Machine Translated by Google

1 SUBLEVEL CAVING (SLC)

1.1 Basic considerations

Sublevel caving is a mass mining method based upon the utilization of gravity flow of blasted ore
and caved waste rock (Kvapil, 1998). It relies on the principle that ore is fragmented by blasting
while the overlying host rock fractures and caves under the action of mine induced stresses
and gravity. Thereby the caved waste originating from the overlying rock mass fills the
temporary void created by ore extraction. The method itself has been initially applied in the
early 1900s to extract soft iron ores found in Minnesota and Michigan (Cokayne, 1982). At that time heavily timbered
drift support was sequentially removed at the end of a drift initiating the ore to cave and then was
being slushed out. As dilution became excessive the next set of timbers was removed and so on.
Today many uncertainties of fragmentation and ore cavability are eliminated since each tonne of
ore is drilled and blasted from the sublevels. Breaking the ore by blasting removes the dependency

caving. For this reason SLC is strictly speaking not considered a caving method any longer as far as
the ore is concerned, but SLC does rely on the caving walls and thus the name is retained. Ace
practiced today the method should probably be given another name, such as sublevel retreat
stopping, continuous underhand sublevel stopping or something similar that better reflects the process
(Hustrulid, 2000). SLC is nowadays usually applied in hard, strong ore materials in which the
hanging wall progressively caves, keeping pace with the retreating rings.

Key layout and design considerations are to achieve high recovery with an acceptable amount of
dilution. Current SLC geometries (Figure 1) consist of a series of sublevels created at intervals
of between 20 and 30 m beginning at the top and downward working.

Figure 1. Sublevel caving at the Kiruna LKAB iron ore mine.

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1

Machine Translated by Google

A number of parallel drifts are excavated on each sublevel with drifts being offset between the individual

sublevels. From each sublevel vertical or near vertical fans of holes are drilled upward to

the overlying sublevels. The burden between the blast rings is about 2 - 3 m. Beginning typically at

the hanging wall the rings are blasted one by one against the material lying in front consisting of

ore from overlying slices and caved waste. The extraction of ore from the blasted slice continues

until a total dilution or some other determining measure reaches a prescribed level. Thereupon the next

slice is blasted and the process continued. Depending on the thickness of the orebody the technique

may be applied using traverse or longitudinal retreat.

1.2 Factors influencing flow behavior

The major disadvantage of SLC is the relatively high dilution of the ore by waste which is based on the

flow characteristics of both materials. Fragmentation of the ore slice itself can be regarded as a core

element for successful SLC (see Figure 2). The general tendency is that more finely fragmented ore has

greater mobility in the stope area. Thorough fragmentation allows drawing of

the ore from over the entire width of the extraction drift and from deep in the muck pile. Both of

these factors allow for a uniform gravity flow and this promotes a higher recovery of ore and hence

overall effective use of the SLC method. In this respect blasting has been throughout the literature

identified as the initial, but also the major impact upon primary fragmentation and later material flow

characteristics (Janelid, 1968; Cullum, 1974; Marklund, 1976; Kvapil, 1982; Stazhevskii,

nineteen ninety six; Bull & Page, 2000; Hustrulid, 2000; Rustan, 2000; Power, 2004a-b; Sellden & Pierce, 2004;

Minchinton & Dare-Bryan, 2005; Zhang, 2005 & 2008; DeGagné & McKinnon, 2005).

In SLC, blasting takes place in a semi-confined situation, where the blasted material is allowed to

swell due to the compaction of the caved material and to a minor extent swell into the void volume

of the production drift. Even though several analytical and empirical models have been developed

in the past the interaction of semi-confined blasting conditions, SLC blast design and rock mass

characteristics on blast performance are not well understood. Layout criteria for ring blasting concerning

overall geometry (ring inclination, shoulder hole angles, design powder factor), burden/spacing ratios,

explosive properties and timing are commonly based on site experience.

With the general trend towards larger blast layouts over the past years and considering the

fundamental importance of blasting to the success of a SLC mining operation it is remarkable that

only a limited number of well documented experiments have been undertaken to quantify the

impact of altered blast design parameters on the resulting material flow characteristics (Rustan,

1970; Kosowan, 1999; Quinteiro et al., 2001; Zhang, 2004; Power, 2004a-b; Clout, 2004; Quinteiro, 2004;

Zhang, 2005; Brunton et al., 2010). The impact of measured blast performance such as vibration records,

VOD measurements, and backbreak studies should be of particular

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1

Machine Translated by Google

interest when gravity flow is studied (Rustan, 1993; Hedström, 2000; Fjellborg, 2002; Zhang,
2005; Brunton, 2009; Wimmer et al., 2009).

Figure 2. Fragmentation in the context of sublevel caving.

In practice the quantification of the physical and mechanical properties of blasted or caved rock is
difficult. Rustan (2000) stated that the most important parameters influencing flow width are
fragment size distribution, shape factor of particles, surface friction of fragments, attrition,
density, shear strength, cohesion of the bulk material and moisture content. The rock material
properties internal angle of friction, limit boundary angle and angle of repose at dumping or loading have been
assessed. The properties swelling, packing and porosity vary though in space and time and it has
not been possible to assess them or assign a value to them.

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1

Machine Translated by Google

2 GRAVITY FLOW OF BROKEN ROCK

Flow behavior of broken rock has been investigated through small-scale experimental studies

aimed at understanding fundamental mechanisms and factors influencing material flow behavior in

storage bins. Experiments of this type are well suited to construct general applicable mathematical
models.

Mine-based experimental models have been set up to model specific situations. The literature

outlines that the development of efficient design and the operation of SLC mines relied upon

results obtained from experiments that directly modeled specific situations in small- or full-scale
tests.

Generally, the latter focuses on quantifying the impact of various mine design parameters based

upon a specific geometry of the mine and its orebody on material flow behavior and subsequent ore

recovery as well as dilution. They also serve to validate and further improve numerical models. The

The following summarizes the current understanding of SLC material flow behavior.

2.1 Modeling gravity flow

2.1.1 Ellipsoid Theories

The theory proposed by Kvapil (1965) was one of the first attempts to fit general mathematical

models using physical models to the flow of granular material. Although it has been developed

using small-scale 2D models aiming at modeling flow in storage bunkers is has become highly

significant for caving methods and was extensively used as a design tool for these methods before

other modern modeling approaches became accepted.

The results obtained by Kvapil are based on studies of free discharge of granulated material

through an outlet at the bottom of a hopper. Central to this theory is the progressive expansion of a

flow ellipsoid which progresses upwards as material is discharged. Meanwhile the geometry of

so outlines dependencies of

the ellipsoid of motion on particle sizes and how the design of a hopper could be determined given

this knowledge.

In subsequent years the flow ellipsoid has been divided into two ellipsoids, each with distinct

boundaries (see Figure 3). These are named the ellipsoid of extraction and the ellipsoid of

loosening (Janelid & Kvapil, 1966). The ellipsoid of extraction is stated as the limiting boundary,

which defines the original location of material that has been extracted from the outlet whereas the

ellipsoid of loosening defines the boundary between stationary material and material that has

moved from its original location at any given point in time material is discharged.

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1

Machine Translated by Google

Shapes defining the ellipsoid of extraction and loosening have been referred to in a number
of different ways in the literature (Trueman, 2004). Beyond the loosening ellipsoid all particles
remain stationary in a region known as the passive zone. As drawing proceeds, the material within
the extraction ellipsoid is removed and replaced by surrounding particles. However, it is only the
material within the loosening ellipsoid that has the opportunity to enter the extraction ellipsoid. The
size and eccentricity of both ellipsoids gradually develop as material is removed.

Figure 3. Mechanisms of gravity flow (Kvapil, 1998).

By placing markers in a certain pattern within the granular material in a 3D model the validity of
the existence of both zones has been demonstrated. Markers extracted defined the ellipsoid of
extraction and those that just moved to the draw point the ellipsoid of loosening.

The shape of a given ellipsoid is described by its eccentricity related to the major and minor semi-
axes of the ellipsoid. As a rule, the volume of loosening ellipsoid is about 15 times larger
than the volume discharged: expressed in terms of heights this yields a 2.5 times larger loosening ellipsoid.

It is well known that particle size directly influences eccentricity as, for instance, smaller
particles will generate thinner ellipsoids with a proportionally higher eccentricity. Also the
eccentricity of the ellipsoid of extraction and loosening increases with the height of the
ellipsoid. This effect, which is relatively small in SLC, has a much greater importance in block caving due to the v
large block heights. Furthermore, eccentricity depends on a number of other factors (Kvapil, 1998),
such as shape (spherical, irregular), surface roughness of the particles (smooth, rough) material
properties (density, strength, moisture content), extraction rate (high, low and continuous versus
interrupted).

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1

Machine Translated by Google

Consideration of all these factors, results in a certain flow behavior which might be
expressed in terms of the mobility of granular or coarse material. A greater mobility results in easier flow and a
higher eccentricity of the ellipsoids as shown qualitatively in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Shape and eccentricity as a function of material mobility (Kvapil, 1998).

Considering models with horizontally layered white and black granulated material and
studying deflections of the layers indicated the active zone and also that the drawdown of the material itself
occurs in the form of an inverted cone (see Figure 5). This indicates that the vector velocity in the
center of the draw is highest and is reduced proportionally on either side of the draw cone axis until
a particle velocity of zero is achieved at the boundary.

Figure 5. Successive phases of extraction (Kvapil, 1982).

The velocity distribution is shown in Figure 6, which represents the velocity distribution through
sections EE` to AA`. The boundaries of the loosening ellipsoid have an instantaneous velocity of
zero and the central flow axis vectors indicate the progression of relative values such that
v4 > v3 > v2 > v1. For better visualization the velocity vectors are constructed perpendicular to the axial

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1

Machine Translated by Google

section of the ellipsoid. From the previous figure one can derive zones of the same particle
velocity v1 defined on the boundary shown in Figure 7. A line connecting the particles of the same velocity
forms an elliptic looking figure in 2D and an ellipsoid of same velocity in 3D. Obviously, the shape
of the gravity zones is controlled by a specific distribution of the velocity of motion, resulting in
ellipsoids of the same velocity. Therefore, not only does the zone of loosening have the shape of an
ellipsoid, but so also does the zone from which the discharged material was extracted
(ellipsoid of extraction).

Figure 6. Velocity distribution in the ellipsoid Figure 7. Ellipsoid where all particles along
of loosening (Kvapil, 1998). the contour of the ellipsoid would move with
the same velocity (Kvapil, 1998).

Cox (1969) made model experiments and also underground studies at Mufulira mine in the
Zambian copper belt, initially without the knowledge of theory of ellipsoid flow (Kvapil &
Janelid, 1966), but his findings were in close agreement with the theory. Further validation of the theory
and a relatively close fit have been shown by full-scale tests from the Grängesberg SLC operation
(Janelid, 1973), see chapter 2.2.2. A reflection of the general level of acceptance of this theory is
that even today, many general mining textbooks with sections on granular flow, use the ellipsoid
model as their basic flow theory (Kvapil, 1998; Hustrulid, 2000; Brady & Brown, 2004).

During the period in which ellipsoid theory was gaining acceptance other workers have added
valuable contributions to gravity flow theory. Worth mentioning is experimental work by Gardner
(1966) on flow in bins and hoppers in a 2D model. There a mathematical model was presented that

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1

Machine Translated by Google

predicted the shape of the dead zones at the bottom of a bin as a function of the internal angle of
friction of the model media.

The ellipsoid theory presented has since then been further refined, taking into consideration a
near elliptical form of the extraction drawn body but with a maximum width occurring above the upper
half of the drawn body; the so-
a straight line from its resting point to the opening and that rock is removed continuously.

Consideration of a decomposition of forces acting on a rock particle in opposite directions (see

Figure 1), namely one component of the gravitational force and a resisting force from surrounding
particles, yields the so-called Bergmark-Roos equation (Bergmark, 1975; Hedén, 1976):

By use of the Bergmark-Roos equation the shape of the extraction drawn body can be constructed
(see Figure 2).

Figure 8. Gravitational (F1) and resisting forces Figure 9. Draw body constructed using the Berg-
(F2) acting on a rock particle (Kuchta, 2002). mark-Roos equation with s1 = 10 m and G = 70°
(Kuchta, 2002).

One of the shortcomings of this equation is that the width of the drawn body continues to increase
with increasing extraction heights due to the assumption that rock particles travel in a straight-
line path towards the opening. On the other hand research has shown that in rock, the width of the draw

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1

Machine Translated by Google

body will reach a maximum value at very great extraction heights and does not continue to
increase with increasing extraction heights (Rustan, 2000). Indeed, at low or moderate extraction heights, an
approximate shape of the drawn body may be derived.

Kuchta (2002) presented a revised version of the Bergmark-Roos equation accounting for a
non-zero opening width. This version includes equations derived for the area, volume and maximum
width of the drawn body for a given extraction height.

2.1.2 Newer modeling approaches The

problem of analyzing the progressive flow of rock through an enclosed stope could not be seen
as wholly analogous to theories developed for the flow of granular materials (Yenge, 1980).
This is due to the discrepancies in particle size, the relative sizes between the containers and
particles and boundary conditions. Three distinct differences exist between the flow of materials in bins and in
an SLC environment and they can be summarized as follows:

The friction between broken rock and the solid face of the unbroken ring affects the flow
pattern of the blasted rock, ie in a bin the material is surrounded by four solid walls
whereas the rock in SLC is surrounded on three sides by broken rock and on the fourth
side by the in-situ rock of the next slice to be blasted,

Blasting the ore column creates density variations within the ore and between ore and
waste,

SLC exists under substantially higher overburden pressures than are usually found in bin
flow.

There are also appreciable differences between the slower discharge rates, the large increases
in void volume and the delayed ground caving response in SLC as compared to granular solid models.

A number of problems that appear when describing SLC flow by idealized ellipsoid theory have
long been recognized, both when doing small and full-scale experiments (Fröström, 1970; Just
& Free, 1971; Cullum, 1974; Janelid, 1975; Just, 1981 ; Yenge, 1981; Kvapil, 1982; Peters, 1984;
Gustafsson, 1998; Rustan, 2000; Clout, 2004; Hollins & Tucker, 2004; Power, 2004a-b).
Consequently more advanced model and full-scale experiments have been set up. Subsequent
research has been directed towards mathematical methods to address phenomena observed in the
experiments and to improve model performance such as:

Stochastic methods (Chen, 1997; Gustafsson 1998) assume that gravity flow is a stochastic process,
ie they include the probabilities of downwards propagation of a particle or upwards propagation
of voids (void diffusion). Another conceivable way of creating voids would be a differential flow of

Gravity flow of broken rock in SLC Swebrec Report 2010:P1