Optimization of Slope Angles at Mine Rosario-Collahuasi.

Authors: Eugenio Santander A. (Senior Geotechnical Engineer). Mail: eosantander@collahuasi.cl Mario Pea P. Antonio Bonani R. Abstract !he optimi"ation o# slope angles$ that is to sa%$ increasing them$ compared to the original design is al&a%s the su 'ect o# anal%sis o# sta ilit% #or geotechnical engineers and economic anal%sis #or planning engineers. (uestions to e ans&ered include: )hat ris*+ )hat #actor o# sa#et%+ )hat pro a ilit% o# #ailure or relia ilit%+ (Geotechnical Engineer) Mail: mppena@collahuasi.cl (Geotechnical Superintendent. Mail: ag onani@collahuasi.cl

!he Rosario ,pen Pit has a histor% o# #ailure poor -ualit% roc*s and high pore pressures. .t &as decided to deepen the pit e%ond the programmed design to test the practicalit% o# di##erent design approaches$ that i# success#ul$ could e used to impro/e the economics o# mining at 0ollahuasi. !he re/ised slope design has #actors o# sa#et% in the range #rom 1.2 to 1.3$ pro a ilities o# #ailure o# 124 to 564$ and increased slope angles o# et&een 57 and 87 &ith respect to the original design. !he pit deepening &ith these design slopes &ill deli/er an e9tra 3M tonnes o# ore. &hich &ill ha/e a signi#icant positi/e impact on mining economics. Rosario Mine Collahuasi Location !he Rosario mine is located &ithin !he 0ollahuasi :istrict$ appro9imatel% 162 *m south east o# the cit% o# .-ui-ue in the Mountain . region o# 0hile$ at an ele/ation o# et&een ;522 to ;622 m.s.n.m. !he Rosario deposit is principall% primar% sulphides &ith a poorl% de/eloped secondar% enrichment hori"on that deepens et&een 82 and 382 m$ strongl% controlled % #aults

(Munchme%er$ 1<6;). =>igure 1?. !he ore od% e9tends 3 *m @)ASE and 1.8 *m @EAS) and is continuous to a depth o# more than B22m elo& the sulphide inter#ace. Geotechnical perspective of initial situation !he initial design #or the Rosario ,pen Pit re-uired the operation at the Mine ottom =Phase 3? to&ards the end o# 322B and included the deepening o# the Pit #rom ench ;552 to the ;368. !he pit design had the #ollo&ing geotechnical parameters (>igure 3)C interAramp angle A ;;7$ #ace ench angle A D27$ erm &idth A 12m ench height A18m.

.n the middle o# 322B$ it &as decided to e/aluate the possi ilit% to operate the mine ottom in a more aggressi/e &a% &ith the intention o# reco/ering a greater amount o# ore in a sector o# the pit &here a/erage copper grades o# 1.24 &ere identi#ied. !he initial proposal re-uired that no mining de/elopment or operations &ould e carried out in this sector #or a minimum period o# B months. !he onl% acti/ities to e carried out during this period &ere pumping$ drilling #or drainage and in#ill drilling #or grade control. !his &as an important condition ta*ing into account the magnitude o# the ris*s that &ere accepted in the mine design through e9posure o# people and e-uipment to insta ilit% pro lems (single ench to interAramp scale #ailure and roc* #alls). !he geotechnical e/aluation considered all the data a/aila le at the time and &as carried out in the #ollo&ing stages: Re/ie& and estimation o# roc* mass properties at depth. !his in/ol/edC Epdating the 5: model &ith data o tained #rom ench mapping at the ase o# the pit$ Geological characteri"ation$ Assessment o# geotechnical and structural condition (RSE Roc* Strength Enits)$ Structural modelling o# the mine ottom (>>FR(:) and updating the Githological and Alteration (t%pe and intensit%) model.

Assessment o# the historic geotechnical

eha/ior during the operation o# the

sectors on ench ;552 &here deepening &as to e carried out. Bac*anal%sis &as carried out using simple computers tools (e.g. Slide$ S&edge$ Roc*Plane$ Roc*>all). !his process &as used to esta lish modes o# #ailure and cali rate the strength properties (cohesion and #riction) o# the main structures that control the insta ilities o ser/ed at interAramp scale. Measurement o# dimensional parameters during the generation o# insta ilities at ench scale ( ac* rea*$ #ace ench angle$ spill length and e##ecti/e erm &idth). Spill lengths and crest losses &ere used as *inematic sta ilit% anal%sis. !opographic and photographic registr% used to re/ie& compliance &ith mine design on a sector % sector asis. :e#inition o# the phreatic le/els using a conser/ate interpolation #rom measurements o# installed pie"ometric instruments and seepages in the &alls o# the mine ottom. Sta ilit% anal%sis at ench scale considering the parameters #or each #ailure oundar% conditions during the

including: slope #ailure mechanism and compliance &ith the geometric design parameters o# the #ailed sector (a spreadsheet &as used to generate #ailuring t%pe: &edge$ planar or toppling). Sta ilit% anal%sis at interAramp and glo al scale using multiple element 3: numerical tools (E:E0). !his &as particularl% necessar% due to the importance o# the roc* mass presence structure and eacuase o# the o/er simpli#ication and poor correlation o# the results o tained using the e-uili rium limit approach (SG.:E) during the cali ration process o# the initial conditioning model. General antece ents! metho ologies an tools use in Geotechnical evaluation !he roc* mass properties &ere considered #or each one o# the geotechnical groupings o# Roc* Mass Enits (RME) #or &hich relia le data &as a/aila le in Hul% 322B. !he RME groupings &ere structured #rom: Roc* Strength Enits model (RSE) ased on unia9ial compressi/e strength o# the intact roc* 5

Bloc* Si"e Enits model (BSE) &hich pro/ides the degree o# rea*age o# the roc*. >racture #re-uenc% and Roc* (ualit% :esign (R(:) and the Hoint 0ondition >racture .nde9 (H0) &as used to calculate a -ualit% roc* inde9 ased upon the scheme gi/en % Biania&s*i 1<DB. !his &as later used to estimate the strength properties o# the roc* mass % means o# the MohrA0oulom criteria.

As a &a% to represent the /aria ilit% o# cohesion and #riction in the roc* mass$ e9pressed as con#inement pressure$ it &as used a ilinear model &as used that pro/ides the a ilit% to &or* &ith minimum$ ma9imum and a/erage properties o# the roc* mass and the structures. .n general$ the geotechnical condition o# the roc* mass at the ase o# the mine appeared sta le &ith #ailures associated &ith structural controls that did not put at ris* the continuit% o# the deepening o# the pit to the ;368 ench. !he main roc*s at the ottom o# the pit are the 0ollahuasi porph%r% and Rosario porph%r% in the south &all and sedimentar% units in the north and &est &alls. Potasic and sericitic alterations occur in the north anst &ith -uart"Asericitic and argilic alteration in the south and &est) =>igures 5 and ;? and !a les 1a and 1 . !he structural data considered in the anal%sis &as o tained #rom the Structural 5: Model a/aila le to&ards to&ards the end o# the e/aluation. !he structures are di/ided according to their importanceC main structures (more than 1*m o# length)$ greater (more than B enches o# e9tension (<2m) and minors (less than B enches until 1 ench) =>igure 8?. Each structure &as represented in the E:E0 3: models$ particularl% the strength properties cali rated % means o# ac* anal%sis =!a le 3?. !he strength en/elope #or each structure &as represented using the MohrA0oulom criteria % creating an elasticAplastic model that characteri"es a rupt strength loss &ithout a de#ormation increase =>igure B?. Geotechnical behaviour uring "hase # !he sectors in &hich insta ilities &ere identi#ied and documented during the mining o# Phase 3 are sho&n in >igure D. .n >igure 6$ the sectors most /ulnera le to deep seated

#ailure are sho&n. !he intersection o# these t&o sets o# sur#aces &as calculated and numerical anal%sis used to calculate the ma9imum amount o# material that could possi l% #ail. !his allo&ed #or a calculation o# the amount o# material considered to e remo/ed to unload the #ailure planes. .n addition$ it allo&ed an e/aluation o# the impact on the main access to the ottom mine and loss o# operating &idth as conse-uence o# material #alling #rom insta ilities. $opographic an photographic registr% prior to eepening .n >igures < and 12 the photographic registries o# the Phase 3 sector are sho&n a#ter completion o# the ench ;368 and e#ore the start o# the pit deepening. &ench scale stabilit% anal%sis Spreadsheet calculations &ere used pro/ide a simpli#ied /eri#ication o# the li*el% #ailure modeC &edge$ planar or toppling. .n addition the data in a geotechnical register o# insta ilities &as used$ particularl% to pro/ide spill lengths and amount o# ac* rea* =>igure 11?. !he accepta ilit% criteria used at the ench scale &ere a sa#et% #actor great than 1.2 and pro a ilit% o# #ailure less than 824. Stabilit% anal%sis at the inter-ramp an global scale @o change &as made to the usual approach at 0ollahuasi o# using the estimation o# the #actor o# sa#et% estimation and the pro a ilit% o# #ailure. !his &as complemented % using E:E0 #or delineated #ailure sur#aces to calculate the ma9imum material that could e spilled at #ailure. !he #actor o# sa#et% estimate &as made % means o# the Strength Reduction >actor (SR>)$ applica le at the roc* mass cohesion and the tangent o# the #riction angle. !he pro a ilit% o# #ailure &as calculated &ith the inclusion o# the /aria ilit% o# the strength properties o# the roc* mass #or each structure. >or each modeled section$ the #ollo&ing com inations &ere considered in the sta ilit% anal%sis: Roc* mass minimum properties (#riction and cohesion) &ith structures minimum properties (cohesion and #riction)$ Roc* mass ma9imum properties (#riction and cohesion) &ith structures ma9imum properties (cohesion and #riction)$

Roc* mass a/erage properties (#riction and cohesion) &ith structures a/erage properties (cohesion and #riction)$ Roc* mass minimum properties (#riction and cohesion) &ith structures ma9imum properties (cohesion and #riction)$ Roc* mass ma9imum properties (#riction and cohesion) &ith structures minimum properties (cohesion and #riction).

!he Rosen leuth techni-ue (Point Estimate Method) &as applied using the outcomes #or t&o /aria les (roc* mass and structures) to estimate the pro a ilit% o# #ailure. Results of anal%sis an issues i entifie !he results o# the numerical modeling #or each o# the de#ined geotechnical sections used in the anal%sis$ are sho&n in !a le 5. !he num er o# #ailure is sho&n in !a le ;. !he comparati/e anal%sis is sustained in the initial cali ration &here #actors o# sa#et% &ere estimated &hich Iare in general agreementI &ith the sta ilit% conditions o ser/ed in the current &alls o# the Rosario ,pen Pit. !his means #or the sections sho&n in >igure 13C #actor o# sa#et% near to 1.3 in &alls &ith small scale crac*ing o/er less than 84 o# the glo al slope height and &ith minimum insta ilities at glo al and interAramp scale (Section A (north east &all$ Phase 3 and Phase 8))$ #actor o# sa#et% et&een 1.18 and 1.32$ &here crac*ing is greater o/er than 324 o# the slope height and &ith insta ilities at interAramp scale &hich ha/e in/ol/ed more than ; enches (Section : (northA&est &all Phase 5B #ailure)) and more than B enches (Section B (Phase 5A Arotational #ailure))$ #actor o# sa#et% less than 1.18 &here there is crac*ing o/er most o# the slope and there is a principal #ailure (Section 01 and 03 (south east &all &hich &as used as to uttress a pre/ious #ailure)). =>igure13?. !he main conclusions and recommendations #rom the geomechanic e/aluation o# the proposed mining operations to the Phase 3 deepening o# the pit made in Hul% 322B$ &ere: enches$ the impact on in#rastructure and potential material that could e unloaded in the case o# roc* mass

.nterAramp angles #or the mine ottom deepening (Phase 3) should e increased % et&een 57 A 87$ relati/e to the initial interAramp angle o# ;;7 resulting in a minor increase in ris* o# #ailure at interAramp and glo al scale to 184 (!a le 3).

!he implementation o# the more aggressi/e interAramp angles #rom the ;552 to ;368 enches$ meant an increased ris* o# loss o# ramp &idth ramp restricting access to the ottom o# the mine. !his &ould re-uire the possi le remo/al o# 2.; A 1.3Mt o# unsta le material #rom the north and south &alls$ 1 A 1.<Mt on the south east &all and 2.1Mt on the &est &all to unload the &alls and minimise ramp losses.

Accepta ilit% slopes generic criteria that in/ol/e interAramp #ailure potential into push ac* that mean achie/e the pit ottom$ esta lish pro a ilities o# #ailure less than 524. ,nl% in the south east &all is the /alue e9ceeded (P> J ;14). Ko&e/er$ all o# the geotechnical design criteria proposed &ere recommended as the position o# the phreatic sur#ace used in the anal%sis &as considered conser/ati/e (lo&er than realit%)$ =>igure 15?.

!he results o# the numerical models #or some o# the e/aluated design com inations are sho&n in >igures 1; and 18. Geotechnical evaluation post eepening !he pit ottom deepening Phase 3 using the increased interAramp slope angles o# 57 to 87 &as achie/ed &ith geotechnical conditions that &ere &ithin normal ounds #or the Rosario open pit. !he deepening resulted in the additional reco/er% o# nearl% 3 Mt o# copper ore &ith an a/erage grade o# appro9 14 0u. :uring the deepening operation onl% small insta ilities occurred$ 1 or 3 enches$ ut these did not a##ect the planned mining acti/ities. .n the period >e ruar% to April 322D to&ards the end o# Phase 3$ crac*ing &as o ser/ed in an au9iliar% ramp access used % light /ehicles. !his resulted #rom the e9cessi/e interAramp angle (appro9 837$ L57 o/er the recommended design)$ sur#ace &ater drainage that caused changes in the e-uili rium conditions and the un#a/ora le impact o# lasting on the enches as the pit &as deepened. !he #ailure re-uired the

unloading o# appro9. o# 2.18Mt o# material to restore the initial sta ilit% conditions =>igures 16 and 1<?.

Conclusions !he mine ottom deepening Phase 3 &as carried out using interAramp angles increased % 57 to 87 no changes to the normal geotechnical practices. An additional 3 Mt o# copper ore &ith an a/erage grade o# appro9 14 0u &as reco/ere as a result o# the pit deepening pro'ect. !he use o# less conser/ati/e accepta ilit% criteria (#actors o# sa#et% o# 1.2 A 1.3 and pro a ilities o# #ailure M ;34) &as supported % cali ration o# the historical geotechnical eha/ior o ser/ed during mining to the ;5B2 ench$ &hich included measurements o# crac*ing$ displacement$ /elocities and insta ilities. !he e/aluation o# the costF ene#it relationship &as carried out to ta*e account o# the impact o# potential #ailures at interA ramp scale or that could compromise important in#rastructures such as ramp accesses. :uring the Phase 3 mining operations there ha/e een no accidents to people or e-uipment due to #ailures at interAramp scale or % roc* #alls #rom higher enches. !here ha/e onl% een smaller insta ilities at 1 or 3 enches that did not compromise the programmed ore mining. :uring the period >e ruar% to April 322D$ crac*ing appeared near the Phase 3 pit ottom on an au9iliar% ramp used #or light /ehicle access. !his &as due to the e9cessi/e interA ramp angle (837$ appro9 57 degrees more than the recommended design)$ sur#ace &ater drainage causing changes in the e-uili rium conditions and the un#a/ora le impact o# lasting on the geotechnical conditions as the pit &as deepened. !he #ailure resulted in the re-uirement to unload appro9imatel% o# 2.18Mt o# material to restore the initial sta ilit% condition. !he use o# empirical measurements o# the eha/iour o# slopes such as crac*ing and displacement as the mine is de/eloped$ com ined &ith ac* anal%sis o# unsta le sectors represents an alternati/e approach #or the estimation o# accepta ilit% criteria such as #actors o# sa#et% and pro a ilities o# #ailure. !hese alternati/e accepta ilit% criteria ased on displacements andFor accumulated ma9imum de#ormations are also use#ul as a

oundar% condition #or cali rating numerical models and #or use in e-uipment alert and e/acuation procedures.

Ac'no(le gments !he authors ac*no&ledge the authori"ation gi/en % 0Na. Minera .nOs de 0ollahuasi$ to pu lish this paper. References .tasca 0hile$ 322B$ Edec P;.2 Manuals. Ri/eros$ M$ Santander E$ Smo'e$ .$ 322B. 5: Rosario Pit Models. Geological$ Structural and Geotechnical Model o# Rosario Pit. Santander$ E$ Bonani$ A$ Pea$ M$ Ri/eros M.$ 322B. Geotechnical sta ilit% report: .nterA ramp angle increase at the deepping process in the mine ottom Phase 3. SG!A@!A233. Bet&een enches ;368 and ;552. 82 pages. Smo'e .$ Ri/eros$ M$ 3228. Rosario Pit structural stud%. .GGEA28A21B. 33 pages.

<