. International Sublevel Caving
Symposium, Atlas Copco, Stockholm.
7. Pierce M, E. 2009. A model for gravity flow of
fragmented rock in block caving mines. PhD thesis,
University of Queensland.
8. Laubscher, D, H. 2000. Chapter 26, Drawpoint
Spacing, Block Caving Manual. Prepared for
International Caving Study. JKMRC and Itasca
Consulting Group, Inc: Brisbane.
9. Castro, R. 2006. Study of the mechanisms of granular
flow for block caving‘, PhD thesis, University of
Queensland.