The Role of Mass Concrete in Soft Rock Block Cave Mines
R J Butcher1
ABSTRACT
Concrete has been used for many years in block caving, principally for
drift and drawpoint linings. This paper describes the requirements for
concrete in this application, the required properties, the mix design, and
transportation and placement systems. In addition a concrete mix design
rationale is also proposed.
INTRODUCTION
Concrete has been used in block caving for many years, mainly
as linings for slusher drifts and drawpoint mouth support in
trackless caving operations. This paper describes the application
of concrete in slusher, panel and inclined drawpoint caves.
Technical aspects such as strength, workability, transport and
placement of underground concrete are also discussed.
APPLICATION OF CONCRETE IN
BLOCK CAVING
Gallagher and Loftus (1960) showed that concrete has been used
in block caving for over 40 years. However, in recent years, with
the increased application of panel caves, deeper operational
depths and larger tunnel sizes, concrete usage has decreased
(possibly because of the costs associated with concrete lining of
large tunnels and longer lining commissioning times). In this
regard it is important to understand the advantages and
disadvantages of mass concrete in block caving. In block caving,
concrete has the following advantages:
• Concrete can be cast into most shapes provided that suitable
moulds (shutters) can be constructed. In practice this means
that different drift profiles can be cast.
• Concrete has a high impact and abrasion resistance. This
means that the structural stability of linings is only affected
to a limited extent by ore flowing through drawpoints, by
scrapers operating in drifts and by LHD body and bucket
impacts.
• Concrete is relatively resistant to the effects of blasting
emissions and peak air over pressures. This means that the
material can be used in drawpoint mouths where secondary
blasting is carried out.
• Concrete is waterproof and weather resistant, meaning that
drifts and drawpoint linings remain intact even after the host
rock comprising the draw horizon has been eroded or
weathered away. This is a common situation in diamond
mines, where kimberlites weather rapidly due to water
inflows from the muckpile.
• Concrete structures are capable of supporting fractured
drawpoint brows and cave foundations (draw horizons).
The main disadvantages with the use of concrete and possible
reasons for the decline in the quantities poured underground are:
• Concrete is stiff and inflexible and cannot sustain the
deformations that accompany undercutting. This results in
failure of tunnel linings and the need for drift repairs.
Installing linings after undercutting (pre-undercut) or
reducing the percentage of draw horizon development before
1. Senior Mining Engineer, SRK Consulting, 265 Oxford Road, Illovo,
Johannesburg, South Africa.
MassMin 2000 Brisbane, Qld, 29 October - 2 November 2000
undercutting (advanced undercutting) can reduce this
problem. Lacasse et al (1981) and Gallagher and Loftus,
(1960) indicate that concrete lining damage due to undercut
stresses becomes unacceptable when operational depths
exceed ±450 m (when post undercutting is used). Under such
conditions in excess of 50 per cent of the concrete will
require replacing.
• the time and hazards associated with the removal of damaged
concrete linings;
• the high-cost of lining installation;
• high capital and labour costs associated with batching plant
installation and operation;
• quality control difficulties and problems in achieving
concrete linings of the required strength, thickness and
homogeneity; and
• material supply problems, which mainly affects mines in
remote areas where mix designs necessitate the use of
specific cement and aggregate types. An example of this, is
the difficulty in the supply of river sand for drawpoint
concrete in parts of the Free State Province of South Africa.
BLOCK CAVE CONCRETE APPLICATIONS
A description is given of the main applications of concrete in
block caving in the following sections.
Slusher block cave drift linings
Figure 1 shows a typical concrete lining in a slusher drift block
cave. Mass concrete is used in slusher drifts to provide cave
foundation support, which has a high blast, abrasion, and
weathering resistance. Table 1 shows the typical characteristics
of mass concrete slusher drift linings (Lacasse et al, 1981;
Gallagher and Loftus, 1960).
Taking cognisance of standard concrete mix design methods
(Fulton, 1994) and the author’s experience, the following
concrete mix specifications can be determined. These
specifications are a general guide to the quantities used per cubic
metre of concrete.
Aspect Quantity Remarks
Cement 480 - 650 kg Up to 75 per cent fly ash OPC
replacement used.
Sand 715 - 800 kg River sand preferred, crusher dust used.
Stone 1000 - 1200 kg 19 mm diameter stone normally used.
Water 150 - 2001 Plasticisers/super-plasticiser used.
Accelerators and retarders rarely used.
Fibre 60 kg Rarely added due to cost.
Concrete is usually batched and mixed near drifts in a typical
slusher mine. In the case of shallower operations a surface
batching and mixing plant is used. The concrete is then gravity
fed to a re-mixing station before pumping to the drift shutters.
Drift concrete is placed into steel shutters at the construction site.
Trepannier and Underwood (1981) indicate that at King Beaver
mine no vibrators were used to aid compaction. It would appear
that no curing aids were used after pouring. Ready-mixed
423
R J BUTCHER

FIG 1 - Typical slusher concreted drift arrangement.

TABLE 1
Slusher drift block cave concrete characteristics.

Lining thickness Uniaxial compressive Water/cement ratio Slump Mining depth

strength @ 28 days
180 - 1000 mm 30 - 50 MPa 0.31:0.65 100 - 230 mm 400 - 1000 m

TABLE 2
Panel cave drawpoint mass concrete characteristics.

Lining thickness Uniaxial compressive Water/cement ratio Slump Mining depth

strength @ 28 days
±450 mm ±24 MPa ±0.44 ±100 mm 300 - 1200 m

concrete is used for drift construction, the ready mix being Using the standard Henderson mix design (Watson and
transported underground to a re-mix plant before it is pumped to Keskumaki, 1992), the following concrete mix specifications are
the drifts. Pumping equipment consists of Schwing pumps, with given below.
pumping distances being between 75 and 400 m. Concrete is
transported via 150 mm diameter steel pipes. Experience from Aspect Quantity Remarks
both King Beaver and Kimberley indicates that pump Cement 318 kg Up to 60 per cent fly ash/OPC replacement.
performance decreases significantly with an increase in line
Sand 603 kg Crusher dust or river sand used.
bends.
Stone 767 kg 19 mm diameter stone normally used
Trackless drawpoint mouths Water 140 l

Figure 2 shows a typical trackless drawpoint concrete lining.

Mass concrete is used in drawpoint mouths to provide support to
fractured or weathered drawpoint brows, protect support
measures from secondary blasting, LHD damage and also to
withstand abrasion from the rilling ore. Table 2 shows the typical
characteristics of a trackless drawpoint mouth mass concrete.
Concrete batching and mixing is conducted at the drawpoint
construction site. However current concrete technology does
preclude the use of concrete mix at a central batching plant and
delivered to site in agitator trucks. Materials are bulk delivered

424 Brisbane, Qld, 29 October - 2 November 2000 MassMin 2000

 THE ROLE OF MASS CONCRETE IN SOFT ROCK BLOCK CAVE MINES

FIG 2 - Typical panel cave concrete drawpoint mouth lining.

FIG 3 - Incline drawpoint cave. Drawpoint mouth (modified after Gaths Mine visitors handbook).

MassMin 2000 Brisbane, Qld, 29 October - 2 November 2000 425

R J BUTCHER
and mixed at site by small mobile plant. The concrete is placed
in the shutters by means of a concrete placer. No curing aids are
used (Watson and Keskimaki, 1992).
Trackless drawpoints - inclined drawpoint/front cave
drawpoints
Figure 3 shows a typical drawpoint arrangement. Published
literature on concrete specifications is limited (Gaths Mine
visitors handbook). The role of concrete in this type of drawpoint
is similar to the panel cave situation however due to the fact that
drawpoints will be subjected to cave abutment stresses longer
(drawpoints are not de-stressed by undercutting, Jakubec, 1992)
concrete compressive strengths would have to be higher. Figure 3
shows the reinforcing used in the lining. In this respect it can be
expected that a concrete mix should have higher workability than
that used for panel cave drawpoints (slumps). This is due to the
fact that a limited clearance, exists between the drawpoint shutter
and the heavy drift support measures. This makes the use of
vibrators difficult. Higher slumps are necessary to prevent the
formation of voids in the concrete. Table 3 gives the drawpoint
concrete characteristics.
Using the information given in Table 3 the following concrete
mix specifications are to be determined using standard concrete
mix design principals (Fulton, 1994).
Aspect Quantity Remarks
Cement 451 kg OPC
Sand 624 kg Crusher dust
Stone 1240 kg 19 mm diameter stone
Water 220 l
The comments regarding batching and mixing of concrete are
similar to those made for the trackless panel cave situation.
Concrete design rationale
From a review of literature, it appears that the selection of
concrete strengths, mixes, material and lining thickness have
been based on local experience. In the case of slusher caves,
concrete drift linings were designed on the experiences gained in
North America. Little is written regarding the rationale on which
the actual mixes were designed. From the information
summarised in Tables 1, 2 and 3 it would appear that mixes were
based on the need to produce a standard structural-grade to high
strength concrete (+20 MPa UCS @ 28 days - Cement and
Concrete, 1991) with a high to very high degree of workability
(+100 mm slump). It can be assumed that the high concrete
strength was required to prevent failure during undercut
abutment loading. The high degree of workability is required for
pumping and self-compaction in congested shutters.
BLOCK CAVE CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
RATIONALE
From the above discussion it is clear that underground block cave
concrete has been designed according to local experience and
probably on basic civil engineering mix design principles. In this
TABLE 3
Characteristics of inclined drawpoint/front cave block cave drawpoint mass concrete.
Lining thickness Uniaxial compressive Water/cement ratio
strength @ 28 days
± 300 mm ± 30 MPa
426 Brisbane, Qld, 29 October - 2 November 2000
respect it is important to recognise the different roles and
applications of mass concrete in a civil engineering environment
and in a block caving application. These differences are given
below:
• From the author’s experience, quality control in all
underground concrete practices tends to be lower in block
caving, resulting in the need for simpler mix designs.
• Concrete in block caving is subject to variable loading
conditions - high compressive stresses during undercutting to
tensile stresses during the production phase of the cave. In
civil engineering, concrete structures are normally subjected
to more or less static loading conditions.
• The loads imposed on block cave linings are generally higher
than in civil engineering. This results in a higher demand, not
only for uniaxial compressive strengths, but also for tensile
and shear strengths.
• Owing to the undercut abutment stresses, secondary blasting
and muckpile point load damage, concrete replacement and
rehabilitation is more frequent in block caving operations,
whereas, in civil engineering, lining replacement is not
generally undertaken.
• The limited clearance (±350 mm) between the shutter and the
supported rockwall in trackless blockcaves may make the use
of poker vibrators difficult. This results in a need for a
concrete with a higher workability (sloppy concrete). In
cases where a damaged slusher drift concrete lining has to be
totally removed during drift repair (resulting in the fact that
concrete installation is conducted under a highly fractured
back where concrete vibration cannot be conducted safely)
higher concrete workability is also required. In civil
engineering it common practice for vibrators to be used to
aid concrete mobility.
From the above information it is evident that block cave
conditions are different to civil engineering practice resulting in
the need for a different rational to set to set concrete mix design
parameters. In this regard the ‘3S’ rationale is advocated. This
simple, strong and sloppy criterion provides guidelines for input
parameters (for standard civil engineering concrete mix design
procedures) by taking note of the block caving environment. A
discussion of the ‘3S’ rationale is given below.
Simple
Owing to the fact that concrete practice standards in block caving
are much more difficult to achieve than in civil engineering
practice, mixes should be as simple as possible. In this regard
concrete should be made from basic materials such as Ordinary
Portland Cement, crusher or river sand and 19 mm stone. The use
of concrete additives such as plasticisers, accelerators and
retarders should only be considered if the required concrete
properties cannot be achieved with standard materials. The use of
site blended cement extenders should also be avoided if possible.
By keeping mixes simple, quality control problems are reduced.
In the case where concrete is required to be highly workable for
pumping or shutter placement purposes, the following should be
considered before using plasticisers or super plasticisers in
mixes:
Slump Mining depth
0.48 - 0.67 ±150 mm <1000 m
MassMin 2000
 THE ROLE OF MASS CONCRETE IN SOFT ROCK BLOCK CAVE MINES
• the replacement of crusher dust with river sand to improve
workability;
• increasing the coarse aggregate content or size in mixes
(stone);
• allowing a target mean strength reduction to improve
workability: this can be achieved by a reduced design
margin, assuming that higher quality control standard can be
implement, without affecting the required characteristics
strength of the concrete;
• the use of fly ash in cement; and
• increasing the proportion of fly ash in existing fly ash/cement
blends.
Table 4 shows the effect of fly ash/cement replacement on
28-day uniaxial compressive concrete strength.
It can be seen that fly ash replacement levels of 20 per cent
reduce the 28-day compressive strength by 11 per cent. In terms
of pumpable/highly workable concrete, 20 to 30 per cent
ash/cement replacement levels are normally required.
Strong
The strong aspect of the ‘3 S’ principle relates to the uniaxial
compressive strength selection for the concrete. Gallagher and
Loftus (1961) have indicated that once post-undercut cave
operational depths exceed 450 m, severe damage occurs to block
cave linings. From closed-form equations, the tangential stresses
acting on block cave drifts at this depth would be in the region of
26 MPa. From Tables 1, 2 and 3 the uniaxial compressive
strength of lining concrete ranges from 30 to 50 MPa. Therefore,
if compressional lining failure is considered to be dominant, then
concrete linings should not fail. Brumleve and Maier (1981) have
shown that during undercutting the magnitudes of stresses can
increase by a factor of 2 to 3. Therefore, if a post-undercut is
used (at about 450 m depth), then linings could be subject to
stress magnitudes of 52 to 78 MPa, a stress change of 26 to 52
MPa. Under these conditions lining failure would be expected.
According to Salamon (1970) the main disadvantage of using
concrete as an underground support system is that, due to its
limited stiffness, it cannot restrain the dilatation of the rock mass
that accompanies an underground stress change and subsequently
fails. It is therefore evident that concrete cannot be used in a
changing stress environment (ie with post-undercutting).
Salamon further indicates that increasing the concrete strength or
the lining thickness does little to inhibit dilatation of the rock
mass directly. It enhances failure due to the fact that concrete
stiffness is increased to the point that larger reaction stresses are
generated in the concrete (ie concrete is not stiff enough to
prevent rock mass dilatation, but has sufficient stiffness to
generate stresses great enough to cause its failure).
The main point arising from the above is that below depths of
about 450 m, block cave concrete will fail during post
undercutting. Increasing concrete strengths or lining thicknesses
will simply add to the failure.
TABLE 4
28 day uniaxial compressive strength difference for different level of cement/ fly ash replacement (Ash Resources, 1985).
Uniaxial compressive Ash %
strength @ 28 days
30.0 MPa 0 0
27.6 MPa 15
26.6 MPa 20
24.6 MPa 30
MassMin 2000 Brisbane, Qld, 29 October - 2 November 2000
The above assumes that concrete would fail in compression. It
is well known that concrete will fail in tension or shear before
compressional failure occurs. Since tensile and shear strengths
are considerably lower (10 - 15 per cent of UCS), this would
mean that concrete linings could only be installed at shallower
depths without failure occurring. This would seem to conflict
with historical observations. A possible explanation for the lack
of damage could be:
• lining damage may be limited to the extent that it is
unnoticeable; and
• concrete linings are installed after rock mass deformations
due to development of the drifts have occurred and hence are
subject to limited loading at that time;
Taking cognisance of the above arguments and the need to
specify a 28-day uniaxial compressive strength under static stress
conditions, it is advocated that, for slusher drift and trackless
caves, minimum 28-day uniaxial compressive specified strengths
of 30 and 27 MPa are used. These figures have been based on
Tables 1, 2 and 3. In this respect two specified strengths are given
due to the fact that slusher linings are normally subject to higher
levels of secondary blasting, point load and abrasion damage.
A common mistake made in underground concrete practice is
to take the specified concrete strength as the mean cube strength
to be achieved by underground construction teams. This will
result in 50 per cent of the concrete produced being below the
specified strengths. In civil engineering, it is common practice to
design concrete mixes with a design margin. This ensures that a
95 per cent of all concrete produced will be above the specified
28-day uniaxial compressive strength. Concrete mixes are
normally designed to a target mean strength (ie specified 28-day
uniaxial compressive strength plus a design margin). It should be
noted that 28-day concrete strength tests are referred to due to
the fact that most basic concrete materials and mix design charts
refer to the above period. Table 5 shows the required target mean
strengths for block cave concrete.
TABLE 5
28-day target mean strengths for block cave concrete.
Block cave Specified Design margin Target mean
strength strength
Slusher 30 MPa 11.5 MPa 41.5 MPa
Trackless caves 27 MPa 11.5 MPa 38.5 MPa
Block cave concrete should be designed for a 28-day uniaxial
compressive strength of 41.5 and 38.5 MPa for slusher and
trackless operations respectively. This assumes a concrete failure
rate of five per cent and poor quality control conditions (Fulton,
1994).
Difference in uniaxial W/C ratio
compressive strength %
0.67
8 0.67
11 0.67
18 0.67
427
R J BUTCHER
TABLE 6
Typical concrete slumps and applications (Fulton, 1994).
Degree of workability Compaction
Very low Heavy compaction required
Low Compaction by vibration equipment
Medium Normal compaction required.
Hand compaction can be used.
High Hand compaction and
light vibratuioin required
Very high Flowing concrete
Sloppy (high workability)
In the design of blockcave concrete, high levels of workability
(normally defined by concrete slump) are essential. If this is not
achieved the following can occur:
• Water may be added to the concrete mix to increase
workability. This in turn reduces the strength of the concrete.
• Pumping of concrete becomes difficult. This results in the
blocking of steel pipes used to convey concrete.
• Air voids are created in the poured concrete. This in turn
results in concrete strengths being reduced.
Table 6 shows typical concrete slumps for different
applications.
In the selection of the concrete workability, cognisance has to
be taken of the fact that, in most cases during underground drift
and drawpoint construction, vibration and compaction equipment
cannot be used or is difficult to use. Taking into account the
information in Table 6, it is therefore evident that concrete
slumps should be in excess of 100 mm if problems are to be
avoided.
CONCLUSIONS
Traditionally in block caving, concrete is used mainly for drift
and drawpoint linings. Concrete linings vary from 180 mm to
1000 mm thick. Concrete 28-day strengths range from 24 to 50
MPa. Workabilities, when measured as concrete slumps, are
between 100 and 230 mm. Drift and drawpoint lining parameters
have been designed according to local experience. Experience
from North America and South Africa has shown that concrete
linings will suffer damage when exposed to changing stress
regimes at operational depths greater than 450 m, regardless of
strength or lining thickness. Therefore, for lining failure to be
avoided, concrete must be installed in static stress conditions.
Owing to the differing stress regime, challenging quality
control and safety requirements, the direct application of a civil
engineering concrete mix design rationale is difficult. In this
respect the ‘3S’ (simple, strong and sloppy) rationale for block
cave concrete mix is advocated. Concrete should have 28-day
strengths in excess of 38 MPa. Block cave concrete should have
slumps greater than 100 mm for workability purposes.
428 Brisbane, Qld, 29 October - 2 November 2000
Slump (mm) Use
0 - 25 Concrete roads
25 - 50 Prestressed concrete/slabs
50 - 100 Reinforced concrete
100 - 150 Heavily reinforced concrete
150+ Pumpable concrete
REFERENCES
Ash Resources, 1985. Technical Information Bulletin, Issue Number 5
(Alpha curves), November.
Brumleve, C B and Maier, M M, 1981. Applied investigations of rock
mass response to panel caving, Henderson Mine, Colorado, USA, in
Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines (Ed:
D R Stewart) pp 223-249 (SME of AIME).
Cement and Concrete, 1991. Ninth edition (Portland Cement Institute).
Gallagher, W S and Loftus, W K B, 1961. Yielding arch support for
block cave scraper drifts at Kimberley Mine, Association of Mine
Managers of South Africa, Papers and Discussions, 1960-1961.
Gaths Mine Visitor’s Handbook, undated. (African Associated Mines Ltd,
Zimbabwe).
Fultons Concrete Technology, 1994. 7th Edition (Portland Cement
Institute).
Jakubec, J, 1992. Support at Cassiar underground mine, in Proceedings
MassMin 92, pp l l l - 123 (SAIMM: Johannesburg).
Laccasse, M and Legast, P, 1981. Change from grizzly to LHD extraction
systems, in Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping
Mines (Ed: D R Stewart) pp 107- 118 (SME of AIME).
Salamon, M D G, 1970. A note on the design of tunnel linings, The
Technology and Potential of Tunnelling, in Proceedings South
African Tunnelling Conference TUNCON 70, pp 115- l l 9.
Trepanier, M L S and Underwood, A H (1981) Block Caving at King
Beaver Mine, in Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel
Stoping Mines, (Ed: D R Stewart) pp 229-319 (SME of AIME).
Watson, D and Keskumaki, K, 1992. Shotcreting, Concreting at Climax
Molybdenum’s Henderson Mine, Mining Engineering, November, pp
1330-1332.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Concrete Technology and Construction, 1994. Part l, General Principles.
Course notes, City and Guilds of London, Institute examination, Portland
Cement Institute.
Grobbelaar, C, 1992. The degradation and failure of concrete linings
around water conveyance tunnels, in Proceedings Design and
Construction of Tunnels, Maseru, Lesotho, pp 45-51 (S Afr National
Council on Tunnelling).
Laubscher, D H, 1984. Design aspects and effectiveness of support
systems in different mining conditions, Trans Inst Min Metall,
London, Section A, Vol 93, April.
Peel, R, 1941. Mining Engineering Handbook, Tunnelling, 3rd Edition,
(Eds: L Parkinson and H T Dickson) Ch 6, p 24.
MassMin 2000