2010 - 03 SME - New Limitations To The State of The Art in Block Cave Designv2 - Van As

New limitations to
the State of the art in

Block Cave Design
A Moss & A van As

Overview
Context
Benchmarking
Mass flow, drawzone interaction and drawpoint spacing
Empirical methodology for derivation of DP spacing
Physical modelling results
Mine case studies - Consequences
Conclusions
CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

Context
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 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 block cave design criteria can be
confidently applied, both empirical and numerical. Empirical models are by
definition only applicable when applied within the constraints of the data that
supports them. Thus there is a desperate need to either reexamine and
expand the empirical models to incorporate the experiences from these
‘outlier’ mines or 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.
For numerical models to be used as reliable tools for block cave design they
ultimately need to be developed to run efficiently on supercomputers, at least
for the foreseeable future.

Context
• Rio Tinto with its JV partners, are planning to bring on

several ‘super caves’ within the next decade.
• These caves are deep and the fragmentation is not
expected to be coarse.
• The cave lifts are all approx 500m
• Recent experiences have indicated that mass flow and
draw interaction is questionable for high lift caves.
• ? How do we design these super caves ?

Benchmarking
Empirical
relationships derived
from pre-1990 data
Flores and Karzulovic (ICS, 2002)

Height of Draw Benchmark
CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved 6

Benchmarking
0.45
Empirical relationships TIME PERIOD
derived from short block
Before 1970
0.40 heights From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
0.35
Modern cave DP
RELATIVE FREQUENCY
spacings are largely

0.30 unvalidated
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DRAWPOINT SPACING (m)
Flores and Karzulovic (ICS, 2002)

Cave Interrelationships
Rock Mass
Characterisation
+
Stress
Primary
Cave propagation
Fragmentation
Secondary Cave subsidence

Fragmentation
Drawzone Drawpoint
Cave Flow
Interaction Spacing
Resource
Dilution Entry
Recovery
Fragmentation
Resource
Flow
Optimisation Propagation & Interactions

Optimisation
Terminology - Drawzones
After Kvapil (1992)
Ellipsoid of Loosening =
Isolated Movement Zone
Ellipsoid of Extraction =
Isolated Extraction Zone
CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio CONFIDENTIAL

Tinto, All Rights©2009,
Reserved
Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved
Effect of Fragmentation on Drawzone
Spacing
Shape and Width
2m 1m 0.5m 0.2m
Average Fragmentation Diameter

Influence of Porosity
Rate of vertical growth
5% 15% 25% 35%
Average Porosity

Isolated Draw - Laubscher & Heslop’s
Sand box Models
Drawpoints spaced too far apart (i.e. spacing > 1.5 x Isolated Drawzone width) showed no
interaction when drawn.
Heslop and Laubscher, 1981
Interactive Draw - Laubscher & Heslop’s
Sand box Models
When drawpoint were spaced close together (i.e. spacing < Isolated Drawzone width),
and drawn together then this resulted in a uniform drawdown of the material a certain
distance above the drawpoints. This gave rise to the concept of drawpoint interaction
and the height of the interaction zone (HIZ).
after Heslop and Laubscher, 1981
Mass Flow
(Laubscher 2000)

Isolation vs Interaction vs Interactive
ISOLATION : INTERACTION : INTERACTIVE :

spacing > 1.5 IDZ IDZ > spacing > 1.5 IDZ spacing < IDZ

What is Drawpoint Spacing?
• drawzone spacing = distance
between centres of drawzones
• 3 types of drawzone spacings:
within trough
across minor apex b
across major apex c

h
d
• design parameters affecting these:
a : tunnel spacing
a
b : drawpoint spacing
c : break-away length offset herringbone layout
d : break-away angle
H : trough spacing
Critical drawzone spacing
The drawzone spacing across major

apex is critical!
– longest of the three

– the related draw zones are the
most difficult to interact
Keep this distance to a

minimum

Empirical methodology for derivation of
DP spacing – After Laubscher 1994

Derivation of Interactive drawpoint
spacing for a given drawzone diameter
(IDZ)
1
4
6

Selection Process for Drawzone Spacing - 1
% +2m³ 0 1-5 6 - 20 21 - 45
Loading width
(after Laubscher, 1994)

Selection Process for Drawzone Spacing - 2
After Laubscher, 2000

Extraction Level Designed for Drawzone
Interaction ( Laubscher)

ICSI and ICSII (JKMRC) Physical model
A Critical Review of Interactive Draw
After Power (2000) and Castro (2005)

Castro’s Interaction Experiments
3600
Isolated & interactive draw Draw bell
3400 plan view at 1600 mm L
Movement zones of both DPs
3200 (overlapped)
800 IEZ (100 Kg) Interactive draw
3000
Isolated drawbell
600 2800 IEZ (500 Kg)
2600
IEZ (1000 Kg)
400 2400
IEZ (1500 Kg)
2200
200
IEZ (2100 Kg)
Height [mm]
2000
S-N axis (mm)
0 1800
-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
1600
-200
1400
1200
-400
1000
-600 800
600
-800
400
-1000 200
0
E-W axis (mm)
-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
S-N axis [mm]

Are Drawzones Ellipsoids or Cylinders?
• Physical modelling conducted by Marano (1980), Watson (1993)

and Ferjani (2003) all demonstrated that their IMZs had a
cylindrical shape, i.e. the IMZs did not continue to increase
laterally over time.
• Similarly, based on observations at various caving operations,
Laubscher (2000) proposed that IMZs are cylindrical in shape and
grow to a finite diameter that is dependant on the drawpoint width
and the fragmentation distribution.
• Pierce (2009) has also suggested that the phenomenon of
cylindrical IMZ shapes could be expected to develop in
caves where the column heights are high.

Implications of
No/Limited
Drawpoint Interaction

Implications of Isolated Draw
Early breakthrough
to surface and
Subsidence Failure
Early Dilution
After van As & Van Hout (2008)

Demonstration of Narrowing Drawzone
width using Stochastic Flow Modelling
33 24 17 12
months months months months
IEZ = 13m IEZ = 12m IEZ = 10m IEZ = 8m

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved 28
Case Studies
Northparkes, E26 Lift 2 and L2, North Extension

Palabora

Northparkes Mines, E26 Lift2
Narrow draw cones, rapid propagation, early

breakthrough, early dilution, fines migration,
loss of value

Lift 2 Rebop Model
North – South X-Section West - East X-Section
Lift 1 Caved
Material
9800m RL
9700m RL
9600m RL
9500m RL

Lift 2 Rebop Model
North – South X-Section

Density Plot
Blue = Zero Density (can’t cave)
Purple = Rock that can Cave
Pink – Lift 1 Cave material
Plan on 9500m RL
N

NPM Rebop Results-End Dec 2005
North – South X-Section West - East X-Section
Layer Plot
To observe mass flow of
caved material.

NPM Rebop Results-End Dec 2005
North – South X-Sections West - East X-Section
Remaining Markers Positions =

Caved Material (surface)

Impact – Early Dilution

Northparkes Mines Lift2 - Consequences
• Reserve Recovery – 13 Mt recovered of 24.5 Mt

planned
• Recovered approx 60% of planned Cu reserve
• Cave Propagation Rate – Up to 4m/day, planned
0.2m/day
• Breakthrough – 4.5 months, planned 3.5 years
• Drawcone (IEZ) diameter – < 10m, planned 15m
• Clay dilution entry after only 11 months production.

Northparkes Lift 2, North Extension
Hole 14
SMART MARKER 2174
410m/10days
MARKER 2210
310m/6 days

Northparkes North Extension – Fines
Migration Learnings
• Marker exercise confirmed that L1/subsidence
material reported to the undercut drill drives
• Material moves rapidly (> 30m/day) and from approx
118m horizontal distance;
• IEZ widths calculated and observed at 4.5m diameter
• Flow pattern in the draw column in L2NE is more
complicated than suggested by theory – rilling along
cave boundary interface + vertical movement in
column

Palabora Cave
Rapid propagation, early surface impact, fines

migration

Cave Subsidence \
Early Breakthrough
Cave induced
slope failure
IMZs

Fines Inrush
Courtesy of Palabora Mining Company

Conclusions - 1
• We cannot assume that the empirical (or even numerical) tools
are applicable for the design of high lift caves.
• Interactive draw may never be fully achieved for high column
caves, particularly across the major apices.
• Where interactive draw does occur, it could well disappear in time
with increasing draw column heights due to fining of material
through secondary fragmentation. Thus the drawzone diameters
will ‘shrink’ as a function of the diminish fragmentation and any
uniform mass flow (i.e. the HIZ) will disappear (if it ever exited in
the first place).
• This reduction in drawzone widths over time could result in larger
stagnant neighbouring ore columns containing ore that is never
recovered.
• We must ‘factor in’ the risk of loosing reserves when predicting
recoveries for high lift caves. NPV mining needs a ‘reality check’!

Conclusions - 2
• The reduction in drawzone width will also serve to accelerate the
movement of material from above, if this is waste then dilution entry may
well occur earlier than predicted by models that assume interactive draw
over the life of the cave.
• The caving industry must take cave flow monitoring seriously and invest
in cave flow and cave marker technologies as well as plan for significant
cave monitoring programmes. Without flow monitoring we will be unable
to validate and improve (or even develop) our predictive models

Thank You


2010 - 03 SME - New Limitations To The State of The Art in Block Cave Designv2 - Van As

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2010 - 03 SME - New Limitations To The State of The Art in Block Cave Designv2 - Van As

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New limitations to

the State of the art in

A Moss & A van As

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

• Rio Tinto with its JV partners, are planning to bring on

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

Flores and Karzulovic (ICS, 2002)

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved 6

spacings are largely

Flores and Karzulovic (ICS, 2002)

Secondary Cave subsidence

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

After Kvapil (1992)

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

Rate of vertical growth

5% 15% 25% 35%

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

ISOLATION : INTERACTION : INTERACTIVE :

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

across minor apex b

across major apex c

The drawzone spacing across major

– longest of the three

Keep this distance to a

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

(after Laubscher, 1994)

After Laubscher, 2000

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

After Power (2000) and Castro (2005)

S-N axis [mm]

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

• Physical modelling conducted by Marano (1980), Watson (1993)

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

After van As & Van Hout (2008)

IEZ = 13m IEZ = 12m IEZ = 10m IEZ = 8m

Northparkes, E26 Lift 2 and L2, North Extension

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

Narrow draw cones, rapid propagation, early

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

North – South X-Section West - East X-Section

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

North – South X-Section

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

Remaining Markers Positions =

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

• Reserve Recovery – 13 Mt recovered of 24.5 Mt

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

SMART MARKER 2174

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

Rapid propagation, early surface impact, fines

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved

Courtesy of Palabora Mining Company

CONFIDENTIAL ©2009, Rio Tinto, All Rights Reserved