METHOD SELECTION -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
mechanics p r o p e r t i e s , mining method s e l e c t i o n
should be a t l e a s t a two-stage p r o c e s s .
I n Stage 1 , t h e d e p o s i t i s d e s c r i b e d i n
terms of geometry, grade d i s t r i b u t i o n , and
rock mechanics p r o p e r t i e s . Using t h e s e param-
e t e r s , t h e mining methods can be ranked t o
determine which a r e most a p p l i c a b l e ; they can
then be considered i n g e n e r a l terms o f mining
and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n c o s t , mining r a t e , type
and a v a i l a b i l i t y of p e r s o n n e l , environmental
concerns, and o t h e r s i t e - s p e c i f i c considera-
tions.
I n Stage 2, t h e most l i k e l y mining methods
a r e c o s t e d o u t , based on a g e n e r a l mine p l a n .
Mining and c a p i t a l i z a t i o n c o s t s a r e used t o
determine a cut-off grade f r a n which a minable
r e s e r v e can be c a l c u l a t e d ; economic comparisons
can t h e n be made t o determine t h e optimum min-
i n g method and economic f e a s i b i l i t y .
During t h e mine planning phase of Stage 2,
rock mechanics information would be used t o
provide r e a l i s t i c e s t i m a t e s of underground
opening s i z e , amount of s u p p o r t , o r i e n t a t i o n
of openings, and caving c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and
open p i t s l o p e a n g l e s . I f ground c o n t r o l o r
o p e r a t i o n a l problems should be encountered w i t h
t h e methods being c o n s i d e r e d , m o d i f i c a t i o n s
could be made. Although planning on paper
extends s t a r t - u p time, it i s cheaper t o e r r
on paper than t o f i n d t h e e r r o r a f t e r mining
has begun.
METHOD SELECTION - STAGE 1
The main purpose of Stage 1 i s t o s e l e c t
those mining methods which should be considered
i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l . The s i m p l e s t way t o do t h i s
i s by d e f i n i n g those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e q u i r e d
f o r each mining method and then d e t e r m i n i n g
whether t h e 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 a r e
s u i t a b l e . However, no one mining method i s s o
r e s t r i c t i v e t h a t it can be used f o r o n l y one
s e t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a s i n d i c a t e d by t h e
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system proposed by Boshkov and
Wright (1973). I n t h e mining method s e l e c t i o n
proposed, geometry, grade d i s t r i b u t i o n , and
rock mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e ranked
according t o t h e i r a c c e p t a b i l i t y f o r t e n
g e n e r a l mining methods.
 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES

Data Required Table 1: D e f i n i t i o n of Deposit Geometry and

Grade D i s t r i b u t i o n -
The most important d a t a r e q u i r e d f o r s e l e c -
Geometry of Deposit
t i o n of a mining method and i n i t i a l mine layout
a r e geologic s e c t i o n s and l e v e l maps, a grade
1) General shape
model of t h e d e p o s i t , and rock mechanics char-
a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e d e p o s i t , f o o t w a l l , and hang- equi-dimensional: a l l dimensions a r e on the
ing w a l l . Much o f t h i s d a t a can be o b t a i n e d same order of magnitude
from d r i l l c o r e , and, i f it i s not c o l l e c t e d
during t h e i n i t i a l core logging o r a s s a y i n g ,
platey - tabular: two dimensions a r e many
times t h e t h i c k n e s s ,
it w i l l be l o s t . which does not usually
exceed 100 m (325 f t )
Geology. Basic geology i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s of
major importance i n any mineral e v a l u a t i o n . irregular: dimensions vary over
Geologic s e c t i o n s and l e v e l maps which show short distances
major rock t y p e s , a l t e r a t i o n zones, and major
s t r u c t u r e s , such a s f a u l t s , v e i n s , and f o l d 2) Ore t h i c k n e s s
a x e s , should be prepared. I t may be a d v i s a b l e
narrow: <10 m (<30 f t )
t o d e f i n e t h e a l t e r a t i o n zones on a s e p a r a t e
s e t o f maps, which can then be o v e r l a i n onto intermediate: 10 m - 30 m (30 f t - 100 f t )
t h e rock type geology maps. These g e o l o g i c
s e c t i o n s and l e v e l maps should be prepared a t
thick: 30 m - 100 m (100 f t - 325 f t )
t h e same s c a l e a s w i l l be used f o r mine plan- very t h i c k : >I00 m (>325 f t )
ning. S e c t i o n s should be drawn t o t r u e s c a l e ,
without any v e r t i c a l e x a g g e r a t i o n , because it 3) Plunge
makes it e a s i e r t o v i s u a l i z e t h e r e l a t i v e lay-
flat: <20
o u t of mine workings. The a r e a included on
t h e maps should extend h o r i z o n t a l l y i n a l l intermediate: 20 - 55'
d i r e c t i o n s 1.75 times t h e depth beyond t h e
steep : >55"
l i m i t of t h e orebody. Although an a r e a t h i s
s i z e may seem e x c e s s i v e , it w i l l ensure t h a t
4 ) Depth below s u r f a c e
t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t information f o r e v a l u a t i n g
t h e l i m i t of ground s u r f a c e movement due t o provide a c t u a l depth
mining: t h i s information i s needed t o l o c a t e
s h a f t s , a d i t s , and b u i l d i n g s , e t c . 5) Grade d i s t r i b u t i o n
uniform
The importance of a complete s e t o f i n t e r -
p r e t e d s e c t i o n s and l e v e l maps cannot be over- 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
s t a t e d . They a r e necessary f o r d e f i n i n g grade n o t vary s i g n f i c a n t l y from t h e mean grade
d i s t r i b u t i o n , a s w e l l a s u n i t s of s i m i l a r rock for t h a t deposit
mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
gradational
Geometry of Deposit and Grade D i s t r i b u t i o n . grade v a l u e s have zonal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
During Stage 1 of t h e method s e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s , and t h e grades change gradually from one
geometry and grade d i s t r i b u t i o n a r e d e f i n e d . t o another
The geometry of t h e d e p o s i t i s d e f i n e d i n terms
erratic
of g e n e r a l shape, o r e t h i c k n e s s , plunge, and
depth (Table 1 ) . Grade d i s t r i b u t i o n i s d e f i n e d grade v a l u e s change r a d i c a l l y over s h o r t
a s uniform, g r a d a t i o n a l , o r e r r a t i c (Table 1 ) . 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
Defining t h e geometry and grade d i s t r i b u t i o n
of a d e p o s i t r e q u i r e s development o f a grade Rock Mechanics C h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . I n Stage 1
model. The t y p e of model c o n s t r u c t e d w i l l de- 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
pend on t h e complexity of t h e geology and how 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
w e l l it i s understood, a s w e l l a s on t h e d r i l l d e p o s i t i s provided. A number of c l a s s i f i c a -
hole spacing. The grade model should be p u t on t i o n systems have been presented (Deere, 1968;
s e c t i o n s and l e v e l maps a t t h e same s c a l e a s Coates, 1970; Bieniawski, 1973; Barton e t a l . ,
t h e geology maps and should be contoured by 1974; and Laubscher, 1977). A l l t h e s e systems
g r a d e , o r t h e blocks should be c o l o r e d by grade include t h e b a s i c measurements of rock sub-
categories. These contoured o r c o l o r e d grade s t a n c e ( i n t a c t . rock) s t r e n g t h , some measure-
s e c t i o n s and l e v e l maps, when o v e r l a i n o n t o ment o f t h e f r a c t u r e i n t e n s i t y , and some meas-
t h e g e o l o g i c s e c t i o n s and l e v e l maps, w i l l urement 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 -
i n d i c a t e t h e dominant rock t y p e s , a s w e l l a s f i c a t i o n systems of Bieniawski, Barton e t a l . ,
t h e i r s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o t h e orebody. 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 - A NUMERICAL APPROACH
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 strength. These maps, when overlain onto t h e
spacing, and f r a c t u r e shear s t r e n g t h used i n geology and grade o u t l i n e , w i l l s p a t i a l l y de-
t h e method s e l e c t i o n i s presented i n Table 2. f i n e rock mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

Table 2: Rock Mechanics ~ h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The use of any of t h e e x i s t i n g c l a s s i f i c a -

t i o n systems w i l l a l s o provide t h e data t o
1) Rock Substance Strength
determine t h e c l a s s e s defined i n Table 2 .
(uniaxial strength[Pa]/overburden pressure
[Pal Method Selection Process
weak: <8
Ten b a s i c mining methods, not including
moderate: 8 - 15
hydraulic o r s o l u t i o n mining, should be con-
strong: >15
sidered i n any s e l e c t i o n process:
2) Fracture Spacing 1) Open p i t - a method where mining s t a r t s
a t t h e surface and waste i s removed t o
Fractures/m (f t ) % RQD
uncover t h e ore; includes s t r i p mining
very close: >16 (>5) 0 - 20 and quarrying .
close : 10 -
16 (3 - 5) 20 - 40 2) Block caving -a method i n which columns
wide : 3 - 10 (1 - 3) 40 - 70 of rock a r e undercut and cave under t h e i r
very wide: 3 (<I) 70 - 100 own weight; t h e roof material i s expected
t o cave a s well; includes panel and con-
3) Fracture Shear Strength
tinuous caving.
weak : clean j o i n t with a smooth surface 3) Sublevel stoping - a method of stoping i n
o r f i l l with m a t e r i a l whose which t h e ore i s b l a s t e d by benching,
s t r e n g t h i s l e s s than rock sub- r i n g d r i l l i n g , o r long hole; most of t h e
stance s t r e n g t h o r e i s drawn o f f a s it i s b l a s t e d , leav-
i n g an open stope.
moderate: clean j o i n t with a rough surface
4) Sublevel caving -
an induced caving
strong: j o i n t i s f i l l e d with a m a t e r i a l method i n which t h e ore i s b l a s t e d by
t h a t i s equal t o o r stronger r i n g d r i l l i n g from d r i f t s ; overlying
than rock substance s t r e n g t h rock i s expected t o cave a s t h e ore i s
drawn.
Rock substance s t r e n g t h i s t h e r a t i o of t h e 5) Longwall - a method i n which t h e d e p o s i t ,
uniaxial compression s t r e n g t h t o t h e overburden usually a coal seam, i s removed i n a con-
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 tinuous operation along a long working
be estimated using t h e method o r i g i n a l l y pre- face; using an extensive s e r i e s of props
sented by Terzaghi and Peck (1967), which was over t h e face and working a r e a s ; mined
then modified by Deere (1968), Jennings and o u t a r e a s usually cave.
Robertson (1960) , and P i t e a u (1970) .
However, 6) Room-and-pillar -
a method i n which a
a b e t t e r estimate of t h e u n i a x i a l compression g r i d of rooms i s developed, leaving p i l -
strength could be obtained r e l a t i v e l y inexpen- l a r s , u s u a l l y of uniform s i z e , t o support
s i v e l y by using a point load t e s t i n g machine. t h e roof; t h e p i l l a r s may o r may not be
The overburden s t r e s s i s determined from t h e removed a t a l a t e r time;
depth and density of rock. 7) Shrinkage stoping -
a stoping method i n
which most of t h e b l a s t e d ore i s l e f t t o
Fracture spacing can be defined i n terms of accumulate i n t h e stope u n t i l t h e stope
f r a c t u r e s per meter o r RQD, Rock Quality Desig- i s completely mined. The broken o r e i s
nation (Table 2 ) . RQD i s t h e sum length of a l l then drawn off a l l a t once.
pieces of core g r e a t e r than o r equal t o two 8 ) Cut-and-fill -a stoping method i n which
times t h e core diameter divided by the t o t a l each s l i c e of rock i s removed a f t e r
length of a d r i l l run. However, I believe t h e b l a s t i n g and i s then replaced with some
f r a c t u r e s per meter measurement i s b e t t e r type of f i l l m a t e r i a l , leaving space t o
because it provides a more q u a n t i t a t i v e mine t h e next s l i c e .
description of t h e rock fragment s i z e . Frac- 9) Top s l i c i n g - a method i n which staggered
t u r e shear s t r e n g t h i s determined by observa- h o r i z o n t a l l i f t s a r e mined; t h e overlying
t i o n (Table 2 ) . rock i s supported by a timber mat and t h e
overlying rock i s expected t o cave.
As p a r t of t h e geologic log, one should 10) Square-set - a method i n which timber
estimate o r measure t h e u n i a x i a l compression squares a r e formed t o replace t h e rock
strength and t h e f r a c t u r e s per meter, o r RQD mined and t o support t h e surrounding
measurement, and the f r a c t u r e shear s t r e n g t h . rock; includes o t h e r timbered stoping
This d a t a can then be i n t e r p r e t e d on s e c t i o n s methods, such a s s t u l l stoping.
and l e v e l maps a t t h e same s c a l e a s the geo-
logic maps. The cumulative sum technique Boshkov and Wright (1973) , Morrison (1976) ,
(Piteau and Russell, 1972) can be used t o help Laubscher (1977) , and Tymshare, Inc. (1981)
define zones of s i m i l a r rock substance have presented schemes f o r s e l e c t i n g mining
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 methods. Boshkov and Wright (1973) l i s t e d t h e
42 DESIGN A N D OPERATION O F CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES
n ~ i n i n qmethods p o s s i b l e f o r c e r t a i n combina-
t i o n s of o r e w i d t h , plunge o f o r e , and s t r e n g t h
o f o r e . Morrison (1976) c l a s s i f i e d t h e mining
methods i n t o t h r e e b a s i c g r o u p s , r i g i d p i l l a r
s u p p o r t , c o n t r o l l e d s u b s i d e n c e , and c a v i n g ; he
t h e n used g e n e r a l d e f i n i t i o n s of o r e w i d t h ,
s u p p o r t t y p e , and s t r a i n energy accumulation
a s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g mining
method ( F i g u r e 1 ) . Laubscher (1977) developed
a d e t a i l e d r o c k mechanics c l a s s i f i c a t i o n from
which c a v a b i l i t y , f e a s i b i l i t y of open s t o p i n g
o r room and p i l l a r m i n i n g , s l o p e a n g l e s , and
g e n e r a l s u p p o r t r e q u i r e m e n t s c o u l d be d e t e r -
mined. Tymshare, I n c . (1981) developed a
numerical a n a l y s i s t h a t d e t e r m i n e s one o f f i v e
mining methods, (1) open p i t , ( 2 ) n a t u r a l cav-
i n g , ( 3 ) induced c a v i n g , ( 4 ) s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g ,
and ( 5 ) a r t i f i c i a l l y s u p p o r t i n g , and c a l c u l a t e s
t h e tonnage and g r a d e f o r t h e t y p e o f d e p o s i t
d e s c r i b e d . T h i s method i s meant t o be used a s
a pre-feasibility t o o l for geologists.
0-30m (0-100ft)
i rl x o r r o v lo W l d e O r e 1 I1 I
Invormobly W i d e O r e
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
+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) . method ( T a b l e 6 , columns 2 and 3 ) .
I propose a s e l e c t i o n method which combines
p o r t i o n s of a l l t h e above methods. The s e l e c -
t i o n p r o c e s s h a s two s t e p s : (1) determine t h e
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 , a s d e f i n e d i n
T a b l e s 1 and 2 ; and ( 2 ) f o r each mining method,
add up t h e v a l u e s from T a b l e s 3 and 4 f o r t h e
combination of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e f i n e d i n S t e p
1.
Each mining method h a s been ranked a s t o t h e
s u i t a b i l i t y of i t s geometry/grade d i s t r i b u t i o n
(Table 3 ) , and o r e zone (Table 4 a ) , hanging
w a l l ( o v e r l y i n g w a l l r o c k ) (Table 4 b ) , and
f o o t w a l l ( u n d e r l y i n g r o c k s ) rock mechanics
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (Table 4 c ) . There a r e f o u r
ranks :
preferred: t h e characteristic i s preferred
f o r t h e mining method;
probable: i f the characteristic exists, the i
mining method can be used;
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
eliminated: i f the characteristic exists,
t h e n t h e mining method could
n o t be used.
The v a l u e s used f o r e a c h rank a r e l i s t e d i n
T a b l e 5. Values f o r t h e e l i m i n a t e d rank were
chosen s o t h a t i f t h e sum of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s -
t i c v a l u e s e q u a l l e d a n e g a t i v e number, t h e
method would b e e l i m i n a t e d . A z e r o v a l u e was
chosen f o r t h e u n l i k e l y rank because it does
n o t add t o t h e chance o f u s i n g t h e method, b u t
n e i t h e r d o e s it e l i m i n a t e t h e method. The
v a l u e s u s e d f o r p r o b a b l e and p r e f e r r e d were
chosen s o t h a t t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r one
p a r a m e t e r c o u l d b e ranked w i t h i n a mining
method and between mining methods.
T a b l e 5: Rank Value
Ranking Value
preferred 3 - 4
probable 1 - 2
unlikely 0
eliminated -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 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 SELECTION - A NUMERICAL APPROACH

Table 3: Ranking of Geome.try/Grade 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

General Grade
Shape Ore Thickness Ore Plunge Distribution
Mining Method
F I S U G E

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 N = Narrow F = Flat U = Uniform

T/P = Tabular o r I = Intermediate I = Intermediate G = Gradational
Platy T = Thick S = Steep E = Erratic
I = Irregular VT = Very Thick

The t h r e e g r o u p s o f rock mechanics c h a r a c - 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 e r i s t i c s s h o u l d be t o t a l e d . T h i s t o t a l should
t h e n be added t o t h e geometry/grade d i s t r i b u -
t i o n sum (Table 7 ) . Using t h e above t y p e o f
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c g r o u p i n g , one can s e e which
g r o u p i n g ( s ) r e d u c e t h e chance o f u s i n g a p a r -
t i c u l a r mining method, o r , f o r c a s e s where t h e
t o t a l sum i s n e a r l y e q u a l , one c a n d e t e r m i n e
which c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e t h e most s u i t a b l e
f o r t h e mining method.
A f t e r t h e mining methods have been ranked
(Table 8 ) , based on geometry/grade d i s t r i b u -
t i o n and rock mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , t h e r e
may be a number o f methods which a p p e a r
suitable.
I n o u r example, t h e open p i t method i s t h e
obvious c h o i c e from a geometry and r o c k
mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p o i n t o f view.
n e x t f o u r methods, b l o c k c a v i n g , t o p s l i c i n g ,
s q u a r e - s e t , and c u t - a n d - f i l l , a r e grouped
t o g e t h e r . I t i s worthwhile a t t h i s t i m e t o
look a t t h e r a n k i n g o f a l l t h e mining methods
by i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( T a b l e 9 ) .
Examination of T a b l e 9 r e v e a l s t h a t t h e c h o i c e
of a mining method i n v o l v e s compromise. For
example, c u t - a n d - f i l l would be a good method
from t h e r o c k mechanics p o i n t o f view, b u t it
h a s t h e w o r s t geometry/grade d i s t r i b u t i o n
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , whereas t o p s l i c i n g h a s one
of t h e w o r s t rock mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
b u t i t s geometry/grade d i s t r i b u t i o n c h a r a c -
t e r i s t i c s are considered t h e b e s t .
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 de-
t 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 time-
consuming 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
The 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 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES

4 b : Hanging W a l l

Rock
Substance Fracture Fracture
Mining
T a b l e 4 : Ranking o f Rock Mechanics Strength Spacing Strength
Method
Characteristics f o r Different W M S V C C W V W W M S
Mining Methods
Open P i t 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 2 3 4
Key: Block
Caving 4 2 1 3 4 3 0 4 2 0
Rock S u b s t a n c e S t r e n g t h
Sublevel
W = Weak Stoping -49 3 4 -49 0 1 4 0 2 4
M = Moderate
S = Strong Sublevel
Caving 3 2 1 3 4 3 1 4 2 0
F r a c t u r e Spacing Longwall 4 2 0 4 4 3 0 4 2 0
VC = Very C l o s e Room &
C = Close Pillar 0 3 4 0 1 2 4 0 2 4
W = Weak
VW = Very Weak Shrinkage
Stoping 4 2 1 4 4 3 0 4 2 0
Fracture Strength Cut & Fill 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 2
W = Weak
TOP
M = Moderate Slicing 4 2 1 3 3 3 0 4 2 0
S = Strong
Square S e t 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 3 2

4 a : Ore Zone 4c: Footwall

Rock
Substance Fracture Fracture
Mining
Strength Spacing Strength
Method
W M S VCC W V W W M S

Open P i t 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 2 3 4
Block
Caving 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3
Sublevel
Stoping 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 0 1 4
Sublevel
Caving 0 2 4 0 1 3 4 0 2 4
Longwall 2 3 3 1 2 4 3 1 3 3
Room &
Pillar 0 2 4 0 1 3 3 0 3 3
Shrinkage
Stoping 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3
Cut & Fill 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2

TOP
Slicing 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 3
Square S e t 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 2
 Table 6: Example of Numerical Method S e l e c t i o n Process

Geometry/Grade
Distribution (Column 1) (Column 2) (Column 3)
open p i t block caving etc.
( v a l u e s from Table 3 )
General shape: tabular o r
platey
Ore t h i c k n e s s : very t h i c k
Ore plunge: flat
Grade d i s t r i b u t i o n : uniform
depth (used l a t e r ) : 130 m (425 f t )

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: moderate 4 1
F r a c t u r e spacing: close 2 4
Fracture strength: moderate 3 3
- -
9 8

Hanging Wall
Rock substance
strength : strong 4 1
F r a c t u r e spacing: wide 4 3
Fracture strength: moderate 3 2
- -
11 6

Footwall
Rock substance
strength : moderate 4 3
F r a c t u r e spacing: close 2 3
Fracture strength : weak 2 1
- -
8 7

Table 7: Example - C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Values Totaled f o r D i f f e r e n t Mining Methods

Rock Mechanics C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
Geometry/Grade Grand
Mining Method Distribution Ore HW F
W Total Total

Open P i t 12 9 11 8 28 40
Block Caving 13 8 6 7 21 34
Sublevel Stoping 10 5 7 2 14 24
Sublevel Caving 13 7 6 3 16 29
Longwall -37 8 5 6 19 -18
Room & Pillar -38 7 8 3 18 -20
Shrinkage Stoping 10 6 6 8 20 30
Cut & Fill 7 8 7 10 25 32
Top S l i c i n g 15 6 6 7 19 34
Square S e t 8 8 7 10 25 33
46 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES
'Table 8 : Ranklnq R e s u l t s - -
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
Total Polnts Met hod
chosen, of course. Environmental concerns a r e
open p i t more and more becoming a c o n t r o l l i n g f a c t o r i n
block caving method s e l e c t i o n . Also, t h e environmental con-
top s l i c i n g d i t i o n s underground must be considered.
square-set Whether o r not subsidence i s permitted can
cut-and-fill determine what methods a r e f e a s i b l e .
shrinkage s t o p i n g
s u b l e v e l caving Remember, t h e purpose of t h i s numerical
sublevel stoping method s e l e c t i o n system i s not t o choose t h e
room-and-pillar f i n a l mining method. I t i s intended t o i n d i -
longwall c a t e those methods t h a t w i l l be most e f f e c t i v e
given t h e geometry/grade d i s t r i b u t i o n and rock
Having narrowed t h e p r e f e r r e d mining meth- mechanics c h a r a c t e r s i t i c s , and which w i l l r e -
ods t o two, each should now be g e n e r a l l y ex- q u i r e more d e t a i l e d study i n Stage 2 . If
amined i n terms of mining r a t e , l a b o r a v a i l - nothing e l s e , t h i s s e l e c t i o n system w i l l allow
a b i l i t y , environmental concerns, and o t h e r miners/engineers t o consider what c h a r a c t e r i s -
site-specific considerations, i n order t o t i c s a r e important f o r t h e mining methods
determine whether t h e s e parameters w i l l being considered.
e l i m i n a t e any method from f u r t h e r considera-
tion. METHOD SELECTION - STAGE 2

Mining r a t e should be d i c t a t e d by t h e mining The purpose of Stage 2 i n t h e method s e l e c -

method chosen and t h e s i z e of t h e d e p o s i t .
However, i n i n s t a n c e s where a m i l l a l r e a d y
e x i s t s i n t h e area, a production r a t e t h a t i s
perhaps higher o r lower t h a n t h a t d i c t a t e d by
t h e l e a s t c o s t l y mining method may be r e q u i r e d .
T h e r e f o r e , a compromise must be made.
t i o n p r o c e s s i s t o l a y o u t g e n e r a l mining p l a n s
f o r t h o s e methods d e l i n e a t e d i n Stage 1, d e t e r -
mine c u t - o f f g r a d e s , and then c a l c u l a t e minable
r e s e r v e s s o t h a t economic analyses can be made
i n o r d e r t o determine which mining method w i l l
provide t h e g r e a t e s t r e t u r n on investment.

Other f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e mining method I t i s n o t t h e purpose of t h i s paper t o d i s -

s e l e c t e d would be t h e market f o r t h e r e s o u r c e cuss d e t e r m i n a t i o n of cut-off grade o r minable
b e i n g mined and t h e a v a i l a b l e l a b o r pool. If reserves. Rock mechanics c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
t h e l a b o r pool i s l a r g e and u n s k i l l e d , a t h e d e p o s i t t h a t a r e c r i t i c a l f o r mine planning

Table 9 : Ranking of Mining Methods by Each C h a r a c t e r i s t i c

Rock
Geometry/Grade Mechanics Grand
Distribution Ore HW FW Total Total

t o p = 15 pit = 9 pit = 11 c&f = 10 pit = 28 pit =

bcv = 13 bcv = 8 r&p = 8 sqs = 10 c&f = 25 bcv =
s c v = 13 lng = 8 sst = 7 pit = 8 sqs = 25 top =
p i t = 12 c&f = 8 c&f = 7 shs = 8 bcv = 21 sqs =
sst = 10 sqs = 8 sqs = 7 bcv = 7 shs = 20 c&f =
s h s = 10 scv = 7 bcv = 6 top = 7 lng = 19 shs =
sqs = 8 r&p= 7 scv = 6 lng = 6 top = 19 scv =
c&f = 7 shs = 6 shs = 6 scv = 3 r&p= 18 sst =
lng = -37 top = 6 top = 6 r&p = 3 scv = 16 lng =
r & p = -38 sst = 5 lng = 5 sst = 2 sst = 14 r&p=
- -- .

p i t = open p i t scv = s u b l e v e l caving c&f = cut & f i l l

bcv = block caving lng = longwall top = top s l i c i n g
s s t = sublevel stoping r&p = room & p i l l a r s q s = square s e t
shs = shrinkage stoping
 METHOD SELECTION - A NUMERICAL APPROACH
and s e l e c t i n g a mass mining method w i l l be d i s -
cussed.
Rock Mechanics Data
In order t o estimate c a v a b i l i t y of a d e p o s i t ,
stope widths, p i l l a r s i z e s , and slope angles,
more rock mechanics d a t a i s required f o r Stage
2 than f o r Stage 1. Most of t h i s a d d i t i o n a l
d a t a should have been c o l l e c t e d a t t h e same
time a s the d a t a f o r Stage 1. Design of p i t
slopes and underground openings depends l a r g e l y
on the geology of t h e a r e a , t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e
rock mass, and the pre-mine s t r e s s . Strength
of the rock mass i s a function of the strength
of the i n t a c t rock, t h e s t r e n g t h of t h e geo-
logic s t r u c t u r e s ( j o i n t s , f a u l t s , e t c . ) , and
the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e geologic s t r u c t u r e
( o r i e n t a t i o n , length, spacing, e t c . ) . Once t h e
geologic s t r u c t u r e d a t a a r e a v a i l a b l e , poten-
t i a l f a i l u r e geometries can be defined and s t a -
b i l i t y analyses can be made using the s t r e n g t h
properties.
Strength Properties. Basic s t r e n g t h p r o p e r t i e s
needed f o r Stage 2 of t h e method s e l e c t i o n
process are uniaxial compression s t r e n g t h ,
s t i f f n e s s (Young's Modulus), Poisson's r a t i o ,
t e n s i l e strength, i n t a c t rock shear s t r e n g t h ,
n a t u r a l f r a c t u r e shear s t r e n g t h , and f a u l t
gouge shear strength. Rock u n i t s , such a s
s a l t , s h a l e s , e t c . , may r e q u i r e creep t e s t i n g
under controlled temperature and humidity.
A l l the s t r e n g t h p r o p e r t i e s , except perhaps
the f a u l t gouge s t r e n g t h , can be measured using
u n s p l i t d r i l l core specimens. The number of
specimens required f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t e s t i n g
depends somewhat on v a r i a b i l i t y of t h e rock
u n i t ; however, t h r e e t o s i x samples per rock
type per t e s t type should be s u f f i c i e n t f o r
Stage 2. During d r i l l i n g , u n s p l i t core sam-
p l e s must be saved f o r rock t e s t i n g . W e a r e generally expensive and d i f f c u l t t o j u s t i f y
recommend c o l l e c t i n g t h r e e samples per rock
type per t e s t type per d r i l l hole ( C a l l , 1979).
By sampling each hole, a c o l l e c t i o n of samples
w i l l be b u i l t up, from which samples f o r t e s t -
ing can be selected.
Geologic Structure. Rock mass s t r e n g t h a l s o
depends l a r g- e l y on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e
- f i e l d , it i s probably b e t t e r t o use i t o r
geologic s t r u c t u r e s , o r i e n t a t i o n , spacing,
length, strength, e t c . Fracture shear s t r e n g t h
has already been discussed i n t h e rock s t r e n g t h
section. For Stage 2 of t h e method s e l e c t i o n ,
areas with similar j o i n t o r i e n t a t i o n s a r e de-
f i n e d a s s t r u c t u r a l domains; d i s t r i b u t i o n of
the f r a c t u r e s e t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p o t e n t i a l
f a i l u r e paths a r e defined f o r each domain.
Geologic s t r u c t u r e s a r e divided i n t o two
categories: major s t r u c t u r e s and rock f a b r i c .
Major s t r u c t u r e s a r e f a u l t s , f o l d s , d i k e s ,
e t c . , which have lengths on t h e order of t h e
deposit s i z e and a r e usually considered i n d i -
vidually i n design. Rock f a b r i c i s predomi-
nantly j o i n t s and f a u l t s t h a t have a high
frequency of occurrence and a r e not continuous.
S t r u c t u r a l data can be obtained by using de-
t a i l l i n e mapping (Call e t a l . , 19761, c e l l
mapping, o r o r i e n t e d core mapping. D e t a i l l i n e
mapping i s a technique t h a t involves the meas-
urements of f r a c t u r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l
j o i n t s which i n t e r s e c t a l i n e . This mapping
technique i s a spot sample within a s t r u c t u r a l
domain; it provides t h e d a t a f o r determining
d i s t r i b u t i o n of j o i n t s e t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on a
joint-by-joint b a s i s . C e l l mapping, which
involves measuring t h e mean o r i e n t a t i o n and
f r a c t u r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r each f r a c t u r e s e t
within a 10 m t o 15 m (30 f t t o 50 f t ) wide
c e l l , can be done by t h e geologist during h i s
mapping of surface and underground rock expo-
sures. This method provides t h e d a t a needed
t o evaluate v a r i a b i l i t y i n geologic s t r u c t u r e
on an a r e a l b a s i s and i s , thus, a means of
d e l i n e a t i n g s t r u c t u r a l domains.
C e l l mapping and d e t a i l l i n e mapping a r e
used i n those instances where some type of rock
exposure e x i s t s . However, i n cases i n which
s t r u c t u r e d a t a can be obtained only from d r i l l
core, a few o r i e n t e d core holes should be in-
cluded i n t h e d r i l l i n g program. Oriented core
holes provide t h e same information a s d e t a i l
l i n e mapping, except t h a t oriented core d a t a
w i l l not provide j o i n t length c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
The o r i e n t e d core d a t a can, a l s o , a i d t h e
geologist i n h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e geology.
Pre-mine S t r e s s . Pre-mine s t r e s s i s one of t h e
most d i f f i c u l t parameters t o determine.
Because of t h e complex t e c t o n i c s a s s o c i a t e d
with many mineral d e p o s i t s , the s t r e s s f i e l d
w i l l probably be v a r i a b l e , depending on prox-
imity t o t h e nearest major geologic s t r u c t u r e .
Techniques such a s s t r e s s - r e l i e f overcoring
and hydrofracturing a r e a v a i l a b l e , but they
u n t i l t h e f e a s i b i l i t y of mining t h e d e p o s i t has
been e s t a b l i s h e d . The pre-mine s t r e s s f i e l d
can be estimated using t h e geologic h i s t o r y ,
o r i e n t a t i o n of geologic s t r u c t u r e s , and type
of f a u l t movement (Abel, personal communica-
t i o n ) . Although t h i s method i s i n d i r e c t and
could be misleading about t h e pre-mine s t r e s s
assume a h y d r o s t a t i c s t r e s s f i e l d than t o
assume t h e e l a s t i c theory.
Hydrology. Hydrologic conditions can a f f e c t
s t r e n g t h p r o p e r t i e s of t h e rock, a s well a s t h e
c o s t of mining. Information needed includes a
water t a b l e map, l o c a t i o n of water sources, and
l o c a t i o n s of geologic s t r u c t u r e s t h a t would be
water-bearing. Because a pump t e s t would pro-
vide a q u a n t i t a t i v e estimate of t h e pumping r e -
quirements necessary during mining, one should
be made.
48 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES
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 informa-
t 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 , sup-
p 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
t h e method s e l e c t i o n . A t what d e p t h o f o v e r -
b u r d e n t o g o underground i s p r i m a r i l y a func-
t 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 Mineral Value @/Ton ore)
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
Figure 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.
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 , attrition. However, by comparing f r a g m e n t s i z e
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 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 ,
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 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
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 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
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 can be determined. The fragment s i z e d i s t r i b u -
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 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
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 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 ) .
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 - 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
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 choos- ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Because t h e a n a l y s i s i s two-dimen-
i 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 s 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
daylighted structures. I f shear strength, 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 .
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 - 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
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 - 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
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 L a u b s c h e r ' s Rock Mass Reading System ( 1 9 7 7 ) .
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 ) .

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 C~I- trn4.a) Y u h
2 Spl Y d I21111 *dl"
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 spac- 3 Inspbollon IThm1.n P ~ l l0 . 0 ~ 1 1 ~
i 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 4. W h - 0 17th L...(l Yushw
5. lakI.hm. 11100 L..Il S l h
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 .

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 draw-
p 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. SIEVE SIZE IN1

F i g u r e 3: 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
A two-dimensional fragment s i z e a n a l y s i s
some E x i s t i n g Block Caving Mines
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 -
( a f t e r White, 1977) .
NOTE: 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
t i o n o f fragment s i z e based on f r a c t u r e spac-
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
i 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
t h a t mine.
 METHOD SELECTION - A NUMERICAL APPROACH 49

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
vf reduced by some t y p e of boundary weakening.
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 = volume g r e a t e r t h a n s i z e X
f -. m

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.
, - -.-.
..
TRANSPER I
DISTANCE
..

Data Pointm a . s t ~ p . w i d t h i n 2~ maxim?

rrm c l i m a x tranmfar dimtance
and u r a d

PILWLR PIWAR

TRANSPER TRANSFER
I DISTANCE 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
( a f t e r McMahon and Kendrick, 1959) .

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 DEPTH (10
(Alder e t a l . , 1951) , t h e u n d e r c u t w i d t h
Figure 6: T r a n s f e r D i s t a n c e v s . Depth.
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 consid-
e r e d t o have a maximum d i s t a n c e t h a t it can Once it h a s been determined t h a t t h e d e p o s i t
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 i s c a v a b l e , drawpoint s p a c i n g and g a t h e r i n g
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 d r i f t s i z e should be determined f o r t h e g e n e r a l
l a t e r a l d i r e c t i o n o v e r an underground opening mine d e s i g n .
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 Drawpoint s p a c i n g i s p r i m a r i l y a f u n c t i o n of
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 t h e o r e and o v e r l y i n g w a s t e fragment s i z e d i 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 t r i b u t i o n and t h e p i l l a r s t r e n g t h . The g e n e r a l
between depth and maximum t r a n s f e r d i s t a n c e consensus h a s been t h a t t h e s m a l l e r t h e f r a g -
has been determined ( F i g u r e 6 ) .
Based on t h e ment s i z e t h e narrower t h e width of draw, con-
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 s e q u e n t l y , t h e c l o s e r t h e drawpoint s p a c i n g .
does n o t exceed t w i c e t h e maximum t r a n s f e r Also, when t h e o v e r l y i n g m a t e r i a l i s more f r a g -
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 mented t h a n t h e o r e , t h e drawpoint s p a c i n g
 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES
shculd bc; cl.oser- i n :,rder tcj miriirnize di.Lutiori.
However, comparison of e x i s t i n g p r o p e r t i e s i n d i Pillar A r e a loading pllla:

c a t e s t h e c o r r e l a t i o n between fragment s i z e and

draw width a r e a i s weak (Figure 7) ; e s p e c i a l l y
c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i n d i c a t i o n s from t h e Henderson
3
Mine where t h e o r e i s moderately t o w e l l f r a g -
mented, t h e drawpoint spacing i s wide, 1 2 . 2 m
X 1 2 . 2 m (40 f t X 40 f t ) , and t h e o r e recovery
appears t o be good. The ground between t h e
drawpoints can be considered a p i l l a r (Figure
8 ) , and, i f analyzed a s such, it can be used
t o determine t h e minimum drawpoint spacing.
The load on t h e p i l l a r i s t h e most d i f f i c u l t
parameter t o determine. The worst loading con-
d i t i o n occurs when t h e undercut i s w i t h i n 100
f t of t h e p i l l a r and t h e rock i s being loaded
by t h e abutment s t r e s s e s . Kendorski (1975)
e s t i m a t e s t h a t t h i s abutment loading i s two
t i m e s t h e overburden s t r e s s , while Panek
(1978) e s t i m a t e s t h a t i t i s t h r e e t i m e s t h e
overburden s t r e s s . Using t h r e e t i m e s t h e
t r i b u t a r y - a r e a - l o a d t o determine load on t h e
p i l l a r and W i l s o n ' s (1972) p i l l a r a n a l y s i s t o
determine load c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y , a minimum
drawpoint s p a c i n g can be e s t i m a t e d . Using t h e
fragmentation curves and t h e graph i n F i g u r e 7
and t h e p i l l a r a n a l y s i s , an e s t i m a t e of t h e
drawpoint s p a c i n g can be made.

I CRE IGHTON

Figure 8: D e f i n i t i o n of P i l l a r between
Drawpoints.

determining s u p p o r t requirements f o r a mine.

DRAW AREA (M')
Figure 7: Fragment S i z e v s . Draw Area
( a f t e r White, 1979) .
The o r e g a t h e r i n g d r i f t s i z e and support
r e q u i r e d a r e important i n e s t i m a t i n g c o s t of
t h e mining method. The d r i f t s should be
o r i e n t e d s o a s t o minimize 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 , which a r e u s u a l l y normal t o t h e
s t r i k e of t h e predominant s t r u c t u r e s . Laub-
s c h e r (1977) and Barton and Lunde (1974) have
c o r r e l a t e d t h e i r rock c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t o sup-
p o r t requirements. Because B a r t o n ' s work was
p r i m a r i l y on t u n n e l s , which g e n e r a l l y have
more s u p p o r t t h a n a d r i f t i n a mining opera-
t i o n , h i s work may not be a p p l i c a b l e t o
I f one of t h e s e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems i s used,
t h e rock c l a s s e s can be i n t e r p r e t e d on t h e
l e v e l maps, where t h e g a t h e r and haulage d r i f t s
a r e shown. From t h e s e l e v e l maps, t h e percent
of a r e a t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t support systems w i l l
be r e q u i r e d can be determined and t h e support
c o s t estimated. I f n e i t h e r of t h e s e systems
have been used b u t information on t h e o r i e n t a -
t i o n , s p a c i n g , s h e a r s t r e n g t h , and p o s s i b l y
l e n g t h of t h e j o i n t s e t s and f a u l t systems i s
a v a i l a b l e , t h e s u p p o r t required f o r t h e d r i f t s
can be determined by (1) i d e n t i f y 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 , ( 2 ) determining t h e load a t
t h e edge of t h e opening, and ( 3 ) determining
which support s y s t e m ( s ) can c a r r y t h e load
calculated i n s t e p 2.
The subsidence l i m i t should be d e f i n e d f o r
l o c a t i n g b u i l d i n g s and s h a f t s which a r e t o l a s t
the l i f e of t h e deposit. In t h e absence of a
major g e o l o g i c s t r u c t u r e , a 45" angle p r o j e c t e d
o n t o t h e s u r f a c e from t h e bottom of t h e ore
zone i s u s u a l l y considered t h e c l o s e s t t o t h e
d e p o s i t one should l o c a t e long-term f a c i l i t i e s .
However, most a c t u a l ground movement t a k e s
 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
roof (Alder and Sun, 1968) . The immediate r o o f 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
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 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 ,
already discussed. The maximum s t o p e w i d t h i s 1966).
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
t h e s t o p e width. I n many i n s t a n c e s , t h e beam
developed by b o l t i n g can be used. The p i l l a r s
SUBLEVEL INTERVAL
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).
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 .

under block caving.

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

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
I
- DRIFT SPACING
%RIFT
WIDTH
DRIFT
HEIGHT

F i g u r e 10: S u b l e v e l Caving Geometry.

mechanics d a t a on t h e c a v a b i l i t y o f t h e hang-
ing 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
d r i f t s is required. J a n e l i d and Kvapil (1966) The w o r s t l o a d c o n d i t i o n o c c u r s f o r t h e ground
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 n e a r e s t t h e cave. T h e r e i s some abutment l o a d -
s u b l e v e l mine. The hanging w a l l must come in i n g o c c u r r i n g , which c a n b e e s t i m a t e d , and t h e
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 s t a b i l i t y of p i l l a r s c a n be determined.
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 Concluding Comments
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 Mining method s e l e c t i o n s h o u l d be based p r i -
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 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
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 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 -
is t h e support required f o r t h e s e d r i f t s . If 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 -
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 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
n o t be f e a s i b l e . Support requirements can be 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
estimated, a s discussed previously. 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 .
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
S t a g e 1: D e f i n e t h e geometry/grade d i s t r i -
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 spac-
b u t i o n and r o c k mechanics c h a r a c -
i 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
t e r i s t i c s o f t h e d e p o s i t and r a n k
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
t h e mining methods a c c o r d i n g t o
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 spac-
t h e i r a b i l i t y t o accommodate t h e s e
i 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
characteristics.
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.
52 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES
S t a g e 2: 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 . , and Walker, A . , 1951,
Research on s t r a t a c o n t r o l on t h e northern
c o a l f i e l d of Great Britain: Inichar-Intl.
Conf. a t L e i g e , p . 106-120.
B a r i e n t o s , G . , and P a r k e r , J . , 1974, Use o f
p r e s s u r e a r c h i n mine d e s i g n a t White P i n e :
T r a n s . , Soc. Mng. Eng. (USA) , v. 255,
p . 75-82.
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. 335-
343.
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 Charac-
t e r i s t i c s from S u r f a c e Mapping D a t a , " 17th
U.S. Symposium on Rock Mechanics, p . 282.1-
282.9.
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 Mono-
g r a p h 874, p. 1-46 - 1-50.
Deere , D . U . , 1968, " G e o l o g i c a l Considera-
t i o n s , " Chap. 1 i n Rock Mechanics i n Engi-
n 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,
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.
Nicholas, D. E., 1976, Underground mine p i l l a r
design u t i l i z i n g r o c k mass p r o p e r t i e s ,
Marble Peak, Pima County, Arizona, unpub-
lished M. S. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona,
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 con-
t 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 . 1-
29.
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.
T e r z a g h i , K . , and P e c k , R . , 1968, Soil
Mechanics i n E n g i n e e r i n g P r a c t i c e , John
Wiley & S o n s , N e w York, 729 p .
.
Tymshare , I n c , 1981, Computer e v a l u a t i o n of
mining p r o j e c t s : Mining J o u r n a l , v o l . ,
no. , p . 111.
 METHOD SELECTION - A NUMERICAL APPROACH
White, D . E., 1977, P r e d i c t i n g f r a c p e n t a t i o n
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a b l o c k c a v i n g orebody,
unpublished M.S. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f
Arizona, 1 0 1 p.

White, D. H., N i c h o l a s , D. E . , and Marek, M., J.

1977, Fragmentation s t u d y o f t h e T h i c k
Sulfide - Lakeshore Mine, unpublished c o n f i -
d e n t i a l r e p o r t p r e p a r e d f o r Hecla Mining
Company.

Wilson, A. H . , 1972, Research i n t o t h e d e t e r -

mination of p i l l a r s i z e -
Park I . An
hypotehsis concerning p i l l a r s t a b i l i t y :
Mining Engineer (London), v. 131, no. 141,
p. 409-417.

Woodruff, S e t h D . , 1966, S t a b i l i t y o f Wide

Openings found i n Methods o f Working Coal
and Metal Mines, Theory and A p p l i c a t i o n
of Rock Mechanics t o Roof C o n t r o l and Sup-
p o r t Problems, v. 1, c h a p t . 6: Pergamon
P r e s s Ltd., London, p. 257-305.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The a u t h o r w i s h e s t o e x p r e s s h i s g r a t i t u d e
t o Susan Jones and Lynn McLean f o r t h e i r e d i -
t o r i a l review o f t h i s p a p e r .

P o r t i o n s of t h i s p a p e r a r e t a k e n from "The
F e a s i b i l i t y Study - S e l e c t i o n o f a Mining
Method I n t e g r a t i n g Rock Mechanics and Mine
Planning" (NichoJas and Marek, 1981) , p r e -
s e n t e d a t t h e 1981 Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference .