A Toolbox of Ideas for the Geoscientist

Working on Block Cave Mines

N Burgio1

ABSTRACT
Block cave mines are often thought of as rock factories where high volumes of production are
mined from a fixed area suggesting little requirement for geological input and control. Yet
caving operations have peculiar and specific technical requirements from prefeasibility through
to post-mining reconciliation. Whilst essential elements such as resource definition, geological
interpretation and sampling strategies are common to all mining methods, planning for a block
cave requires a different emphasis and philosophical approach in how we deal with these issues.
We will examine why a geoscientists input is critical towards the successful planning, design and
monitoring of a caving operation.

INTRODUCTION
Conventional underground mining methods including open
stoping, cut and fill, shrink stoping ,and even sublevel caving,
allow information to be progressively accumulated to optimise
and adjust future mine planning decisions. In contrast, a
geoscientist working on a block cave operation is required
to supply the necessary technical information to support a
large capital investment often prior to orebody access. This
places a high demand for rigorous and robust analysis prior
to final project commitment. A conceptual understanding of
the rock mass is inadequate and can lead to high capital and
operational risk.
No two geological environments are alike. Differing
lithology, alteration and structural characteristics will result
in changes to how a rock mass will respond to the caving
process. Whilst benchmarking caving operations is a useful
way of comparing performance and outcomes, it is the distinct
characteristics of an orebody which will ultimately govern local
caving behaviour. The focus should be towards determining
the structural and geotechnical differences that exist between
rock masses even if classification systems suggest they are
similar so as to understand what is peculiar to a deposit.
Empirical models such as Laubschers RMR system provide
useful guidelines for cavability (Laubscher 1990). However,
empirical and numerical modelling does not guarantee success
and some form of engineering judgement is required. This is
a function of the inexact science of caving and implies that
geoscientists need to translate the experiences from other
operations and determine the expected rock mass behaviour
according to the specific characteristics of their orebody.
DATA COLLECTION
The most important geotechnical contribution to a block
cave mining study is an accurate representation of the rock
mass environment. Geoscientists are required to focus on
characteristics that impart a change in the competency of a
rock mass, whether it is influenced by mineralogy, alteration
or structure. The three principle areas of data collection are:
1. rock strength as affected by lithology, mineralogy,
alteration and weathering;
2. discontinuities the character, distribution, spacing
and orientation of major faults, joints, fractures, shears,
including microfractures and weakly healed veins; and
3. rock testing field and geotechnical testing to determine
rock properties including stress measurements.
These parameters are what ultimately determines how a rock
mass will respond and deform within a caving environment.
They are used as input into cavability assessments,
fragmentation forecasts, cave propagation behaviour, ground
support and mine planning. Understanding the local stress
field and its relationship to rock strength is also an important
consideration for mine design.
WHO LOGS GEOTECHNICAL DATA?
It is not necessary to have a professionally qualified geotechnical
engineer to collect routine quantitative geotechnical data.
However, it is important that a person with caving experience
provides regular mentoring and quality assurance to ensure
the data is consistent and reliable. Educating field crews
to understand the caving process and how geotechnical
information impacts on mine design, provides a better focus
towards identifying important features.
LOGGING INTERVALS
If separate logging campaigns are conducted for basic
and advanced geotechnical data collection then, wherever
possible, the logging intervals should align. Similarly it helps
if the geotechnical log conforms to important geological and/
or structural boundaries. As a general rule two metre intervals
are a good standard with the flexibility to reduce the interval
to capture specific features. Five metre intervals can be used as
a maximum in situations where the rock mass characteristics
are uniform. Intervals greater than 5 m tend to introduce bias
in the data, particularly if quantitative information is used
statistically.

1. MAusIMM, Director, Stratavision Pty Ltd, PO Box 990, Orange NSW 2800. Email: nat@ix.net.au

EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND, 22 - 24 AUGUST 2011 3
N BURGIO

WHEN IS A FAULT A FAULT? MICROFRACTURING AND VEINING

Not all geological structures have equal importance. The
main criterion is whether a fault or shear is weaker than its
surrounding rock mass. Geologists will often concentrate
on textural features to describe a fault. For example, three
principal faults types from the Newcrest Cadia East project
were classified according to whether they were healed, partly
healed or unhealed in nature (Figure 1). The results indicate
that most fault gouges were unhealed which is to be expected.
However, a significant proportion of fault cataclasites and
fault breccias were ranked as strongly or weakly healed.
Whilst these structures play an important role in explaining
geological displacements and relationships, they may have
less geotechnical significance.
Hence, if tasked with reviewing a structural database it is
important to differentiate what is geotechnically significant.
Applying simple codes to the geological log as illustrated
above will assist geotechnical engineers differentiate structure
types, particularly if no geotechnical logs are available.
The presence of microfracturing or veining can be important if
the infill mineralogy is softer than the host rock. Microfractures
can substantially change the deformation behaviour of a rock.
Veins with softer minerals including carbonates, chlorites and
clays will cause the rock to break prematurely if subjected to
sufficiently high ground stress conditions.
A logging system should have provisions for recording
the intensity of microfracturing. The aim is to distinguish
intensely microfractured zones to more moderate and low
level occurrences. For example intense microfracturing refers
to microfractures that interconnect each other. Wetting and
drying the core is a good way of highlighting these features
(Figure 2).
Predictions of fragmentation are highly influenced by the
frequency of soft veins. The block cave fragmentation (BCF)
software is commonly used for predicting fragmentation
(Esterhuizen, 2005). The expected block size, expressed as
a per cent age passing 2 m3, decreases rapidly particularly
when the adjusted rock block strength approaches the mining
induced stress levels (Figure 3).

FIG 1 - Cadia East fault types.

FIG 2 - Example of intense microfracturing.

4 EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND, 22 - 24 AUGUST 2011
 A TOOLBOX OF IDEAS FOR THE GEOSCIENTIST WORKING ON BLOCK CAVE MINES
FIG 3 - Vein effects on fragmentation.
MAJOR AND MINOR FAULTS
It is important to delineate fault positions and their relation-
ships with other structures throughout the orebody and
adjoining host rocks. This could affect mine design and
planning issues including:
location of major infrastructure such as crusher chambers
and vent shafts-location of perimeter drives,
orientation of the production layout,
selection of cave initiation area,
cave advance direction,
stress related instability, and
cave propagation behaviour.
There needs to be a high degree of confidence with structural
interpretations supported by field evidence. A conceptual
interpretation can subject the project to technical, economic
and safety risk. Issues such as ground stability, rock bursts,
cave propagation and dilution entry may need to be explained
by the occurrence of faults and shears and their interaction
with the extraction level and cave volume.
Technological advances in data collection such as 3D imaging
systems, core scanning and acoustic televiewing surveys
provide efficient ways of collecting more comprehensive
and precise data. The challenge is to translate this data into
improved interpretations and ultimately as better inputs into
detailed analysis.
Modern day ground support regimes severely limit the
opportunity for underground exposures to be mapped
effectively. In-cycle grout applications covering most
exposures make access difficult and may compromise effective
mapping of geological and structural features. One solution
is to plan for a campaign of cover hole drilling ahead of
development so as to delineate faults that would otherwise be
missed. Most operations find this a hindrance, however, the
speed of modern day development demands such an approach
and site geoscientists should be doing their utmost to secure
the collection of this vital information to support their best
interpretations. Appropriate staffing and rostering is required
to get access to face exposures before ground support is
applied. With one production level supplying ore feed for
ten to 20 years there is ample justification to promote these
additional resources and data collection measures.
EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND, 22 - 24 AUGUST 2011
BOUNDARY DEFINITION
Drill coverage is a function of the geometric complexity of an
orebody and its grade distribution. Underground access to
various parts of the orebody and our ability to control caving
behaviour is very limited in a block cave mine. Hence there is
more reliance on drilling information to define the optimum
mining footprint. Confidence limits (not to be mistaken for
the resolution of a block model) of less than 10 m are required
around the economic boundaries of an orebody where the
orebody limits are abrupt. The trend towards the increasing
block cave heights to achieve economies of scale places greater
emphasis on boundary definition.
Major faults can influence the elevation chosen for the
production level. The Ridgeway Deeps mine, operated by
Newcrest Mining Ltd, comprises of a mineralised stockwork
and sheeted vein system zoned around subvertical monzonite
dykes (Figure 4). During the feasibility study a refinement
in the interpretation of the Claudia thrust fault and Delphin
strike-slip fault resulted in an adjustment to the perimeter
and elevation of the extraction level chosen for the block cave
operation (Burgio, 2006).
CAVE PROPAGATION AND ORE RECOVERY
The block height is defined as the height of the block to be
caved from the extraction level to the surface, the base of
a pre-exisisting open pit, a level or mined out area above
(Brown and Chitombo, 2007). This definition should not be
confused with the height of the economic ore to be recovered,
often referred to as the height of draw or HOD (Figure 5).
Block cave heights have traditionally averaged around 200 m
(Figure 6). This is mainly influenced by ground conditions
and the large lateral dimensions of the orebodies resulting in
block height to width ratios which are generally less than 1:1.
Block caves are now being developed with block height to
width ratios exceeding 1:1 with varying degrees of success.
Vertically attenuated mining blocks have a greater chance of
irregular or incomplete cave propagation.
This can lead to preferential material flow, ingress of
fines, air gap development and ultimately some component
of ore loss. Faults may also control the migration path of a
cave outside its economic limits. Cave propagation directly
affects the ability to recover the predicted reserve and should,
therefore, be a prime focus for geoscientists.
5
N BURGIO

FIG 4 - Ridgeway Deeps production elevation and faults.

FIG 5 - Block height versus height of draw.

6 EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND, 22 - 24 AUGUST 2011
 A TOOLBOX OF IDEAS FOR THE GEOSCIENTIST WORKING ON BLOCK CAVE MINES
FIG 6 - Evolution of block heights (Flores and Karzulovic, 2002).
The Ridgeway Deeps project was the first block cave
operation to have assumed an irregular cave propagation
scenario for the feasibility study (Burgio, 2008). This was
the result of careful interpretation of major structures and
modelling of plausible cave propagation scenarios (Figure 7).
The ore reserves estimation was calculated assuming
incomplete cave propagation across the eastern side of the
cave. Actual cave behaviour has, thus far, conformed to the
feasibility prediction which assumed that the propagation
of the eastern side of the cave would proceed more slowly
FIG 7 - Ridgeway Deeps cave propagation scenarios.
EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND, 22 - 24 AUGUST 2011
than the western side and that the final cave shape would be
influenced by the presence of the pre-exisisting sublevel cave
(SLC) situated above.
The Northparkes Lift 2 operation had a block height of
350 m to the previously mined out Lift 1 production level.
Although cave propagation was very rapid only one section of
the cave broke through leaving behind an irregular overhang
of uncaved rock which resulted in early ingress of dilution
(Talu et al, 2010). Field experience therefore suggests that
higher block heights and high stress conditions can lead
to unpredictable cave propagation behaviour putting ore
recovery at risk.
The positioning of drawpoints along the perimeters of
orebodies with sharp grade contacts due to faulting can affect
ore recovery. A disseminated porphyry Cu-Au orebody located
in Canada is hosted by a syenitic micro-diorite. Mineralisation
along the northern boundary is controlled by a footwall fault
accompanied by abrupt changes from potassic to phyllic
alteration (Figure 8). The weak nature of the footwall fault
suggests it could influence cave migration and result in
preferential flow thereby increasing dilution to perimeter
drawpoints. The ability to delineate the fault and model these
plausible outcomes allows mitigating measures to be adopted
by restricting production and monitoring cave growth.
SO WHAT IS MY ORE RESERVE?
An ore reserve needs to be considered in terms of flow
dynamics based on the concepts of cone interaction (Kapval,
2004). Analysis of gravity movement shows that material
flows in the form of ellipses (Figure 9). Interaction between
drawpoints can also be achieved if the spacing between
drawpoints is optimised based on the expected fragmentation
(Laubscher, 1994).
A widely used technique for the generation of an ore reserve
is the Personal Computer Block Cave (PCBC) software
developed by Gemcom (Diering, 2000). The PCBC program
imports the resource block model, transfers the information
into slice files and computes the proportion of unique and
shared material within the draw cones. The user can change
various inputs such as the shape and angle of the draw cone,
the degree of mixing, the height of interaction and other
7
N BURGIO
FIG 8 - Fault boundary and inclined draw scenario.
FIG 9 - Ellipsoids of draw (after Kapval, 2004).
related parameters. The in situ resource is then converted to
a premixed (diluted) model which is then available for mine
scheduling.
It is important that the schedule does not violate the
primary technical assumptions incorporated into the
premixed model, ie the PCBC model assumes an even and
balanced draw schedule to minimise dilution. If the schedule
incorporates an aggressive ramp up rate, or high differential
draw between adjacent drawpoints then the original PCBC
model may no longer be valid. Other factors which affect draw
cone dimensions include the fragmentation profile, stress
conditions, cave propagation behaviour and groundwater. The
template mixing option in PCBC allows for more rilling and
8 EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND, 22 - 24 AUGUST 2011
cross-drawpoint mixing. This is particularly useful for cases
where irregular cave propagation is expected or for aggressive
draw schedules over small production areas such as in panel
cave operations. There are, therefore, a number of material,
technical and draw schedule factors which might influence an
ore reserve.
FRAGMENTATION AND ORE RECOVERY
Mechanisation of block cave mines has improved production
efficiencies via the use of larger capacity loaders, proximal
crusher positions and high capacity materials handling
systems to surface. However, bigger development headings
are required to accommodate larger loaders whereas pillar
spacings are also increased to maintain the geotechnical
integrity of the extraction level. The wider drawpoint spacing
can reduce cross-drawpoint interaction, encourage isolated
draw and increase the potential for ore loss. This is particularly
relevant in weaker rock mass environments or where blasting
and preconditioning is used to produce finely fragmented ore
(Figure 10).
Fragmentation modelling software like BCF relies
on accurate representation of joint distributions, joint
persistence and character. The technical challenge is to ensure
the geological and geotechnical inputs for fragmentation
analysis are accurate and representative so that estimations
on ore recovery can be quantified. Mine planners need to also
consider the impacts on ore recovery as the ore fragmentation
profile changes over the life of the mine.
GRADE RECONCILIATION
Comparing actual versus predicted grades is a complex task in
a block cave operation. Material flow within the column and
cave propagation behaviour could be different to what has
been modelled. However, it helps to think of the process of
reconciliation in terms of the height of draw (HOD). The HOD
is the vertical distance above the production level that ore is
required to travel.
 A TOOLBOX OF IDEAS FOR THE GEOSCIENTIST WORKING ON BLOCK CAVE MINES
FIG 1O - Potential ore loss, supergene zone.
In simple terms if we assign a uniform area of influence
around a drawpoint then we can use the mined tonnages
to calculate an equivalent draw height. This, in turn, allows
the grade to be sampled, tracked and measured against the
predicted model. Individual drawpoints may have a complex
grade history over time and tracking these changes may help
operators determine if the variations are due to increased
mixing, dilution entry or narrower than expected draw cones
(Figure 11). The draw cone dimension has a large impact on
relative location of where we expect the ore to report from,
ie the HOD could be much higher for a narrow cone shape for
the same tonnages extracted.
FIG 11 - Examples of drawpoint grade profiles.
EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND, 22 - 24 AUGUST 2011
PCBC models allow rock types and other geological features
to be tracked as well as grade. Figure 12 gives an example
of the forecast for a single drawpoint located under a pre-
existing SLC mined out area at Ridgeway Deeps. Tracking
actual grades and making drawpoint observations allows us to
determine if SLC material and the forecast grade profiles are
being matched.
Systematic drawpoint sampling for very large footprints
is difficult to achieve. Resourcing and sampling frequencies
should be allocated to areas where a high degree of variability
is expected, or where decisions need to be made on draw
strategies and rates. It helps to think of sampling frequency
in terms of the number of samples required per equivalent
height of draw. Hence, weak rocks with narrow draw cones
may require higher sampling frequencies because the
vertical velocity of material flow is greater than a coarsely
fragmented zone.
PRECONDITIONING STRATEGIES
Preconditioning refers to measures which alter the in situ
state of a rock mass. The two common methods are blasting
and hydrofracturing. There is an increasing move towards
using preconditioning, particularly in strong rock masses, to
achieve the following outcomes:
reduce fragmentation size,
improve cavability to achieve high ramp up rates,
increase cave propagation rates to reduce air gap
formation, and
de-stress the rock mass to minimise seismicity.
Hydrofracturing generates artificial fractures for
considerable distances from a test hole, however, the question
is not whether we can create artificial fractures through a rock
mass, but rather will it a make any measureable difference to
the behaviour of the rock mass.
9
N BURGIO
FIG 12 - Ridgeway Deeps forecast sublevel cave ingress.
For the Northparkes Lift 1 project hydrofracturing and
perimeter blasting was effective in releasing uncaved rock
(van As and Jeffrey, 2000). However, in higher stress
conditions hydraulic fracturing, blasting and boundary
weakening measures were undertaken with limited success
for Lift 2 (Talu et al, 2010). The complexity of the geology,
stress conditions and geometry of cave propagation does alter
the effectiveness of preconditioning strategies.
Preconditioning measures are also being used prior to cave
initiation to assist with cave propagation, justify increasing
rates of production whilst reducing seismic risk. It is, however,
important that projects continue to base their mine designs
on conventional cavability guidelines until the effectiveness of
these measure are better understood.
CONCLUSIONS
Notwithstanding other conventional inputs, the most
important factor that influences the conversion of a resource
to a reserve is the cavability of a rock mass. Geologists need
to, therefore, actively engage with and assist geotechnical
engineers in analysing cavability and cave propagation
behaviour. Empirical and numerical techniques rely
on accurate rock mass characterisation and structural
interpretations which can only originate from good geology.
Increasing block heights does pose some risk to ore
recovery and increased dilution, particularly for small mining
footprints. Simulating plausible caving scenarios allows
operators to better understand the vulnerabilities of the
project and their impact on ore recovery, grade forecasts and,
ultimately net present value. Large orebodies with diffuse
grade boundaries are less sensitive economically but this does
not preclude diligent investigation and risk mitigation.
As companies seek to develop deeper block caves, or save
capital by increasing block heights, the question that needs to
be asked is if the planning is getting ahead of the science. It is
clearly our challenge to improve the quality of our technical
information and to use whatever tools are at our disposal, to
support future caving initiatives.
TOOLBOX CHECKLIST
integrate geology and geotechnical logging systems and
make use of new data collection technologies;
align qualitative fault descriptions with strength
characteristics;
determine if veining and microfracturing have a noticeable
impact on rock strength;
10 EIGHTH INTERNATIONAL MINING GEOLOGY CONFERENCE / QUEENSTOWN, NEW ZEALAND, 22 - 24 AUGUST 2011
target drilling to improve boundary definition and plan
cover drilling on the production level;
determine if major structures or changes in rock mass
characteristics are likely to influence cave propagation
behaviour and test plausible cave propagation scenarios;
critique geotechnical and numerical models which
demonstrate that a recoverable reserve is possible;
make sure the scale, resolution and inputs to geotechnical
and numerical models are representative of the rock mass
being assessed;
as more information and underground exposures become
available check the primary geological and geotechnical
assumptions that influence cavability and fragmentation
assessments;
use a variety of empirical and numerical modelling
techniques; and
use benchmarking as a guide, not a reason, to justify your
technical inputs and parameters.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Newcrest Mining Ltd and Newgold
for allowing their technical information to be presented in
this paper. In particular I wish to thank Colin Moorhead,
David Finn and James Lett of Newcrest Mining Ltd for their
comments and feedback.
REFERENCES
Brown, E T and Chitombo, G P, 2007. Underground mass mining
by caving, the way of the future, Sustainable Minerals Institute,
University of Queensland.
Burgio, N 2006. Ridgeway Deeps feasibility project block cave
elevation study, Newcrest Mining Ltd, internal memo.
Burgio, N and Diering, T, 2008. Simulating irregular cave
propagation using PCBC, in Proceedings 5th International
Conference and Exhibition on Mass Mining (eds: H Schunnesson
and E Nordling), pp 1033-1042 (Lulea University of Technology).
Diering, T, 2000. PC-BC: A block cave design and draw control
system, in Proceedings MassMin 2000, pp 469-484 (The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).
Esterhuizen, G, 2005. BCFV3.05 A program to predict block cave
fragmentation, technical reference and users guide.
Flores, G and Karzulovic, A, 2002. Benchmarking report, prepared
for International Caving Study Stage II, Julius Kruttschnitt
Mineral Research Centre, Brisbane.
Kapvil, R, 2004. Gravity flow in sublevel and panel caving A
common sense approach, special edition publication Massmin
2008, 126 p (Lulea University of Technology).
Laubscher, D H, 1990. Geomechanics classification system for
the rating of rock mass in mine design, J S Afr Inst Min Metall,
90(10):257-273.
Laubssher, D H, 1994. Cave mining the state of the art, J SAfr Inst
Min Metall, 94(10):279-293.
Talu, S, van As, A, Seloka, W and Henry, R, 2010. Lift 2 north
extension cave performance, in Proceedings Second International
Symposium on Block and Sublevel Caving (ed: E Potvin)
pp 407-421 (Australian Centre for Geomechanics).
van As, A and Jeffery, R J, 2000. Hydraulic fracturing as a cave
inducement technique at Northparkes Mines, in Proceedings
MassMin 2000 (ed: G Chitombo), pp 165-172 (The Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).