Professional Documents
Culture Documents
-A
NUMERICAL APPROACH
Chapter 4
David E. Nicholas
Vice-President
C a l l & Nicholas, Inc.
Tucson, Arizona
INTRODUCTION
I n t h i s paper, a numerical p r o c e s s f o r
s e l e c t i n g a mining method, with t h e emphasis
on underground mass mining t e c h n i q u e s , such
a s caving, induced caving, and s t o p i n g , i s
proposed.
I n t h e p a s t , s e l e c t i o n of a mining method
f o r a new property was based p r i m a r i l y on
o p e r a t i n g experience a t s i m i l a r type d e p o s i t s
and on methods a l r e a d y i n use i n t h e d i s t r i c t
of t h e deposit.
Then, t h e chosen method was
modified during t h e e a r l y y e a r s of mining a s
ground c o n d i t i o n s and o r e c h a r a c t e r were b e t t e r understood.
Today, however, t h e l a r g e
c a p i t a l investment r e q u i r e d t o open a new mine
o r change an e x i s t i n g mining system make it
imperative t h a t t h e mining methods examined
during t h e f e a s i b i l i t y s t u d i e s and t h e method
a c t u a l l y s e l e c t e d have a high p r o b a b i l i t y o f
attaining the projected production r a t e s .
Although experience and e n g i n e e r i n g judgment
s t i l l provide major i n p u t i n t o t h e s e l e c t i o n of
a mining method, s u b t l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each d e p o s i t , which may
a f f e c t t h e method chosen o r t h e mine d e s i g n ,
can u s u a l l y be p e r c e i v e d o n l y through a n a l y s i s
of measured c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
The parameters t h a t must be examined when
choosing a mining method i n c l u d e :
1) geometry and grade d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e
deposit;
2) rock mass s t r e n g t h f o r t h e o r e zone, t h e
hanging w a l l , and t h e f o o t w a l l ;
3 ) mining c o s t s and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n r e q u i r e ments;
4) mining r a t e ;
5) type and a v a i l a b i l i t y of l a b o r ;
6 ) environmental concerns; and
7) o t h e r s i t e - s p e c i f i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
T h i s paper encompasses a d e t a i l e d look a t t h e
f i r s t two parameters s i n c e t h e y , p l u s mining
c o s t s , have t h e g r e a t e s t impact on t h e s e l e c t i o n of a mining method.
The proposed method s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s i s
f o r a p r o j e c t where d r i l l i n g h a s d e f i n e d s u f f i c i e n t geologic r e s e r v e s , b u t l i t t l e o r no
underground development h a s been done.
Since each d e p o s i t has i t s own c h a r a c t e r i s t i c geanetry/grade d i s t r i b u t i o n , and rock
STAGE 1
Table 1:
1) General shape
equi-dimensional:
platey
tabular:
a l l dimensions a r e on the
same order of magnitude
two dimensions a r e many
times t h e t h i c k n e s s ,
which does not usually
exceed 100 m (325 f t )
dimensions vary over
short distances
irregular:
2) Ore t h i c k n e s s
narrow:
<10 m (<30 f t )
intermediate:
10 m
30 m (30 f t
thick:
30 m
very t h i c k :
>I00 m (>325 f t )
100 f t )
3) Plunge
flat:
<20
intermediate:
20
steep :
>55"
55'
4 ) Depth below s u r f a c e
provide a c t u a l depth
5) Grade d i s t r i b u t i o n
uniform
t h e grade a t any p o i n t i n t h e d e p o s i t does
n o t vary s i g n f i c a n t l y from t h e mean grade
for t h a t deposit
gradational
grade v a l u e s have zonal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
and t h e grades change gradually from one
t o another
erratic
grade v a l u e s change r a d i c a l l y over s h o r t
d i s t a n c e s and do n o t e x h i b i t any d i s c e r n i b l e p a t t e r n i n t h e i r changes
Rock Mechanics C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . I n Stage 1
t h e rock p r o p e r t i e s need t o be c l a s s i f i e d so
t h a t an o v e r a l l rock mechanics p i c t u r e of t h e
d e p o s i t i s provided. A number of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems have been presented (Deere, 1968;
Coates, 1970; Bieniawski, 1973; Barton e t a l . ,
1974; and Laubscher, 1977). A l l t h e s e systems
include t h e b a s i c measurements of rock subs t a n c e ( i n t a c t . rock) s t r e n g t h , some measurement o f t h e f r a c t u r e i n t e n s i t y , and some measurement of t h e f r a c t u r e s t r e n g t h . The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems of Bieniawski, Barton e t a l . ,
and Laubscher use i n d i v i d u a l parameters t o
c a l c u l a t e an o v e r a l l rock mass q u a l i t y . The
METHOD SELECTION
d e f i n i t i o n of rock substance s t r e n g t h , f r a c t u r e
spacing, and f r a c t u r e shear s t r e n g t h used i n
t h e method s e l e c t i o n i s presented i n Table 2.
Table 2:
Fractures/m
>16
10
16
3 - 10
3
2) Fracture Spacing
very close:
close :
wide :
very wide:
Rock Mechanics ~ h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
weak:
moderate:
strong:
- A NUMERICAL APPROACH
(f t )
% RQD
(>5)
(3 - 5)
(1 - 3)
(<I)
0
20
40
70
20
40
70
100
moderate:
strong:
j o i n t i s f i l l e d with a m a t e r i a l
t h a t i s equal t o o r stronger
than rock substance s t r e n g t h
Rock substance s t r e n g t h i s t h e r a t i o of t h e
uniaxial compression s t r e n g t h t o t h e overburden
s t r e s s . The u n i a x i a l compression s t r e n g t h can
be estimated using t h e method o r i g i n a l l y presented by Terzaghi and Peck (1967), which was
then modified by Deere (1968), Jennings and
However,
Robertson (1960) , and P i t e a u (1970)
a b e t t e r estimate of t h e u n i a x i a l compression
strength could be obtained r e l a t i v e l y inexpens i v e l y by using a point load t e s t i n g machine.
The overburden s t r e s s i s determined from t h e
depth and density of rock.
42
t h e characteristic i s preferred
f o r t h e mining method;
probable:
unlikely:
i f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c e x i s t s , it
i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e mining
method would be a p p l i e d , b u t
d o e s n o t completely r u l e o u t t h e
method; and
0-30m (0-100ft)
rl
x o r r o v
lo
W l d e
1 I1 I
O r e
eliminated:
Invormobly
W i d e
O r e
+30m(+100ft)
F i g u r e 1:
A Method S e l e c t i o n Scheme
( a f t e r M o r r i s o n , 1976)
Rank Value
Ranking
Value
preferred
probable
unlikely
eliminated
3 - 4
1 - 2
0
-4 9
An example i s p r o v i d e d t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e
s t e p s i n u s i n g t h i s s e l e c t i o n system and t o
p o i n t o u t problems w i t h t h e system. The f i r s t
s t e p i s t o l i s t t h e geometryjgrade d i s t r i b u t i o n
and r o c k mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e
d e p o s i t ( T a b l e 6 , column 1 ) . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c columns i n T a b l e s 3 and 4 a r e t h e n i d e n t i f i e d f o r t h e d e p o s i t , and t h e v a l u e s added up
f o r t h e geometry/grade d i s t r i b u t i o n , o r e zone
r o c k mechanics, h a n g i n g w a l l rock mechanics,
and f o o t w a l l r o c k mechanics f o r each mining
method ( T a b l e 6 , columns 2 and 3 ) .
D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r D i f f e r e n t Mining Methods
Ore Thickness
Mining Method
Ore Plunge
F
Grade
Distribution
U
Open P i t
Block Caving
Sublevel S t o p i n g
Sublevel Caving
Longwall
Room
&
Pillar
Shrinkage S t o p i n g
Cut
&
Fill
Top S l i c i n g
Square S e t
M = Massive
T/P = Tabular o r
Platy
I = Irregular
N = Narrow
I = Intermediate
T = Thick
VT = Very Thick
F = Flat
I = Intermediate
S = Steep
U = Uniform
G = Gradational
E = Erratic
I t would n o t b e r e a s o n a b l e t o move d i r e c t l y
t o S t a g e 2 a t t h i s p o i n t , s i n c e p r e p a r i n g det a i l e d mine p l a n s - f o r a l l a p p l i c a b l e methods
d e l i n e a t e d i n S t a g e 1 would b e e x t r e m e l y timeconsuming and c o s t l y .
C o n t i n u i n g w i t h o u r example, t h e f i v e
methods w i t h s i m i l a r t o t a l v a l u e s s h o u l d b e
examined g e n e r a l l y i n t e r m s o f mining c o s t s .
Although a l l f i v e methods were r a n k e d a s
a p p l i c a b l e , mining c o s t s may be s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t f o r e a c h method.
Morrison (1976)
h a s ranked t h e mining methods by i n c r e a s i n g
u n i t mining c o s t , which I have m o d i f i e d
s l i g h t l y , a s follows:
1) open p i t
6 ) room-and-pillar
2) b l o c k c a v i n g
7) s h r i n k a g e s t o p i n g
3) s u b l e v e l s t o p i n g 8 ) cut-and-f ill
4) s u b l e v e l c a v i n g
9) t o p s l i c i n g
5) l o n g w a l l
10) s q u a r e - s e t
On t h e b a s i s o f r e l a t i v e o p e r a t i n g c o s t , t h e
methods would b e ranked a s f o l l o w s :
1) open p i t
4) t o p s l i c i n g
2) b l o c k c a v i n g
5) square-set
3) c u t - a n d - f i l l
Based on t h i s s i m p l i f i e d r a n k i n g b y mining c o s t ,
I would e v a l u a t e open p i t and b l o c k c a v i n g
f i r s t . C u t - a n d - f i l l would t h e n be c o n s i d e r e d
if n e i t h e r o f t h e s e two methods proved f e a s i ble.
44
4 b : Hanging W a l l
Mining
Method
Rock
Substance
Strength
Fracture
Strength
Fracture
Spacing
W V W
-49
1 4
Room &
Pillar
Shrinkage
Stoping
Cut
TOP
Slicing
Square S e t
V C C
Open P i t
Block
Caving
Sublevel
Stoping
-49
Sublevel
Caving
Longwall
Rock S u b s t a n c e S t r e n g t h
W = Weak
M = Moderate
S = Strong
F r a c t u r e Spacing
VC = Very C l o s e
C = Close
W = Weak
VW = Very Weak
Fracture Strength
W = Weak
M = Moderate
S = Strong
4 a : Ore Zone
&
Fill
4c: Footwall
Mining
Method
Rock
Substance
Strength
Fracture
Strength
Fracture
Spacing
W M S
VCC
Open P i t
Block
Caving
Sublevel
Stoping
Sublevel
Caving
Longwall
W V W
Room &
Pillar
Shrinkage
Stoping
Cut
TOP
Slicing
Square S e t
&
Fill
(Column 1)
General shape:
(Column 2)
etc.
block caving
open p i t
( v a l u e s from Table 3 )
tabular o r
platey
very t h i c k
flat
uniform
130 m (425 f t )
Ore t h i c k n e s s :
Ore plunge:
Grade d i s t r i b u t i o n :
depth (used l a t e r ) :
(Column 3)
Rock Mechanics C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
( v a l u e s from Table 4)
Ore Zone
Rock substance
strength:
F r a c t u r e spacing:
Fracture strength:
moderate
close
moderate
4
2
3
-
1
4
3
-
4
4
3
-
1
3
2
11
4
2
2
-
3
3
1
-
Hanging Wall
Rock substance
strength :
F r a c t u r e spacing:
Fracture strength:
strong
wide
moderate
Footwall
Rock substance
strength :
F r a c t u r e spacing:
Fracture strength :
Table 7: Example
moderate
close
weak
Geometry/Grade
Distribution
Ore
HW
F
W
Total
Grand
Total
Open P i t
12
11
28
40
Block Caving
13
21
34
Sublevel Stoping
10
14
24
Mining Method
Sublevel Caving
16
29
-37
19
-18
-38
18
-20
Shrinkage Stoping
10
20
30
Cut
10
25
32
Longwall
Room
&
&
Pillar
Fill
13
Top S l i c i n g
15
19
34
Square S e t
10
25
33
46
'Table 8 :
Ranklnq R e s u l t s
Total Polnts
method t h a t i s h i g h l y mechanical o r t e c h n i c a l
and r e q u i r e s s k i l l e d personnel should not be
chosen, of course. Environmental concerns a r e
more and more becoming a c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r i n
method s e l e c t i o n . Also, t h e environmental cond i t i o n s underground must be considered.
Whether o r not subsidence i s permitted can
determine what methods a r e f e a s i b l e .
Met hod
open p i t
block caving
top s l i c i n g
square-set
cut-and-fill
shrinkage s t o p i n g
s u b l e v e l caving
sublevel stoping
room-and-pillar
longwall
Having narrowed t h e p r e f e r r e d mining methods t o two, each should now be g e n e r a l l y examined i n terms of mining r a t e , l a b o r a v a i l a b i l i t y , environmental concerns, and o t h e r
site-specific considerations, i n order t o
determine whether t h e s e parameters w i l l
e l i m i n a t e any method from f u r t h e r consideration.
METHOD SELECTION
STAGE 2
Geometry/Grade
Distribution
t o p = 15
bcv = 13
s c v = 13
p i t = 12
sst = 10
s h s = 10
8
sqs =
c&f =
7
lng = -37
r & p = -38
Ore
pit =
bcv =
lng =
c&f =
sqs =
scv =
r&p=
shs =
top =
sst =
HW
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
pit =
r&p =
sst =
c&f =
sqs =
bcv =
scv =
shs =
top =
lng =
Rock
Mechanics
Total
FW
11
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
c&f =
sqs =
pit =
shs =
bcv =
top =
lng =
scv =
r&p =
sst
10
10
8
8
7
7
6
3
3
2
pit =
c&f =
sqs =
bcv =
shs =
lng =
top =
r&p=
scv =
sst =
28
25
25
21
20
19
19
18
16
14
Grand
Total
pit =
bcv =
top =
sqs =
c&f =
shs =
scv =
sst =
lng =
r&p=
-- .
p i t = open p i t
bcv = block caving
s s t = sublevel stoping
scv =
lng =
r&p =
shs =
s u b l e v e l caving
longwall
room & p i l l a r
shrinkage stoping
48
Rock Mechanics I n p u t f o r S e l e c t i o n
~f Mass Mining Methods
I f t h e e n g i n e e r h a s t h e n e c e s s a r y informat i o n , a s d i s c u s s e d above, he can p r o v i d e
r e a l i s t i c e s t i m a t e s on s i z e o f o p e n i n g s , supp o r t r e q u i r e m e n t s , c a v a b i l i t y , and s l o p e a n g l e s
f o r s e l e c t i n g a m i n i n g method. A t t e m p t i n g t o
determine t h e s e parameters w i l l enable t h e
e n g i n e e r t o s e e which d a t a i s c r i t i c a l i n t h e
a n a l y s i s o r i s l a c k i n g ; t h e r e f o r e , when d e v e l opment s t a r t s o r f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n i s i n
p r o g r e s s , t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n program c a n be
properly set-up.
Open p i t . Although t h i s symposium i s c o n c e r n e d
p r i m a r i l y w i t h underground mass m i n i n g methods,
t h e open p i t method s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d d u r i n g
A t what d e p t h o f o v e r t h e method s e l e c t i o n .
b u r d e n t o g o underground i s p r i m a r i l y a funct i o n o f t h e m i n e r a l v a l u e and t h e s t r i p p i n g
ratio.
Using a method s i m i l a r t o t h a t p r e s e n t e d by S o d e r b e r g ( 1 9 6 8 ) , a n e s t i m a t e o f t h e
maximum s t r i p p i n g r a t i o f o r a g i v e n m i n e r a l
v a l u e was c a l c u l a t e d ( F i g u r e 2 ) . The m i n e r a l
v a l u e i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e m a r k e t p r i c e and
t h e cut-off grade.
I n order t o estimate s t r i p p i n g r a t i o , t h e s l o p e a n g l e and t h e l i m i t o f
t h e o r e zone i n s e c t i o n a r e needed ( S o d e r b e r g ,
1 9 6 8 ) . S l o p e a n g l e c a n have m a j o r i m p a c t o n
t h e s t r i p p i n g r a t i o ; consequently, r a t h e r than
s i m p l y u s i n g a 45" s l o p e a n g l e , t h e most
r e a l i s t i c s l o p e a n g l e s h o u l d be d e t e r m i n e d
from t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a . An a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e
f i n a l s l o p e a n g l e s c a n be made by d e f i n i n g
p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e g e o m e t r i e s from t h e o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e g e o l o g i c s t r u c t u r e s and t h e n choosi n g a s l o p e a n g l e t h a t m i n i m i z e s t h e number o f
daylighted structures.
I f shear strength,
l e n g t h , and s p a c i n g d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e , a s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s c a n be made. With t h e e s t i m a t e s o f t h e m i n e r a l v a l u e and t h e s t r i p p i n g
r a t i o , w h e t h e r a n open p i t method s h o u l d be
c o n s i d e r e d can be d e t e r m i n e d ( F i g u r e 2 ) .
S t r i p p i n g R a t i o v s . M i n e r a l Value.
attrition.
However, by comparing f r a g m e n t s i z e
d i s t r i b u t i o n w i t h e x i s t i n g caving d e p o s i t s ,
u s i n g t h e same f r a g m e n t a t i o n a n a l y s i s ( F i g u r e
3 ) , c a v a b i l i t y o f t h e d e p o s i t b e i n g examined
can be determined.
The fragment s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n c u r v e c a n b e g e n e r a t e d from d e t a i l l i n e
d a t a o r from f r a c t u r e p e r f o o t d a t a ( T a b l e 1 0 ) .
D e t a i l s o f t h e a n a l y s i s c a n b e found i n White
( 1 9 7 7 ) . Because t h e a n a l y s i s i s two-dimens i o n a l , o r i e n t a t i o n of t h e d r i l l h o l e s o r
c r o s s - s e c t i o n s a n a l y z e d s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d .
The f r a g m e n t a t i o n c a n a l s o b e e v a l u a t e d u s i n g
RQD and t h e c a v a b i l i t y i n d e x ( F i g u r e 4) o r
L a u b s c h e r ' s Rock Mass Reading System ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
Block caving.
During Stage 2, t h e c a v a b i l i t y
o f t h e d e p o s i t s h o u l d be examined i n g r e a t e r
d e t a i l t h a n d u r i n g S t a g e 1. Once t h e c a v a b i l i t y i s d e t e r m i n e d , t h e minimum d r a w p o i n t spaci n g , s u p p o r t a b l e d r i f t s i z e , and s u b s i d e n c e
l i m i t s h o u l d a l s o be d e t e r m i n e d .
fragment s i z e a n a l y s i s
was d e v e l o p e d by W h i t e , N i c h o l a s & Marek
( 1 9 7 7 ) . The a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s i n a d i s t r i b u t i o n o f fragment s i z e based on f r a c t u r e spaci n g , b u t it d o e s n o t i n c l u d e t h e e f f e c t s o f
C~ISpl
Inspbollon IThm1.n
trn4.a)
Y
d I21111
4. W h - 0
5. lakI.hm.
The c a v a b i l i t y o f a d e p o s i t i s d e t e r m i n e d
by t h e f r a g m e n t s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n a t t h e drawp o i n t and t h e u n d e r c u t w i d t h r e q u i r e d t o s u s t a i n a cave.
I f t h e fragment s i z e i s c o a r s e ,
t h e u n d e r c u t w i d t h may be g r e a t e r t h a n t h e
width o f t h e d e p o s i t , o r t h e drawpoints w i l l
be p l u g g e d much o f t h e t i m e , t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g
m i n i n g r a t e and i n c r e a s i n g s e c o n d a r y b l a s t i n g
cost.
A two-dimensional
SIEVE
SIZE
11100 L..Il
*dl"
P ~ l l0 . 0 ~ 1 1 ~
Yushw
S l h
IN1
F r a g n e n t S i z e D i s t r i b u t i o n Curves o f
some E x i s t i n g Block Caving Mines
( a f t e r White, 1977)
D a t a a r e from l i m i t e d a r e a s and d o n o t
n e c e s s a r i l y r e p r e s e n t a n average f o r
t h a t mine.
F i g u r e 3:
NOTE:
17th L...(l
Y u h
METHOD SELECTION
- A NUMERICAL APPROACH
Table 10:
a r c h ( F i g u r e 5a) h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r caving.
However, t h e maximum t r a n s f e r d i s t a n c e can be
reduced by some t y p e of boundary weakening.
vf
Percent r e t a i n e d a t s i z e X = Vt
6N
where V = t o t a l volume = t
~3
V
49
= volume g r e a t e r t h a n s i z e X
-.
B = ( l / f r a c t u r e spacing) *
6
;
N = number o f fragments i n sample; and
X = fragment s i z e t o be analyzed.
Data Pointm
rrm c l i m a x
and u r a d
-.-.
..
..
TRANSPER I
DISTANCE
a . s t ~ p . w i d t h i n 2~ maxim?
tranmfar dimtance
PILWLR
PIWAR
TRANSPER
I DISTANCE
TRANSFER
I DISTANCE
'
b . S t o p e w i d t h im g r e a t e r t h a n
231 maximum t r a n m f e r d i a t a n c e
F i g u r e 5:
P r e s s u r e Arch Concept.
CAVABILITX INDEX ( C I )
F i g u r e 4:
RQD v s . C a v a b i l i t y Index
Undercut w i d t h r e q u i r e d t o s u s t a i n a cave i s
most c r i t i c a l f o r t h o s e d e p o s i t s where t h e f r a g mentation i s c o a r s e and t h e a v e r a g e u n d e r c u t
width of t h e d e p c s i t is l e s s t h a n approximately
150 m (500 f t ) . Using L a u b s c h e r ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (1977) o r t h e p r e s s u r e a r c h concept
(Alder e t a l . , 1951) , t h e u n d e r c u t w i d t h
r e q u i r e d t o s u s t a i n a cave can be e s t i m a t e d .
Laubscher p r o v i d e s a n h y d r a u l i c r a d i u s , a r e a /
p e r i m e t e r , f o r h i s f i v e c l a s s e s of rock.
In
t h e pressure arch concept, t h e rock i s conside r e d t o have a maximum d i s t a n c e t h a t it can
t r a n s f e r t h e l o a d ( F i g u r e 5 ) . The a b i l i t y o f
t h e rock t o t r a n s f e r a v e r t i c a l s t r e s s i n a
l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n o v e r an underground opening
depends on t h e s h e a r s t r e n g t h of t h e r o c k , t h e
h o r i z o n t a l s t r e s s , and t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e
rock p i l l a r s . Although e a c h d e p o s i t h a s i t s
own maximum t r a n s f e r d i s t a n c e , a c o r r e l a t i o n
between depth and maximum t r a n s f e r d i s t a n c e
has been determined ( F i g u r e 6 )
Based on t h e
p r e s s u r e a r c h c o n c e p t , i f t h e u n d e r c u t width
does n o t exceed t w i c e t h e maximum t r a n s f e r
d i s t a n c e then o n l y t h e r o c k under t h e p r e s s u r e
DEPTH
Figure 6:
(10
T r a n s f e r D i s t a n c e v s . Depth.
Pillar
CRE IGHTON
Figure 8:
Figure 7:
A r e a loading pllla:
D e f i n i t i o n of P i l l a r between
Drawpoints.
METHOD SELECTION
- A NUMERICAL APPROACH
p l a c e w i t h i n a 60" a n g l e from t h e d e p o s i t . I f
a major f a u l t e x i s t s , it w i l l p r o b a b l y c o n t r o l
t h e l i m i t of s u b s i d e n c e .
Stoping. The two i m p o r t a n t p a r a m e t e r s i n t h e
economics of a s t o p i n g method f o r which a r o c k
mechanics s t u d y can p r o v i d e e s t i m a t e s a r e t h e
width of t h e s t o p e s and t h e s i z e o f t h e p i l lars.
I n sublevel stoping, t h e width of a stope
i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e immediate and i n t e r m e d i a t e
The immediate r o o f
roof (Alder and Sun, 1968)
i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e p r e s s u r e a r c h c o n c e p t
already discussed.
The maximum s t o p e w i d t h i s
t w i c e t h e maximum p r e s s u r e a r c h . P i l l a r s
spaced t h i s d i s t a n c e must be a b l e t o c a r r y
tributary-area-load.
The immediate r o o f i s
t h a t ground under t h e p r e s s u r e a r c h which w i l l
behave a s beam, p l a t e , o r a r c h . J o i n t o r i e n t a t i o n , spacing, and l e n g t h can be used t o d e f i n e
I n many i n s t a n c e s , t h e beam
t h e s t o p e width.
developed by b o l t i n g can be used. The p i l l a r s
w i t h i n t w i c e t h e maximum t r a n s f e r d i s t a n c e d o
n o t have t o c a r r y t r i b u t a r y - a r e a - l o a d , b u t
r a t h e r t h e l o a d under t h e p r e s s u r e a r c h , h a l f way t o t h e n e x t s u p p o r t . Using Wilson's p i l l a r
a n a l y s i s (1972) and t h e p o t e n t i a l f a i l u r e
geometries through t h e p i l l a r , t h e p i l l a r l o a d
c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y can be d e t e r m i n e d ( N i c h o l a s ,
1976).
F i g u r e 9:
E c c e n t r i c i t y v s . Height o f Draw
E l l i p s o i d ( a f t e r J a n e l i d and K v a p i l ,
1966).
SUBLEVEL INTERVAL
SUBLEVEL IMERVAL
For s h r i n k a g e s t o p i n g , t h e same t y p e o f
a n a l y s i s needs t o be made a s f o r s u b l e v e l
stoping, except t h a t t h e c a v a b i l i t y o f t h e
o v e r l y i n g rock h a s t o b e e v a l u a t e d .
Support
requirements can b e e s t i m a t e d , a s d i s c u s s e d
under block caving.
S u b l e v e l caving. F o r s u b l e v e l c a v i n g , r o c k
mechanics d a t a on t h e c a v a b i l i t y o f t h e hanging wall, the sublevel d r i f t s i z e , t h e support
needed, and t h e s p a c i n g between t h e s u b l e v e l
J a n e l i d and Kvapil (1966)
d r i f t s is required.
have p r e s e n t e d g u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e l a y o u t o f a
s u b l e v e l mine. The hanging w a l l must come in
behind t h e o r e zone; o t h e r w i s e s u b l e v e l c a v i n g
w i l l n o t work. Using a n a l y s e s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e
i n block caving w i l l p r o v i d e an e s t i m a t e o f t h e
dimension needed t o i n i t i a t e t h e cave and t h e
fragment s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n . J a n e l i d and Kvapil
a l s o r e l a t e d d r i f t s i z e t o t h e required width
of draw. Another a s p e c t o f a s u b l e v e l d e s i g n
is t h e support required f o r t h e s e d r i f t s .
If
e x t e n s i v e s u p p o r t i s r e q u i r e d , t h e method may
n o t be f e a s i b l e .
Support requirements can be
estimated, a s discussed previously.
V e r t i c a l s p a c i n g of d r i f t s i s mainly a
f u n c t i o n o f equipment, b u t t h e h o r i z o n t a l spaci n g between d r i f t s i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e w i d t h
of t h e draw e l l i p s o i d and t h e s t a b i l i t y of t h e
rock. J a n e l i d and K v a p i l r e l a t e d d r i f t spaci n g t o t h e d i s t a n c e between s u b l e v e l s and
t h e e c c e n t r i c i t y of t h e e l l i p s o i d (Figure 9 ) .
The ground between t h e d r i f t s can be c o n s i d e r e d p i l l a r s ( F i g u r e 1 0 ) and a n a l y z e d a s such.
I
DRIFT SPACING
F i g u r e 10:
DRIFT
HEIGHT
%RIFT
WIDTH
S u b l e v e l Caving Geometry.
The w o r s t l o a d c o n d i t i o n
n e a r e s t t h e cave. T h e r e
i n g o c c u r r i n g , which c a n
s t a b i l i t y of p i l l a r s c a n
o c c u r s f o r t h e ground
i s some abutment l o a d b e e s t i m a t e d , and t h e
be determined.
Concluding Comments
Mining method s e l e c t i o n s h o u l d be based p r i m a r i l y on t h e geometry and g r a d e d i s t r i b u t i o n
o f t h e d e p o s i t , t h e r o c k mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e o r e z o n e , hanging w a l l and f o o t w a l l , and on t h e mining and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n
c o s t , with f i r s t p r i o r i t y given t o t h e rock
mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
S e l e c t i o n of t h e
mining method s h o u l d o c c u r i n two s t a g e s .
S t a g e 1:
52
Develop a n i n i t i a l mine p l a n o f
t h e two o r t h r e e h i g h e s t r a n k i n g
m i n i n g methods t o p r o v i d e a b e t t e r
e s t i m a t e o f t h e mining and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n c o s t and t o d e t e r m i n e
c u t - o f f g r a d e and m i n a b l e r e s e r v e s .
REFERENCES
A b e l , J . F . , 1978, p e r s o n a l communication.
A l d e r , L . , and Sun, M . , 1968, Ground c o n t r o l
i n bedded f o r m a t i o n s : Research D i v i s i o n ,
V i r g i n i a P o l y t e c h n i c I n s t i t u t e , B u l l . 28,
266 p .
Alder, H., P o t t s , E . ,
Research on s t r a t a
c o a l f i e l d of Great
Conf. a t L e i g e , p .
J a n e l i d , I . , and K v a p i l , R . , 1966, S u b l e v e l
c a v i n g : I n t l . J o u r . of Rock Mechanics and
Mining S c i e n c e s , v. 3, p. 129-153.
J e n n i n g s , J. E., and Robertson, A. M . , 1969,
"The S t a b i l i t y o f S l o p e s Cut I n t o N a t u r a l
Rock, " Proc. , 7 t h I n t l . Conf. on S o i l
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
S o c i e d a t Mexicana d e Mecanica de S u e l o s ,
Mexico, v o l . 2, p. 585-590.
Kendorski, F r a n c i s S . , 1975, Design methods i n
r o c k mechanics:
1 6 t h Symp. on Rock
Mechanics, M i n n e a p o l i s , Minnesota.
Laubscher, D. H . , 1977, "Geomechanics C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f J o i n t e d Rock Masses - Mining
Applications," Transactions of t h e I n s t i t u t e
o f Mining & M e t a l l u r g y o f South A f r i c a , v o l .
86.
McMahon, B., and Kendrick, R . , 1969, P r e d i c t i n g
t h e block caving behavior of orebodies:
AIME p r e - p r i n t #69-AU-51, 15 p .
Morrison, R. G. K., 1976, A Philosophy o f
Ground C o n t r o l , McGill U n i v e r s i t y , Montreal,
Canada, p. 125-159.
-
B a r t o n , N . , L i e n , R . , and ~ u n d e ,J . , 1 9 7 4 ,
" E n g i n e e r i n g C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Rock Masses
f o r t h e Design o f Tunnel S u p p o r t , " J o u r n a l
o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r Rock
Mechanics, v o l . 6 , no. 4 , p . 189-236.
B i e n i a w s k i , 2 . T . , 1973, " E n g i n e e r i n g C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f J o i n t e d Rock Masses," The C i v i l
E n g i n e e r i n S o u t h A f r i c a , December, p. 335343.
Boshkov, S. H., and W r i g h t , F. D . , 1973,
" B a s i c and P a r a m e t r i c C r i t e r i a i n t h e S e l e c t i o n , Design and Development o f Underground
Mining S y s t e m s , " Chap. 1 2 . 1 i n SME Mining
E n g i n e e r i n g Handbook, v o l . 1, American
I n s t i t u t e o f Mining, M e t a l l u r g i c a l and
P e t r o l e u m E n g i n e e r s , New York, p . 12.2 12.13.
C a l l , R. D . , 1 9 7 9 , Development d r i l l i n g : Open
p i t mine p l a n n i n g and d e s i g n , Crawford, J.
T . , 111, and ~ u s t r u l i d ,W. A . , e d i t o r s ,
AIME, New York, pp. 29-40.
C a l l , R. D . , S a v e l y , J. P . , and N i c h o l a s , D.
E . , 1976, " E s t i m a t i o n o f J o i n t S e t Charact e r i s t i c s from S u r f a c e Mapping D a t a , "
U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, p . 282.1282.9.
17th
C o a t e s , D . F . , 1 9 7 0 , Rock Mechanics P r i n c i p l e s ,
Queens P r i n t e r , O t t a w a , Mines Branch Monog r a p h 874, p. 1-46 - 1-50.
Deere , D . U . , 1968, " G e o l o g i c a l Considerat i o n s , " Chap. 1 i n Rock Mechanics i n Engin e e r i n g P r a c t i c e , e d . , K . G. S t a g g and 0.
G. Z i e n k i e w i c z , John Wiley & Sons, London,
Nicholas,
design
Marble
lished
175 p .
Panek, L o u i s A . , 1978, G e o t e c h n i c a l f a c t o r s i n
u n d e r c u t - c a v e mining: SME-AIME Mtg., Lake
Buena V i s t a , F l o r i d a .
P i t e a u , D. R., 1970, E n g i n e e r i n g geology cont r i b u t i o n t o t h e s t u d y of s t a b i l i t y o f
slopes i n rock with p a r t i c u l a r reference
t o DeBeers Mine, v o l . 1, Ph.D. t h e s i s ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f W i t w a t e r s r a n d , Johannesburg,
p . 114-115.
P i t e a u and R u s s e l l , 1971, Cumulative sums t e c h n i q u e : A new a p p r o a c h t o a n a l y z i n g j o i n t s
in r o c k : P r o c . , 1 3 t h Symp. on Rock
Mechanics, S t a b i l i t y o f Rock S l o p e s , p . 129.
Soderberg, A., and Rausch, D. O., 1968, P i t
p l a n n i n g and l a y o u t :
P f l e i d e r , E . P. , ed.
S u r f a c e Mining, AIME, New York, p . 151.
J.