Full Scale Near Field Flow Behaviour at the Ridgeway Deeps Block Cave Mine

Ian Brunton
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Newcrest Mining Limited
Senior Research Fellow, W. H. Bryan Research Centre, University of Queensland
Glenn Sharrock
Principle Geotechnical Engineer, Newcrest Mining Limited
Adjunct Associate Professor, W. H. Bryan Research Centre, University of Queensland
James Lett
Senior Geotechnical Engineer, Newcrest Mining Limited

Abstract: Full scale marker experiments were designed and implemented at the Ridgeway Deeps
block cave mine from March 2008 to October 2010. The experiments aimed at quantifying and
assessing the geometry of the extraction zone, development of the extraction zone over time,
variability of flow behaviour, and factors affecting flow behaviour in both the near and far field of the
cave column. Over 3,000 markers were installed over a two year period, making these experiments
the most extensive undertaken by a block caving operation to date. Results in the near field (markers
recovered within 30 m above the undercut level) provide insight into the development of the
extraction zone during undercutting and subsequent draw. These results highlight early material
recovery in the vicinity of the major apex, which expands towards the centre of the drawbell as more
tonnes are drawn. Furthermore, marker recovery is not spatially uniform during material extraction,
indicating disturbed flow behaviour. This type of behaviour significantly deviates from conventional
flow theory based on numerical models and scaled physical models using narrow distributions of
idealised particles or crushed aggregates.
1. Introduction
An understanding of gravity flow mechanisms in caving operations is critical for the ongoing success
of caving mines. Gravity flow impacts on both design and operational aspects of the cave, including
extraction/undercut level layout and design, drawbell geometry, cave propagation, air gap formation,
and ore reserve recovery. Most existing knowledge of the mechanisms controlling gravity flow come
from idealised numerical and small scale experiments on gravels and sands with narrow particle sizes
and shape distributions (Sharrock and Hashim, 2009). This knowledge, or conventional flow theory, is
based on isolated flow ellipsoids (and derivations of such) and interactive/interaction flow behaviour.
Generally, these theories are applied to extraction level design (drawpoint spacing) and used to
calibrate cave material flow codes (e.g. PCBC, REBOP, NCA, PGCA, FlowSim, and DEM codes;
refer Sharrock et al, 2012 for further detail) for the modelling of ore recovery, waste ingress, air gap
formation, and coupling to cave propagation finite element models.
In contrast to small scale experiments, actual caves are known to have wide fragmentation size
distributions with large discrete blocks, or interlocking groups of particles, which result in hang-ups
and other disturbances to the flow displacement field (Sharrock and Hashim, 2009). Such behaviour is
termed disturbed flow, and can result in significant deviation from conventional flow behaviour
(Sharrock and Hashim, 2009). To date, limited data exists in the literature to describe the development
and geometry of disturbed flow behaviour in operational caves. Although existing numerical and
scaled physical experiments indicate the likely differences between disturbed flow behaviour and
conventional flow theory, this has not been confirmed in detailed full scale experiments.
To improve the understanding of full scale material flow behaviour, a marker experimental program
was adopted at the Ridgeway Deeps block cave mine. The major objectives of this program were to
quantify extraction zone development and shape (the shape that defines the original location of the

excavated material, defined by recovered markers), and indirectly interpret general material
movement mechanisms. The experiment was divided into two broad components related to the
quantification of 1) near field flow (within 30 m of the undercut level), and 2) far field flow
(extending from 30 m to 240 m above the undercut level). Due to the early draw tonnes extracted
from the cave to date (approximately 17 % of final design tonnes), the results from the near field
markers are discussed. These results detail material recovery and the transient growth of the extraction
zone in the vicinity of the undercut, stagnant regions in the vicinity of the undercut and potential flow
mechanisms driving this behaviour.
2. Ridgeway Deeps Block Cave Mine
The Ridgeway Deeps mine is located approximately 250 km west of Sydney, Australia. The operation
is located 3 km to the north west of the Cadia Hill open cut gold mine, and approximately 25 km
south of Orange, New South Wales (Figure 1). The Ridgeway Deeps, Ridgeway, Cadia East, and
Cadia Hill gold mines form Cadia Valley Operations, which is owned and operated by Newcrest
Mining Limited. The Ridgeway gold-copper orebody was discovered in November 1996, with initial
mining commencing in March 2002 using the sublevel caving method (Ridgeway SLC). A production
transition from the Ridgeway SLC to Ridgeway Deeps block cave occurred in 2010. The Ridgeway
Deeps block cave is located approximately 210 m below the existing Ridgeway SLC and 1100 m
below ground surface. The expected mine life is eight years (2017) based on current reserves.
Production is expected to be 1.6 Moz of gold and 0.21 Mt copper, with an annual mining rate of 5.6
Mt (Newcrest, 2011).
Ridgeway SLC and Ridgeway Deeps

Cadia Hill
Cadia East

Cadia Valley Operations

500 m
2000 ft

Figure 1 Location of Cadia Valley Operations and Ridgeway Deeps block cave mine

The Ridgeway deposit is a structurally controlled gold-copper porphyry orebody characterised by

stockwork and sheeted quartz veins containing copper sulphides (Smart and OSullivan, 2006). The
deposit is centred on a subvertical monzonite stock of the Late Ordovician to Early Silurian. The
orebody is contained within the Forest Reef Volcanics and sediments of the Weemalla Formation, and
has a maximum dimension of approximately 400 m east-west, 250 m north-south, and in excess of
1000 m vertically (Smart and OSullivan, 2006). Mineralisation extends over 1000 m in vertical
extent, from 500 m below the surface and is open at depth.
The design of the Ridgeway Deeps block cave consisted of an extraction level (4786 level) and an
undercut level (4804 level) 18 m above the extraction level. The general design of these levels and
associated drawbells is shown in Figure 2. The block cave was established using an advanced
undercut crinkle cut design. Total undercutting area was approximately 85,000 m2 (approximate

maximum dimensions 490 m x 180 m), and was commenced in the north east footprint corner and
retreated to the south west. A total of 248 drawpoints were developed, with production from all
drawpoints occurring by November 2010. Material handling to surface is achieved through two
underground jaw crushers, and conveyor belt system to surface.

Figure 2 Ridgeway Deeps extraction and undercut level geometry (after Newcrest, 2007)

3. Full Scale Experimental Program

Methodologies for cave scale monitoring of flow behaviour can be divided into two broad categories
indirect and direct measures. Indirect measures rely on flow behaviour being inferred from indirect
measurements such as grade recovery, visual identification of geological markers at the drawpoint,
timing and location of waste ingress such as clay, and recovery of infrastructure from overlying
abandon levels. Although such information can be valuable, the interpretation of such data can be
misleading or inconclusive.
In contrast, direct measures rely on the direct measurement of either the extraction or movement zone.
Measurement of the extraction zone is achievable through the installation of markers (generally
plastic, metal, or electronic) in the cave. The development and shape of the extraction zone is simply
defined by the markers recovered. The major limitation with such monitoring programs is achieving
the required density of markers to satisfactorily define the extraction zone. Historically, such marker
experiments have been confined to sublevel caving operations where sufficient marker density can be
installed in selected blast rings (Janelid, 1972; Gustafsson, 1998; Power 2004; Brunton, 2009). To the
authors knowledge, in block/panel caving operations, no rigorous direct marker experiments have
been attempted or documented. To date, the technology has not been developed to measure material
movement characteristics (displacement, velocity, extent) in the full scale.
Full scale marker experiments were designed and implemented at the Ridgeway Deeps block cave
operation from March 2008 to October 2010. The experiments aimed at quantifying and assessing the

development and shape of the extraction zone, potential flow mechanisms controlling flow behaviour,
identify possible sources of waste ingress, and ascertain the degree of flow behaviour variability. The
design of the experimental program was based upon a number of criteria related to the experimental
objectives, marker density both laterally and vertically, budget constraints, drill availability and
capability, underground development and access, existing location of open holes (exploration and
hydrofracture), undercutting schedule, and expected cave geometry. Based upon these design criteria
the installation of markers was focused in specific areas of the block cave column (Figure 3). Markers
were installed in up holes drilled from the 4804 undercut level (maximum hole length 30 m), deep
down holes drilled from SLC development (maximum hole length 250 m, drilled from 5040 and 5070
levels), SLC production crosscut pillars (5010 level), and down cave back monitoring open holes
during cave propagation.
5100 SLC L evel

5070 SLC L evel

Deep hole markers

(5040 and 5070 levels)

5040 SLC Level

5010 SLC Level

Sublevel cave markers

(5010 level)
Open hole markers
Eastern cave boundary
undercut m arkers
(4804 XN22)

Central region undercut

markers (XN3, 5, 7 & 9)

Electronic m arker
trial area (4804 XN27)

4804 Undercut L evel

4786 Extraction Level

Figure 3 Ridgeway Deeps experimental marker layout (looking south west)

Markers were designed to mimic flow behaviour of rock in the mine within the limitations of the
installation techniques available. They had to be individually identifiable, robust enough to survive
any initial blasting process and subsequent cave flow, and be recovered in a relatively easy and
reliable fashion to ensure sufficient data for further analysis. Based upon these requirements, markers
were constructed from 42 mm diameter hollow steel pipe (inside diameter 38 mm) cut to 250 mm
lengths (Figure 4a). A four letter code was welded on the pipe to uniquely identify each marker. An
electronic marker system (Elexon, 2011) was trialled in selected areas of the cave (undercut and open
holes). The system was found to be robust and reliable; however the technology was not
commercially available at the time of marker installation (therefore resulting in the large proportion of
metal markers being used in the experimental program).
Installation of the marker in up holes required the use of a redcap and spider at the base and top of
the marker respectively (Figure 4a). The redcap was designed to hold the weight of the marker in the
hole, while the spider was used to centralise the marker during installation. Markers were loaded into
holes using an explosive truck, which allowed the distance of the marker up the hole to be accurately
measured (Figure 4b). Markers in downholes were installed with the aid of PVC tube segments and a
wire line attached to a winching system (Figure 4c). Markers were taped to the PVC tube before being
lowered into the hole to ensure their original position was maintained. The spacing of markers in both
up and down holes was 2 m. Once installation was completed, markers were grouted in place to
ensure no premature movement. Based upon previous experiments at the Ridgeway SLC (Power,
2004), recovery of markers was undertaken using magnetic separation in the material handling system

(after the primary crusher). This method has been found to provide high levels of marker recovery
compared to other methods such as visual collection at the drawpoint or conveyor belt system (Power,
2004). The main disadvantage of magnetic separation is that it does not provide information
concerning the drawpoint location, time, or tonnes excavated from the drawpoint at recovery. This is
an important limitation in the use of metal markers, as the degree of lateral movement across the cave
cannot be determined.

a) Metal marker (after Power, 2004)

b) Installation of marker in up hole (after P ower, 2004)

c) Installation of marker in deep down hole

Figure 4 Installation of metal markers in up and down holes

4. Near Field Experimental Results

Due to the relatively low tonnes extracted from the cave to date (approximately 17 % of final design
tonnes December 2011), the results from markers installed in up holes drilled from the 4804
undercut level are only considered for analysis. Markers were installed in three separate areas of the
undercut level (Figure 3): 1) eastern flank to monitor flow behaviour in proximity of a cave boundary
(4804 XN22 524 markers), 2) central region to monitor general flow behaviour over three drawbells
(4804 XN3, 5, 7, and 9 1291 markers), and 3) western region to assess the performance of an
electronic marker system (4804 XN27 112 markers). For the purposes of this paper, the marker
recovery in the central region of the cave is discussed in further detail. This region is considered
representative of the expected material flow behaviour within the cave as it is located in the dominant
rock type (Volcanics), spatially removed from the cave boundary, and located above drawbells with
typical design draw tonnes.
The installation layout consisted of five separate rings drilled from the 4804 XN3, 5, 7, and 9
crosscuts (Figure 5). Each ring was dumped forwards 10 (to match the blast ring dump angle) and
contained 24 holes (diameter 102 mm) ranging in length from 12 m to 30 m. Spacing between each
ring was designed at 10 m to provide sufficient marker density across the drawbell (located mid

burden for the inclined and flat blast rings). The experimental area was located within the Volcanics
rock type (average UCS = 116 MPa, average RMR(L90) = 59) approximately 60 m south of the
northern cave boundary. Based on digital photographic analysis, the average measured fragmentation
distribution P80 and block top size volume for the area was 1.1 m3 and 18 m3 respectively (for a drawn
tonnage range of 9,000 t to 11,000 t), while production statistics indicate an average drawpoint hangup frequency per 1000 tonnes of 2.1 (drawn tonnage range from 15,000 t to 20,000 t). Drawpoint
hang-ups were removed through a combination of techniques including water cannon, explosives
(bombing and ballistic mortar), and mechanical methods.

Marker Rings

Marker Rings

XN3

XN5

XN7

XN9

4804 L evel
XN3

Drawbell

XN5

ED7

ED8

XN7

ED7

XN9
4786 L evel

a) I sometric view looking to t he south west

ED8
b) I sometric view looking to t he south east

Figure 5 Isometric views of 4804 level central region up hole marker rings and associated development

To delineate the extraction zones, five vertical sections perpendicular to the major apex were
constructed through the three drawbells (Figure 6). The sections were spaced at nine metres,
beginning at the centre of the southern drawbell (Section 1) and progressing to the north. Sections 1,
3, and 5 were located in the centre of each drawbell, while Sections 2 and 4 were constructed through
the minor apex. A nine metre sample clip (4.5 m to the south and north of the section line) was used to
determine which markers reported to each section. For recovered markers, a drawpoint tonnage was
assigned based on: 1) the closest drawpoint in which the marker was initially located to, and 2) the
drawpoint tonnes on the day in which the marker was recovered from the material handling system.
This is an important assumption, as the flow displacement path is assumed to be the shortest distance
to the drawpoint (in reality this is not always likely to be the case).
Instead of a general ellipsoid shape being fitted for each section, the extraction zone was defined by a
series of polygons based upon marker recovery tonnage increments. Delineation of these polygons
was based upon a number of criterion or rules consisting of: 1) polygon boundary defined by the
half way point between two markers (in both the x and y direction on the section), 2) markers not
recovered in the material handling process are assumed to represent material not extracted from the
cave to date, 3) areas within the experimental area that do not contain markers are treated as not being
monitored, with extraction polygons terminating at these regions (i.e. polygons do not extend into
areas with no marker coverage). These criteria are considered important as they provide a systematic
and consistent approach in defining extraction zones. Although the polygon assembly represents only
an approximate model of the extraction zone and not the exact shape, they do provide an insight into
the asymmetric, disturbed and non-uniform nature of full scale gravity flow which has not been
measured before.
Extraction zone polygons were constructed for five separate draw tonnage increments 1) markers
recovered during the undercutting process, 2) 1 t to 10,000 t draw, 3) 10,000 t to 20,000 t draw, 4)
20,000 t to 30,000 t draw, and 5) 30,000 t to 40,000 t draw (Figure 6). Drawpoint extraction tonnages

in the experimental region ranged from 28,500 t to 43,000 t (tonnages varied significantly due to
hang-ups limiting drawpoint availability). To date, approximately 50 percent of markers have been
recovered from the experimental region. Further marker recovery is expected with additional tonnes
drawn from the region. It should be noted that the extraction zone polygons represent material
recovery in both the undercutting and subsequent draw process. During the undercutting process,
potential exists for both lateral and vertical movement of markers in the lower section of the marker
rings (due to blast related overbreak and commencement of caving). It would therefore be expected
that before excavation from the drawpoints commences, a percentage of markers would not be in their
original position, but would travel a path defining the near field flow displacement field.
Installed M arker

Section 1

Undercut
1 10,000 t
10,000 20,000 t
20,000 30,000 t
30,000 40,000 t

4804 L evel

Blast Ring

XN9

XN7

XN3

XN5

Installed M arker

Section 2

Undercut
1 10,000 t
10,000 20,000 t
20,000 30,000 t
30,000 40,000 t

4804 L evel

XN9

XN7

XN3

XN5

Drawbell

8E5
(43,000 t)
4786 L evel

7W5
(40,600 t)
ED7

ED8

4786 L evel

Installed M arker

Section 3

Undercut
1 10,000 t
10,000 20,000 t
20,000 30,000 t
30,000 40,000 t

4804 L evel

XN9

XN7

8E4
(33,000 t)

4786 Level

XN3

XN5

4786 L evel

Section 5

Undercut
1 10,000 t
10,000 20,000 t
20,000 30,000 t
30,000 40,000 t

XN9

XN7

8E3
(31,300 t)
4786 L evel

ED8

XN9

XN7

8W3
(28,500 t)

Installed M arker

4804 L evel

Section 4

Undercut
1 10,000 t
10,000 20,000 t
20,000 30,000 t
30,000 40,000 t

4804 Level

ED7

ED7

ED8

Installed M arker

7W4
(36,000 t)

ED8

7E5
(36,400 t)

8W4
(31,200 t)

ED8

XN3

XN5

7E4
(31,700 t)
ED7

Plan

XN3

XN5

7W3
(34,300 t)
ED7

Figure 6 4804 level marker recovery sections (looking north east) for 0 to 40,000 tonnes extracted

The marker recovery results summarised in Figure 6 shows a general trend towards initial recovery
above the major apex region, which expands towards the centre of the drawbell with increased
excavated tonnes. Markers located in close proximity to the inclined blast rings were recovered during
the initial undercutting process. Development of recovery through the centre (Figure 6 Sections 1, 3,
and 5) and across the minor apex (Figure 6 Sections 2 and 4) of the three drawbells was similar. It is

concluded that the geometry of the extraction zone defined by the polygons are irregular in nature and
cannot be described by general ellipsoid flow theory.
5. Conceptual Model of Near Field Flow Behaviour
A four stage conceptual model based on the marker experiments, fragmentation data, and anecdotal
information such as drawpoint observations, stress analysis and micro-seismic data is presented in
Figure 7. In all stages, disturbed gravity flow is evident. Disturbed flow occurs when a large particle,
or group of interlocking particles acting as a large particle, disrupts the displacement field of an
assembly of smaller particles (or mixture of small and large particles).
Stress damaged
zone

Approximate limit of marker

recovery at 10 kT draw
recovery above major apex

Destressed zone: caved rock

(P50 = 0.6 m)
Major Apex

Major Apex

Undercut Level
(4804 Level)

Undercut Level
(4804 Level)

Blasted Material
(P50 = 0.2 m)

Pillar

Pillar

Extraction Level
(4786 Level)

Lower limit of installed markers

Rapid movement of caved rock

(containing markers) near surface
of blasted rock blasted rock acts
to transport caved rock fragments
via a diffusion concentration
driven displacement mechanism

Preferential movement of fine

blasted material

Extraction Level
(4786 Level)

a) Initial condition

b) Initial draw ( upto 10,000 t)

Approximate limit of marker recovery
at 20 kT draw. Recovery of markers
spreading towards centre of drawbell
extraction zone shape (Fig 6) indicates
disturbed flow behaviour.

Internal arching creates hang-up

and disturbance to surrounding
displacement field

Large oversize fragment disturbs

surrounding displacement field
resulting in preferential movement
of finer material around the
fragment

Approximate limit of marker recovery

at 30 kT draw. Recovery of markers
spreads to centre of drawbell extraction
zone shape indicates disturbed flow
behaviour (Fig 6).

Internal arching creates hang-up

and disturbance to surrounding
displacement field

Lower limit of installed markers

Drawpoint hang-up resulting

in large scale disruption to
displacement field

Large oversize fragments resulting

in disturbance to surrounding
displacement field and preferential
movement of finer material
(localised rat holing)

Compacted blasted
material

c) Draw 10,000 t to 20,000 t

d) Draw greater 20,000 t

Figure 7 Conceptual model of near field disturbed gravity flow at Ridgeway Deeps block cave mine

Stage 1 (Figure 7a) represents the initial state in proximity to the undercut advance face immediately
after firing of the crinkle cut, but before mucking of the undercut. Three different zones representing
particle size distributions exist 1) the blasted material, 2) destressed caved material, and 3) stress
damaged zones above the major apex. The packing (porosity) and size ratio between the particles in
each zone is thought to control the movement and segregation mechanisms observed in the next three
stages.
In Stage 2 (Figure 7b - 10,000 t) slow moving and arched rock in the destressed zone acts somewhat
like an inclined SLC ring, promoting the movement of the fine particles, which carry coarser rock
fragments (containing markers) from the lower edge of the destressed zone, and hence from above the
major apex. As a result coarse particles in contact or embedded in the matrix of fine particles move
very quickly and are recovered earlier than the core material. The fine particles act to rapidly transport

particles from the damaged and destressed zones to the drawpoints. This is somewhat like a diffusion
or concentration driven segregation mechanism observed in other disciplines of granular science
(Mosby et al, 1996, de Silva et al, 2000). By contrast the coarser particles in the centre of the drawbell
move very slowly and a core of coarse particles accumulates in this region. This type of disturbed
flow has been noted in scaled physical modelling experiments and has been termed kinematic
disturbance. Kinematic disturbance results from differential movements between the fine and coarse
or larger fractions (Sharrock and Hashim, 2009). Large particles move slower, and effectively create a
moving boundary, which disturbs the flow of other particles.
In Stage 3 (Figure 7c 20,000 t) most particles from the blasted zone have been extracted. As draw
continues more arching and interlocking of the coarse particles occurs, leading to percolation of fine
particles through the interstitial voids. In this stage there is ongoing recovery of markers from above
the major apex. It is noteworthy that a high number of hang-ups were experienced in the marker
experimental area (due to oversize), and as a result substantial disturbed flow and skewing of the
extraction zones are evident in the marker recovery data. Hang-ups result in the formation of stagnant
zones, forming zones of rapid material movement elsewhere to satisfy requirements for mass balance.
In Stage 4 (Figure 7d 30,000 t) the majority of the caved rock from the destressed zone has been
recovered, while marker recovery shows very high levels of disturbed flow. Large rock fragments and
arches disturb the displacement field, resulting in significant disorder and asymmetric growth of the
extraction zone, but higher recovery above the drawbell. This type of disturbed flow has been termed
static disturbance which occurs when a stationary zone of particles forms, either from a fixed
boundary or a large static particle. Such a situation is shown in Figure 7d, where the particle is
stationary due to arching, while the smaller particles with higher mobility can pass. In this case, the
static particle (or group of particles) effectively forms a new boundary, which disturbs the flow of
material. This zone changes as flow continues, if for example the arch is broken, or stress
redistributions result in movement or elimination of the stationary zone.
6. Conclusions
This paper documents what is believed to be the first recorded full scale marker experiment in block
caving. The experimental marker recovery results for the near field provides the first insights into the
development of the extraction zone during undercutting and subsequent draw. The results highlight
early material recovery in the vicinity of the major apex, which expands towards the centre of the
monitored drawbells as more tonnes are drawn. In addition, marker recovery is not spatially uniform
during material extraction, indicating disturbed flow behaviour. This type of behaviour significantly
deviates from conventional flow theory based on numerical models and scaled physical models using
narrow distributions of idealised particles or crushed aggregates. A conceptual model is proposed to
describe the basic flow mechanisms associated with the observed near field flow behaviour. This
model incorporates concepts associated with concentration driven segregation and disturbed flow
kinematic and static disturbances.
7. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Newcrest Mining Limited (NML) for the support and permission to publish
this paper. The initiation and implementation of this project would not have been possible without the
assistance of David Finn, Geoff Dunstan, Stephen Duffield, Geoff Capes, Michelle Morgan, Robert
Lowther, Luca Popa, Tim Thornhill, and Joseph Emmi.
8. References
Brunton, I. D., 2009. The impact of blasting on sublevel caving material flow behavior and recovery.
PhD thesis, University of Queensland, 2009, p 562.

de Silva, S., Dyroy, A., and Enstad, G. G., 2000. Segregation mechanisms and their quantification
using segregation testers. In AD Rosato and DL Blackmore (eds), IUTAM Symposium on
Segregation in Granular Flows, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 11-29.
Elexon, 2011. http://www.elexonelectronics.com/
Gustafsson, P., 1998. Waste rock content variations during gravity flow in sublevel caving: analysis
of full scale experiments and numerical simulation. PhD thesis, Lulea University of Technology,
Sweden, p 228.
Janelid, I., 1972. Study of the gravity flow process in sublevel caving. In International sublevel caving
symposium, Atlas Copco, Stockholm, p 23.
Mosby, J, de Silva, S.R., and Enstad, G. G., 1996. Segregation of sugar during flow. Transactions of
ASAE, vol. 41, no. 5, pp 1469-1476.
Newcrest, 2007. Ridgeway Deeps geotechnical feasibility report. NML internal report, p 94.
Newcrest, 2011. http://newcrest.com.au/projects.asp?category=2
Power, G. R., 2004. Modelling granular flow in caving mines: large scale physical modelling and full
scale experiments. PhD thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, p 303.
Sharrock, G. B., and Hashim, H., 2009. Disturbed Flow in Block Caving, Proc. American Rock
Mechanics Symposium, Asheville, USA, July 2009, p12.
Sharrock, G.B., Beck, D.A., Capes, G.W., Brunton, I.D. , 2012. Applying coupled Newtonian Cellular
Automata-Discontinuum Finite Element models to simulate propagation of Ridgeway Deeps Block
Cave, Proc. Massmin 2012 Conference, Sudbury.
Smart, G., and OSullivan, T., 2006. Local scale estimation of sublevel cave stocks is it possible? A
case study in recon-ciliation of metal production Ridgeway Mine, New South Wales. In Proceedings
6th International Mining Geology Conference. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, pp 323-33.