Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Benchmarking Final Report
Benchmarking Final Report
S
T
R
E
N
D
BOTHS TREND
Figure 6.9: Evolution through time of the trend for the type of access to underground mines.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
31
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
BLOCK HEIGHT (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.10: Evolution through time of the trend for the block height in block/panel caving mines.
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 1000000
FOOTPRINT AREA (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
AVERAGE FOOTPRINT AREA = 165000 m
2
Figure 6.11: Relative frequency of the different footprint area ranges in mines by block/panel caving.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
32
o If H/B > 2 then the cave would have problems to connect to surface (or up-
per level previously mined out).
Due to the importance of this issue, it will be studied with more accuracy during the
development of the geotechnical guidelines that are considered as the second main
activity of Task 4.
6.4. CAVING INITIATION
The analysis of the data on caving initiation indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.14, the shape of the initial area for caving is predominantly
square or rectangular, but in a few cases other shapes have been used (like triangular
shapes).
(b) As shown in Figure 6.14, the available data indicates that the area for caving initiation
has an average value of 10000 m
2
, and typically varies form 5000 to 15000 m
2
.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.15, the hydraulic radius of the initial caving area varies from 15
to 45 m, with an average value in the range from 20 to 30 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.16, to facilitate cave initiation in 53% of the cases slots have
been used, in 7% of the cases artificial chimneys have been used (chimneying inten-
tionally used to initiate caving, and not a product of poor cave management), and in
40% of the cases no measures to facilitate cave initiation have been used.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
FOOTPRINT LENGTH (m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
W
I
D
T
H
(
m
)
L / W = 1.0
5.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0
%
C
U
M
U
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
3
1
%
5
9
%
8
1
%
9
4
%
1
0
0
%
Figure 6.12: Trend for the ratio between the footprint length (L) and its width (B) block/panel caving
mines.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
33
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
FOOTPRINT WIDTH (m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
B
L
O
C
K
H
E
I
G
H
T
(
m
)
DIFFICULT
CONNECTION
TO SURFACE ?
EASY
CONNECTION
TO SURFACE
H = 2B H = B
CONNECTION
TO SURFACE
Figure 6.13: Trend between the block height (H) and the footprint width (B) for block/panel caving
mines.
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
INITIAL CAVING AREA (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
AREA SHAPE
SQUARE
RECTANGULAR
OTHER
Figure 6.14: Relative frequency of different initial caving areas and their shapes in block/panel
caving mines.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
34
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
HYDRAULIC RADIUS OF INITIAL CAVING AREA (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 6.15: Relative frequency of different hydraulic radius for the initial caving area in
block/panel caving mines.
MEASURES TO FACILITATE CAVING INITIATION
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
NONE SLOT ARTIFICIAL CHIMNEY
Figure 6.16: Relative frequency of different measures to facilitate caving initiation in block/panel
caving mines.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
35
6.5. UNDERCUT LEVEL
The analysis of the data on the undercut level indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.17, the distance between undercut drifts varies from 10 to 35 m,
with an average from 20 to 25 m.
(b) As shown in Figure 6.18, the width of undercut drifts shows an increasing trend
through time. Before 1970 it has an average from 2 to 3 m, in the period 1970-1990
its average was 3 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is 4 m.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.19, the height of undercut drifts shows an increasing trend
through time. Before 1970 it has an average from 2.0 to 2.5 m, in the period 1970-
1990 its average was 3.0 to 3.5 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is from 3.5
to 4.0 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.20, the undercut height shows no time-dependent trends. It var-
ies from 3 to 20 m, with an average from 8 to 12 m.
(e) As shown in Figure 6.21, the undercut rate varies from 500 to 5000 m
2
/month, with an
average from 2000 to 2500 m
2
/month.
6.6. EXTRACTION LEVEL
The analysis of the data on the extraction level indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.22, the nominal crown-pillar thickness (from floor extraction
level to floor undercut level) shows an increasing trend through time. Before 1970 its
average was from 7.5 to 10.0 m, in the period 1970-1990 it was 12.5, and in the period
1990-2002 it is from 15.0 to 17.5 m.
(b) As shown in Figure 6.23, the spacing between extraction level drifts shows an in-
creasing trend through time. Before 1970 its average was from 12 to 16 m, in the pe-
riod 1970-1990 it was from 20 to 24 m, and in the period 1990-2002 it is from 26 to 28
m.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.24, the width of extraction level drifts shows an increasing trend
through time. Before 1970 it has an average of 2.5 m. In the period 1970-1990 its av-
erage was from 3.0 to 3.5 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is from 4.0 to
4.5 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.25, the height of extraction level drifts shows an increasing
trend through time. Before 1970 it has an average from 2.0 to 2.5 m. In the period
1970-1990 its average was 3.0 to 3.5 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is
from 3.5 to 4.5 m.
(e) As shown in Figure 6.26, the draw point spacing shows an increasing trend through
time. Before 1970 it has an average of 8 m. In the period 1970-1990 its average was
12 m, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is 15 m.
(f) As shown in Figure 6.27, the influence area of draw points shows an increasing trend
through time. Before 1970 it has an average of 50 m
2
. In the period 1970-1990 its
average was 125 m
2
, and in the period 1990-2002 its average is from 200 to 225 m
2
.
(g) As shown in Figure 6.28, the most used geometry for the extraction level is the
herringbone layout (54% of the cases), followed by El Teniente layout (layout 40% of
the cases).
(h) As shown in Figure 6.29, the average draw rate is from 0.20 to 0.25 m/day.
(i) The current practice is to use draw rates that increase with the percentage of block
extraction, as shown in Figure 6.30.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
36
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NOMINAL DISTANCE BETWEEN DRIFTS UCL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 6.17: Relative frequency of different nominal distances between undercut level drifts in
caving mines.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NOMINAL WIDTH DRIFTS UCL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.18: Time trend of the relative frequency for the nominal width of undercut level drifts in
caving mines.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
37
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NOMINAL HEIGHT DRIFTS UCL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.19: Time trend of the relative frequency for the nominal height of undercut level drifts in
caving mines.
0 4 8 12 16 20
UNDERCUT HEIGHT (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.20: Relative frequency of different undercut heights in caving mines.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
38
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
AVERAGE UNDERCUT RATE (m
2
/month)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 6.21: Relative frequency of different undercut rates in caving mines.
0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 35.0
NOMINAL CROWN-PILLAR THICKNESS (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.22: Evolution through time of the trend for nominal crown-pillar thickness in mines by
caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
39
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
PRODUCTION DRIFTS SPACING (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.23: Evolution through time of the trend for production drifts spacing in mines by caving.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NOMINAL WIDTH DRIFTS EXTRACTION LEVEL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.24: Evolution through time of the trend for the width of extraction level drifts in mines by
caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
NOMINAL HEIGHT DRIFTS EXTRACTION LEVEL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.25: Evolution through time of the trend for the height of extraction level drifts in mines by
caving methods.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
DRAW POINT SPACING (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.26: Evolution through time of the trend for draw point spacing in mines by block and pa-
nel caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
41
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
INFLUENCE AREA OF DRAW POINTS (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
TIME PERIOD
Before 1970
From 1970 to 1990
After 1990
Figure 6.27: Evolution through time of the trend for the influence area of draw points in mines by
block and panel caving methods.
EXTRACTION LEVEL LAYOUT
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
HERRINGBONE TENIENTE OTHER
Figure 6.28: Relative frequency of different extraction level layouts in mines by block and panel
caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
42
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
AVERAGE DRAW RATE (m/day)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 6.29: Relative frequency of different average draw rates in mines by caving methods.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
BLOCK EXTRACTION (%)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
D
R
A
W
R
A
T
E
(
m
/
d
a
y
)
Pilar Sub 6 - Esmeralda Sector Hw / Central, Initial Caving
Pilar Sub 6 - Esmeralda Sector Fw, Initial Caving
Esmeralda, Initial Caving
Diablo-Regimiento Project, Initial Caving
Palabora, Initial Caving
Average for Initial Caving
El Teniente trend for Steady-State Caving
Figure 6.30: Examples of the variation of the draw rate as a function of the percentage of block
extraction, in mines by block/panel caving.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
43
6.7. SUPPORT
The analysis of the data on support indicates that:
(a) In most underground mines by caving the support at the undercut level includes only
bolts; nevertheless, in some mines this support also included mesh and shotcrete.
(b) In most underground mines by caving the support at the extraction level includes bolts
(typically from 1.8 to 2.4 m long, at spacings from 1.0 to 1.3 m), mesh and shotcrete
(typically 2), and in many cases also cables (typically at intersections, with lengths
from 5 to 8 m). Also some mines used straps and osro-straps, as shown in Photo-
graph 6.1.
(c) As shown in Figure 6.31, the bolt length varies from 1.25 to 3.75 m, with an average
from 2.00 to 2.25 m, for the Undercut Level, and from 2.00 to 2.50 m for the Extraction
Level.
(d) As shown in Figure 6.32, the bolt spacing varies from 0.6 to 1.40 m, being typically
1.0 m for both: Undercut and Extraction Levels (50% of cases). The average bolt
spacing is from 1.0 to 1.1 m, also for both levels.
(e) The variation of bolt lengths with the width of the drifts is shown in Figure 6.33, which
indicates that:
o There is no clear difference between the Undercut and Extraction Levels.
o In most cases the bolt length is such that: 1.5 B / L 3.0
o For preliminary estimations of bolt length, the following relationships are sug-
gested (the drift width, B, expressed in m):
For poor quality rock masses (20 RMR 40): L (m) = 0.60 B + 0.60
For fair quality rock masses (40 RMR 60): L (m) = 0.45 B + 0.45
For good quality rock masses (60 RMR 80): L (m) = 0.30 B + 0.30
(f) The variation of bolt spacing (s) with the bolt length (L) is shown in Figure 6.34, which
indicates that::
o There is no clear difference between the Undercut and Extraction Levels.
o In most cases the bolt length is such that: 1.5 L / s 2.5
Photograph 6.1: Extraction level support by bolts,
mesh and osro-straps at a South African under-
ground mine.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
44
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
BOLT LENGTH (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL
Fit 1: Normal
Figure 6.31: Relative frequency of different bolt lengths in mines by caving methods.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
BOLT SPACING (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL
Fit 1: Normal
Figure 6.32: Relative frequency of different bolt spacings in mines by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
45
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
DRIFT WIDTH, B (m)
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
B
O
L
T
L
E
N
G
T
H
,
L
(
m
)
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
B/ L = 1.0 1.5
GOO
D RO
CK M
ASS QUALITY, L = 0,30 B + 0,30
P
O
O
R
R
O
C
K
M
A
S
S
Q
U
A
L
IT
Y
, L
=
0
.6
0
B
+
0
.6
0
F
A
IR
R
O
C
K
M
A
S
S
Q
U
A
LIT
Y
, L
=
0
.4
5 B
+
0
.4
5
UNDERCUT LEVEL DATA
EXTRACTION LEVEL DATA
BEST FIT FOR B < 5 m
Figure 6.33: Variation of the bolt length with the nominal width of the drift in mines by caving
methods.
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0
BOLT LENGTH, L (m)
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
B
O
L
T
S
P
A
C
I
N
G
,
s
(
m
)
UNDERCUT LEVEL DATA
EXTRACTION LEVEL DATA
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
L
/
s = 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
G
O
O
D
R
O
CK
M
A
SS
Q
U
ALITY
POOR ROCK MASS QUALITY
FAIR ROCK MASS Q
UALITY
s = 0.150 L + 0.9
s = 0.100 L + 0.7
s = 0.125 L + 0.8
Figure 6.34: Variation of the bolt spacing with the bolt length in mines by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
46
o For preliminary estimations of bolt spacing, the following relationships are sug-
gested (the bolt length, L, expressed in m):
For poor quality rock masses (20 RMR 40): s (m) = 0.100 L + 0.7
For fair quality rock masses (40 RMR 60): s (m) = 0.125 B + 0.8
For good quality rock masses (60 RMR 80): s (m) = 0.150 B + 0.9
(g) Underground mines by caving methods and under rockburst risk, have also used
mesh and lacing as a complementary support for extraction level drifts.
(h) The support of the draw points changes from one mine to another, but in most cases it
includes steel arches, cablebolts and concrete and/or shotcrete. The number of steel
arches had varied from 2 to 7, but currently most mines used 2 to 3 steel arches. Pho-
tographs 6.2 and 6.3 show some examples of draw point support.
Photograph 6.2: Draw point
support using steel sets and
concrete at a North American
mine by caving
Photograph 6.3: Draw point
support using steel sets and
concrete at a South African
mine by caving
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
47
6.8. MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM
The analysis of the data on material handling systems indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 6.35, in 57% of the cases underground mines by caving use pro-
duction shafts; in 27% of the cases they use conveyor belts; in 12% of the cases they
use trains; and in 4% of the cases they use trucks.
MATERIAL HANDLING SYSTEM
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
SHAFTS CONVEYOR BELTS TRUCKS TRAINS
Figure 6.35: Relative frequency of different material handling systems used in underground mines
by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
48
7. MINE OPERATION DATA
The mine operation data collected include:
Operational parameters for the undercut and extraction levels.
Production blasting
Fragmentation
Oversize limits
Draw rates
Equipment
Repair frequencies
All the data obtained for each mine visited are included in Appendix B.
The analysis of the mine operation data indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 7.1, the powder factor for undercut blasting varies widely, from 200 to
1000 grm/ton; with an average from 400 to 500 grm/ton, and a typical or most used value
from 300 to 600 grm/ton.
(b) As shown in Figure 7.2, the LHD capacity varies from 7 to 19 tons, with an average of 11
tons.
(c) As shown in Figure 7.3, the LHD tramming distance varies widely, from 25 to 300 m, with an
average from 125 to 150 m.
(d) As shown in Figure 7.4, the oversize limit in most cases (almost 50%) varies form 1.8 to 2.0
m
3
; nevertheless, its range is wide, from 0.4 to 2.4 m
3
. The average oversize limit is 1.6 m
3
.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
POWDER FACTOR (grm/ton)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 7.1: Relative frequency of different values of the powder factor used for undercut blasting
in mines by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
49
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
LHD CAPACITY (tons)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 7.2: Relative frequency of different LHD capacities used in mines by caving methods.
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
LHD TRAMMING DISTANCE (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 7.3: Relative frequency of different LHD tramming distances used in mines by caving
methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
50
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
OVERSIZE LIMIT (m
3
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 7.4: Relative frequency of different oversize limits in mines by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
51
8. GEOTECHNICAL INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING DATA
The data on geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring include:
Parameters to be monitored.
Purpose.
Instruments.
Number.
Length.
Frequency of readings.
Threshold values.
Degree of satisfaction.
All the data obtained for each mine visited are included in Appendix B.
The analysis of the geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring data indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 8.1, in open pit mines the frequency of use and degree of satisfaction
(DS) with monitoring is:
Degree of Satisfaction
Frequency of Use Monitoring System
Range Average
Field inspections (100%) Fair to Very High High
Most used
Global displacements (100%) Fair to Very High Fair to High
Local displacements (78%) Very Low to Very High Fair
Second most used
Groundwater monitoring (67%) Fair to Very High Fair
Aerial photography (44%) High High
Third most used
TDR (33%) Very Low to Fair Fair
(b) As shown in Figure 8.2, in underground mines by caving methods the frequency of use and
degree of satisfaction (DS) with monitoring is:
Degree of Satisfaction
Frequency of Use Monitoring System
Range Average
Field inspections (100%) Low to High High
Most used
Local displacements (82%) Very Low to Very High Fair
Seismic System (64%) Fair to Very High High
Second most used
TDR (64%) Low to Very High High
Convergence (36%) High to Very High High
Third most used
Observation Boreholes (36%) Low to Very High Fair
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
52
DEGREE OF SATISFACTION
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
I
N
O
P
E
N
P
I
T
M
I
N
I
N
G
VERY LOW VERY HIGH HIGH FAIR LOW
FIELD INSPECTIONS
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
RECONCILIATION
TIME DOMAIN REFLECTOMETER
GROUNDWATER
GLOBAL DISPLACEMENTS
LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS
FREQUENCY
OF USE
78%
100%
67%
33%
11%
44%
100%
Figure 8.1: Relative frequency and degree of satisfaction for different geotechnical instrumenta-
tion and monitoring systems used in open pit mines.
DEGREE OF SATISFACTION
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
I
N
U
N
D
E
R
G
R
O
U
N
D
M
I
N
I
N
G
VERY LOW VERY HIGH HIGH FAIR LOW
CONVERGENCE
FIELD INSPECTIONS
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
(SUBSIDENCE)
SEISMIC SYSTEMS
OBSERVATION BOREHOLES
(CAVE BACK)
OVERBREAK
TIME DOMAIN REFLECTOMETER
(CAVE BACK)
WATER FLOW
STRESSES
GLOBAL DISPLACEMENTS
LOCAL DISPLACEMENTS
FREQUENCY
OF USE
36%
82%
9%
27%
18%
18%
64%
36%
64%
27%
100%
Figure 8.2: Relative frequency and degree of satisfaction for different geotechnical instrumenta-
tion and monitoring systems used in underground mines by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
53
9. GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS DATA
The geotechnical hazards considered in the bench marking includes:
Open pit hazards (rock falls, wedge/planar failures and slides).
Underground mines hazards (rib pillar failures, pillar instabilities, stope instabilities, early di-
lution, water inflows and mudrushes, collapses, hangups, rockbursts and subsidence).
All the data obtained for each mine visited are included in Appendix B.
9.1. COLLAPSES
A collapse is a type of hazards that frequently affects the extraction level of underground
mines by caving methods, causing important damage not only at the undercut level but also
at the extraction level, as illustrated by the example shown in Photographs 9.1 and 9.2.
The analysis of the data on collapses indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 9.1 the area affected by a single collapse varies from 140 to
17500 m
2
, with an average of 3700 m
2
.
(b) As shown in Figure 9.2 the main causes of collapses are:
o Draw rate / Draw management
o Structures
o Mine planning / Mining sequence
(c) As shown in Figure 9.3 the most frequent remedial measures for collapses are:
o Draw rate / Draw management
o Support
o Improving geological-geotechnical data
1,5 m
Photograph 9.1: Collapse at an undercut level drift of Teniente 4 Sur (1989).
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
54
CONCRETE
DAMAGE
CONCRETE
DAMAGE
1,5 m
Photograph 9.2: Collapse at an extraction level drift of Teniente 4 Sur (1989).
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
AREA AFFECTED BY A SINGLE COLLAPSE (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 9.1: Relative frequency of the area affected by a single collapse in underground mines by
caving.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
55
MAIN CAUSES OF A COLLAPSE
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
FIRST MORE IMPORTANT CAUSE
SECOND MORE IMPORTANT CAUSE
THIRD MORE IMPORTANT CAUSE
GEOLOGY
STRUCTURES
WATER
MINE LAYOUT
DESIGN
SUPPORT
MINE PLANNING
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW RATE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
BLASTING
Figure 9.2: Relative frequency of the different main causes of collapses in mines by caving.
MAIN REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR A COLLAPSE
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
FIRST MOST COMMON REMEDIAL MEASURE
SECOND MOST COMMON REMEDIAL MEASURE
THIRD MOST COMMON REMEDIAL MEASURE
IMPROVED
GEOLOGICAL
GEOTECHNICAL
DATA
DRAINAGE SUPPORT
MINE PLANNING
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW RATE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
CONTROLLED
BLASTING
Figure 9.3: Relative frequency of the different remedial measures against collapses that have
been used in underground mines by caving.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
56
9.2. ROCKBURSTS
A rockburst is a seismic event that causes damage. In most cases the damage has no clear
structural control, as shown in Picture 9.3, but in certain cases like the one shown in Picture
9.4, the damage has a clear structural control because the seismic event triggered the fall of
blocks. The intensity of this damage can vary widely, but for the purposes of this report it will
be considered that a rockburst can produce three levels of damage: heavy, moderated, and
light damage. These classes of damage are illustrated by the examples shown in Pictures
9.5 to 9.7.
Photograph 9.4: Typical major rockburst damage, with
structural control, due to a seismic event that affected a
drift at the ventilation level of Teniente Sub 6 (1990).
Photograph 9.3: Typical major rockburst damage, without structural control, due to a seismic
event that affected a drift at the undercut level of Teniente Sub 6 (1991).
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
57
Photograph 9.5: Example of MODERATE rockburst
damage.
Photograph 9.5: Example of HEAVY rockburst damage.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
58
Photograph 9.7: Example of LIGHT
rockburst damage.
Due to the fact that not all mines by caving suffer rockbursts, and considering that most of
the data collected came from El Teniente Sub 6 experience, the numerical conclusions pre-
sented below are based on the analysis of these data. The analysis of the data on rock-
bursts indicates that:
(a) Rockburst can affect not only the undercut level, but also different levels below the
UCL, reaching up to the haulage level.
(b) The major rockbursts that damaged Teniente Sub 6 caused different kinds of damage
at different levels, and at different distances form the caving front.
(c) As shown in Figure 9.4 the heavy damage at different levels varies with the distance
to the caving front as follows:
Level Distance to Caving Front of Damaged Zone Most Damaged Sector
Undercut 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m
Extraction < 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m
Ventilation 50 to 150 m 100 to 150 m
Haulage < 0 to 150 m 100 to 150 m
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
59
(d) As shown in Figure 9.5 the moderate damage at different levels varies with the dis-
tance to the caving front as follows:
Level Distance to Caving Front of Damaged Zone Most Damaged Sector
Undercut 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m
Extraction < 0 to 150 m 100 to 150 m
Ventilation < 0 to 150 m < 0 to 150 m
Haulage < 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m
(e) As shown in Figure 9.6 the light damage at different levels varies with the distance to
the caving front as follows:
Level Distance to Caving Front of Damaged Zone Most Damaged Sector
Undercut 0 to 150 m 100 to 150 m
Extraction < 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m
Ventilation 50 to 150 m 100 to 150 m
Haulage < 0 to 150 m 0 to 50 m
(f) As shown in Figure 9.7 the main causes of rockburst are:
HIGH INFLUENCE: Structures
Stress environment
Mining sequence
Undercutting rate
Draw rate
DISTANCE TO CAVING FRONT (m)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
D
R
I
F
T
L
E
N
G
T
H
D
A
M
A
G
E
D
B
Y
A
S
I
N
G
L
E
R
O
C
K
B
U
R
S
T
(
m
)
HEAVY ROCKBURST DAMAGE
TEN SUB 6 (1989 - 1992)
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL
VENTILATION LEVEL
HAULAGE LEVEL
< 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150
Figure 9.4: Relative frequency of the heavy rockburst damaged zones at different levels, and at
different distances from the caving front.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
60
DISTANCE TO CAVING FRONT (m)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
D
R
I
F
T
L
E
N
G
T
H
D
A
M
A
G
E
D
B
Y
A
S
I
N
G
L
E
R
O
C
K
B
U
R
S
T
(
m
)
MODERATE ROCKBURST DAMAGE
TEN SUB 6 (1989 - 1992)
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL
VENTILATION LEVEL
HAULAGE LEVEL
< 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150
Figure 9.5: Relative frequency of the moderate rockburst damaged zones at different levels, and
at different distances from the caving front.
DISTANCE TO CAVING FRONT (m)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
360
380
400
D
R
I
F
T
L
E
N
G
T
H
D
A
M
A
G
E
D
B
Y
A
S
I
N
G
L
E
R
O
C
K
B
U
R
S
T
(
m
)
LIGHT ROCKBURST DAMAGE
TEN SUB 6 (1989 - 1992)
UNDERCUT LEVEL
EXTRACTION LEVEL
VENTILATION LEVEL
HAULAGE LEVEL
< 0 0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 150
Figure 9.6: Relative frequency of the light rockburst damaged zones at different levels, and at dif-
ferent distances from the caving front.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
61
MODERATE INFLUENCE: Rock mass quality
Mine layout
Rock support
Undercutting management
Blasting
(g) As shown in Figure 9.8 the main remedial measures for rockburst are:
HIGH INFLUENCE: Monitoring
Mining sequence
Draw rate
Contingency plans
MODERATE INFLUENCE: Rock mass conditioning
Draw management
Support
Technological improvements
9.3. SUBSIDENCE
The connection of the cave back with the ground surface generates a subsidence crater, like
the ones illustrated in Pictures 9.8 to 9.10, for sublevel, block, and panel caving mines.
Usually the crater perimeter is subcircular, but in certain cases like the one shown in Picture
9.11, it could have a special shape. On the other hand the development of the subsidence
crater could affect other mines located nearby, like the example shown in Picture 9.12. Of
course, this will also be the case of any open pit mine developing a transition to underground
mining by caving methods, like the example shown in Picture 9.13.
MAIN CAUSES OF A ROCKBURST
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
STRUCTURES
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW
RATE
MINE
LAYOUT
UNDERCUTING
MANAGEMENT
STRESS
ENVIRONMENT
UNDERCUTING
RATE
ROCK MASS
QUALITY
ROCK
SUPPORT
BLASTING
1
2
3
0
Figure 9.7: Relative importance of the different causes of rockbursts in underground mines by
caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
62
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR ROCKBURSTS
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
1
2
0
3
MONITORING
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW RATE
CONTINGENCY
PLANS
ROCK MASS
CONDITIONING
SUPPORT
TECHNOLOGICAL
IMPROVEMENTS
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
Figure 9.8: Relative importance of the different remedial measures for rockbursts in underground
mines by caving methods.
Photograph 9.8: Initiation of a subsidence crater due to the cave back connection to ground surface at
a sublevel caving mine, Ridgeway, Australia.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
63
Photograph 9.9: Typical subsidence crater of
a block caving mine, II Panel,
Andina Mine, Chile.
Photograph 9.10: Typical subsidence crater of
a panel caving mine, Gras-
berg IOZ, Indonesia.
PIPA PIPA
BRADEN BRADEN
Quebrada Quebrada
Teniente Teniente
Teniente Teniente
4 Fortuna 4 Fortuna
Teniente 4 Teniente 4
Regimiento Regimiento
Teniente 5 Teniente 5
Pilares Pilares
Teniente Teniente
3 3 Isla Isla
Teniente Teniente
Sub 6 Sub 6
Teniente Teniente
4 Sur 4 Sur
N N
PIPA PIPA
BRADEN BRADEN
Quebrada Quebrada
Teniente Teniente
Teniente Teniente
4 Fortuna 4 Fortuna
Teniente 4 Teniente 4
Regimiento Regimiento
Teniente 5 Teniente 5
Pilares Pilares
Teniente Teniente
3 3 Isla Isla
Teniente Teniente
Sub 6 Sub 6
Teniente Teniente
4 Sur 4 Sur
N N
Photograph 9.11: Non typical, horse shoe shaped subsidence crater of a panel caving operation with
several productive sector around a central pipe, El Teniente, Chile.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
64
Photograph 9.12: Example of the interaction
between the subsidence crater of an under-
ground panel caving mine (Andina), and a nearby
open pit mine (Disputada), Chile.
SUBSIDENCE CRATER
UG PANEL CAVING MINE
III PANEL, ANDINA
OPEN PIT MINE
DISPUTADA
SUBSIDENCE CRATER
UG PANEL CAVING MINE
III PANEL, ANDINA
OPEN PIT MINE
DISPUTADA
PERIMETER OF THE
SUBSIDENCE CRATER
PERIMETER OF THE
SUBSIDENCE CRATER
Photograph 9.13: Example of the subsidence problem in a transition from open pit to under-
ground mining by block caving, San Manuel, United States.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
65
The overall geometry of a subsidence crater can be described as shown in Figure 9.9, by
the depth (H) and mean inclination () of its walls will. The mean inclination of the crater wall
is also known as break angle.
The analysis of the data on subsidence indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 9.10, the height of the subsidence crater walls varies from less
than 100 to 1400 m; but most data are below 700 m, and the average is about 450 (of
course the height of a subsidence crater walls depends on the terrain topography).
(b) As shown in Figure 9.11, the break angle defining the mean inclination of the crater
walls varies from 40 to 90 (even in few cases there are overhanging walls), in-
creased with rock mass quality, but most data are in the range from 50 to 90, and if
RMR > 70 the recorded break angles are all larger than 60. It is very important to
note that most of the data are for long term conditions (i.e. after the end of the block
extraction).
(c) Available data indicates that it could be possible to find a relationship between rock
mass rating, RMR, the break angle, , and the depth of the crater walls, H. This trend
is illustrated in Figure 9.12. This topic will be included in the development of the geo-
technical guidelines that are the second main activity of Task 4.
(d) As shown in Figure 9.13 the main causes of subsidence are:
HIGH INFLUENCE: Structures
Rock mass quality
Block height
Draw rate
Draw management
MODERATE INFLUENCE: Water conditions
Footprint geometry
Caving initiation
Mining sequence
Undercutting management
Figure 9.9: Parameters describing the overall geometry of a subsidence crater: crater wall depth,
H, and crater wall mean inclination or break angle, .
Crater Depth
z
SURFACE
CRATER WALL
BROKEN ROCK
DRIFT AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE CRATER
(INFLUENCE ZONE)
Crater Wall Mean Inclination
Crater Depth
z
SURFACE
CRATER WALL
BROKEN ROCK
DRIFT AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE CRATER
(INFLUENCE ZONE)
Crater Wall Mean Inclination Crater Walls Mean Inclination
Crater
Depth
SURFACE
BROKEN ROCK
CRATER WALL
DRIFTS AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE
(INFLUENCE ZONE OF THE CRATER)
Crater Depth
z
SURFACE
CRATER WALL
BROKEN ROCK
DRIFT AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE CRATER
(INFLUENCE ZONE)
Crater Wall Mean Inclination
Crater Depth
z
SURFACE
CRATER WALL
BROKEN ROCK
DRIFT AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE CRATER
(INFLUENCE ZONE)
Crater Wall Mean Inclination Crater Walls Mean Inclination
Crater
Depth
SURFACE
BROKEN ROCK
CRATER WALL
DRIFTS AFFECTED BY THE SUBSIDENCE
(INFLUENCE ZONE OF THE CRATER)
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
66
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
DEPTH OF SUBSIDENCE CRATER WALL (m)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
Figure 9.10: Relative frequency of different crater wall depths for underground mines by caving.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
BREAK ANGLE MEAN VALUE (degrees)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
70 < RMR
60 < RMR < 70
50 < RMR < 60
40 < RMR < 50
Figure 9.11: Relative frequency of break angles for different rock mass qualities (Laubschers
RMR), in the subsidence craters of underground mines by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
67
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
BREAK ANGLE (degrees)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
C
R
A
T
E
R
W
A
L
L
D
E
P
T
H
(
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
Laubscher's RMR
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 to 70
> 71
Figure 9.12: Tentative relationship between the rock mass quality (Laubschers RMR), the break
angle (), and the depth of the crater walls (H) in underground mines by caving.
MAIN CAUSES OF SUBSIDENCE
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
1
2
3
0
BLOCK
HEIGHT
STRUCTURES
FOOTPRINT
GEOMETRY
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
UNDERCUTING
MANAGEMENT
ROCK MASS
QUALITY
CAVING
INITIATION
DRAW
RATE
WATER
CONDITIONS
Figure 9.13: Relative importance of the main causes of subsidence in underground mines by caving
methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
68
(e) As shown in Figure 9.14 the main remedial measures for subsidence are:
HIGH INFLUENCE: Monitoring
Mining sequence
Draw rate
Relocate infrastructure
MODERATE INFLUENCE: Blasting
Draw management
Contingency plans
Drainage
9.4. WATER INFLOWS AND MUDRUSHES
Water inflows and mudrushes have caused important damage to underground mines by cav-
ing methods, such as the example shown in Picture 9.14. These phenomena are sudden in-
flows of water and/or mud from drawpoints or other underground openings. Due to its own
flow nature these phenomena propagate rapidly, endangering people, equipments, and in-
frastructure.
Due to the fact that the amount of collected data on water inflows and mudrushes is limited,
the analysis developed was mainly qualitative. The analysis of the data on water inflows and
mudrushes indicates that:
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR SUBSIDENCE
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
1
2
0
3
MONITORING
MINING
SEQUENCE
DRAW
RATE
RELOCATE
INFRASTRUCTURE
BLASTING
CONTINGENCY
PLANS
DRAINAGE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
Figure 9.14: Relative importance of the different remedial measures for subsidence in under-
ground mines by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
69
Photograph 9.14: Example of the damage
caused by a mudrush in an underground mine by
caving methods.
(a) As shown in Figure 9.15 the main causes of water inflows and mudrushes are:
Most Frequent: Wet ore / Clayey ore
Moderately Frequent: Fine fragmentation
Water collector crater
Slope failures
Less Frequent: Clayey overburden
Warm rains / Rains
Crown-Pillar failures
Water above underground mine
Backfill failures
(b) As shown in Figure 9.16 the main remedial measures for water inflows and
mudrushes are:
Most Frequent: Surface stabilization
Draw management
Contingency plans
Drainage
Moderately Frequent: Monitoring
Technological improvements
Relocate infrastructure
Blasting
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
70
MAIN CAUSES OF MUDRUSHES AND WATER INFLOWS
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
RAIN WATER ABOVE
UG MINE
CLAYEY
ORE
WATER-COLLECTOR
CRATER
CLAYEY
OVERBURDEN
CROWN-PILLAR
FAILURE WET ORE
FINE
FRAGMENTATION
SLOPE
FAILURE
WARM
RAIN
BACKFILL
FAILURE
Figure 9.15: Relative importance of the main causes of water inflows and mudrushes in under-
ground mines by caving methods.
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR WATER INFLOWS & MUDRUSHES
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
I
M
P
O
R
T
A
N
C
E
1
2
0
3
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
DRAINAGE BLASTING
TECHNO
IMPROVEMENTS SURFACE
STABILIZATION
CONTINGENCY
PLANS
MONITORING
RELOCATE
INFRASTRUCTURE
Figure 9.16: Relative importance of the main remedial measures for water inflows and mudrushes
in underground mines by caving methods.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
71
9.5. HANGUPS
The ceasing of cave propagation due to the formation of stable geometry generates a han-
gup. This does not only stop the continuous breakage of rock, affecting the draw, but also
generates a risk of a sudden failure of the stable geometry that could generate an air blast,
causing important damage in the underground mine. After the failure of this stable geome-
try, usually the cave back reaches the ground surface generating a crater like the one shown
in Picture 9.15.
The analysis of the data on hangups indicates that:
(a) As shown in Figure 9.17, the area of a hangup could vary widely, from less than 1000
m
2
to more than 35000 m
2
. Nevertheless, most reported data are below 15000 m
2
,
and the average is 12000 m
2
.
(b) Reported data on air-blasts are related to hangups with areas larger than 10000 m
2
.
(c) As shown in Figure 9.18 the main causes of hangups are:
Most Frequent: Geological changes
Underestimation of rock mass quality
Moderately Frequent: Low stress environment
Changes in the undercut height
Less Frequent: Draw rate / Draw management
Undercutting sequence
No measures taken to facilitate cave initiation
Non standard undercut geometry
(d) As shown in Figure 9.19 the main remedial measures for hangups are:
Most Frequent: Increase of the undercut area
Conditioning the rock mass
Moderately Frequent: Weakening of the boundaries of the hangup
Draw rate / Draw management
Photograph 9.15: Example of the formation of a chimney crater immediately after the failure of the
hangup at Inca West Sector, Salvador Mine, Chile (December 5, 1999).
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
72
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
HANGUP AREA (m
2
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
A I R B L A S T A I R B L A S T
SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999
Figure 9.17: Relative frequency of different hangup areas in underground mines by caving.
MAIN CAUSES OF HANGUPS
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999
DRAWRATE
DRAW
MANAGEMENT
GEOLOGICAL
CHANGES
UNDERESTIMATED
ROCK MASS
QUALITY
LOW STRESS
ENVIRONMENT
CHANGES IN
UNDERCUT
HEIGHT
UNDERCUTTING
SEQUENCE
NO MEASURES
TO FACILITATE
CAVING INITIATION
NON STANDARD
UNDERCUT
GEOMETRY
Figure 9.18: Relative importance of the main causes of hangups in underground mines by caving.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
73
9.6. FINAL COMMENTS
The evaluation of the different causes for geotechnical hazards allows the grouping and
classification of these causes as follows:
Causes of Geotechnical Origin:
Structures (presence of major geological structures)
Rock mass quality (strength/cavability of the rock mass)
Stress environment (in situ stresses)
Water conditions (groundwater, hydrogeology, hydrology)
Causes Related to Mine Design:
Block height (column of solid rock above the UCL)
Footprint geometry (area and geometry)
Caving initiation (area, geometry, location, undercut height, measures to facilitate cav-
ing)
Mine layout (drift orientation, spacing, size, draw point geometry and spacing)
Support (drift support, draw point support, etc.)
Causes Related to Mine Planning:
Mining sequence (caving front orientation, geometry, advance direction, detentions,
changes, etc.)
Undercutting rates (magnitude (m
2
/month) and changes of magnitude)
Draw rate (magnitude (m/day) and changes of magnitude, draw strategy)
REMEDIAL MEASURES FOR HANGUPS
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
R
E
L
A
T
I
V
E
F
R
E
Q
U
E
N
C
Y
SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999 SALVADOR, 05.12.1999
INCREASE
UNDERCUT AREA
CONDITIONING
THE ROCK MASS
WEAKENING
THE BOUNDARIES
DRAW RATE
DRAW MANAGEMENT
Figure 9.19: Relative importance of the main remedial measures for hangups in underground mines
by caving.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
74
Causes Related to Mine Operation:
Undercutting management (tactical development of the undercutting: steps, operative
sequence, short term rate)
Draw management (tactical development of the extraction: uniformity, local changes,
short term rate)
Blasting (blast induced damage, remnant pillars, poor drilling/blasting operation)
The evaluation of the relative frequency of each one of these causes in the reported geo-
technical hazards, allow classifying them as causes of high influence, moderated influence,
and low influence for each type of geotechnical hazard. This is shown in Figure 9.20, which
indicates that the most important causes of geotechnical hazards are:
STRUCTURES (geotechnical, present in all geotechnical hazards)
DRAW RATE (mine planning, present in 4 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
DRAW MANAGEMENT (mine operation, present in 3 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
The evaluation of the different remedial measures for geotechnical hazards, allow the group-
ing and classification of these remedial measures as follows:
Remedial Measures of Geotechnical Origin:
Monitoring (seismic monitoring, displacements, field inspections, etc.)
Rock mass conditioning (distressing, hydrofracturing, boundary weakening, etc.)
Remedial Measures Related to Mine Design:
Support (additional support, repair, backfilling, etc.)
Remedial Measures Related to Mine Planning:
Mining sequence (caving front orientation, geometry, advance direction, detentions,
changes, etc.)
Draw rate (magnitude (m/day) and changes of magnitude, draw strategy)
Technological improvements (remote controlled equipment, new chute design, etc.)
Surface stabilization (stabilization of slopes, mine waste deposits, etc.)
Relocate infrastructure (changing the location of infrastructure affected by/causing a
geotechnical hazard)
Remedial Measures Related to Mine Operation:
Draw management (tactical development of the extraction: uniformity, local changes,
short term rate)
Contingency plans (restrict access, evacuate people and equipment, sealing drifts or
other cavities, etc.)
Blasting (improved blasting techniques, blasting of remnant pillars, etc.)
Drainage (surface and underground drainage measures, improving dewatering capac-
ity, etc.)
Undercutting management (tactical development of the undercutting: steps, operative
sequence, short term rate)
The evaluation of the relative frequency of each one of these remedial measures in the re-
ported geotechnical hazards, allow classifying them as remedial measures of high influence,
moderate influence, and low influence for each type of geotechnical hazard. This is shown
in Figure 9.21, which indicates that the most important remedial measures for geotechnical
hazards are:
MINING SEQUENCE (mine planning, present in 4 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
MONITORING (geotechnical, present in 3 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
DRAW MANAGEMENT (mine operation, present in 3 of 5 geotechnical hazards)
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
75
COLLAPSES
ROCKBURSTS
SUBSIDENCE
WATER INFLOWS & MUDRUSHES
HANGUPS
HIGH INFLUENCE MODERATE INFLUENCE LOW INFLUENCE
U
N
D
E
R
C
U
T
I
N
G
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
D
R
A
W
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
B
L
A
S
T
I
N
G
R
O
C
K
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
M
I
N
I
N
G
S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
U
N
D
E
R
C
U
T
I
N
G
R
A
T
E
D
R
A
W
R
A
T
E
B
L
O
C
K
H
E
I
G
H
T
F
O
O
T
P
R
I
N
T
G
E
O
M
E
T
R
Y
C
A
V
I
N
G
I
N
I
T
I
A
T
I
O
N
M
I
N
E
L
A
Y
O
U
T
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
R
O
C
K
M
A
S
S
Q
U
A
L
I
T
Y
S
T
R
E
S
S
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
W
A
T
E
R
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
H
A
Z
A
R
D
S
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
GEOTECHNICAL
MAIN CAUSES
OF
GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
UNDERGROUND MINES
BY CAVING
IN
MINE DESIGN PLANNING OPERATION
C A U S E S
Figure 9.20: Relative influence of the main causes of geotechnical hazards in underground mining
by caving.
DESIGN
COLLAPSES
ROCKBURSTS
SUBSIDENCE
WATER INFLOWS & MUDRUSHES
HANGUPS
HIGH INFLUENCE MODERATE INFLUENCE LOW INFLUENCE
FOR
UNDERGROUND MINES
GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS
R
O
C
K
M
A
S
S
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
W
R
A
T
E
T
E
C
H
N
O
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
S
U
P
P
O
R
T
R E M E D I A L M E A S U R E S
H
A
Z
A
R
D
S
G
E
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
GEOTECH
MAIN
REMEDIAL & MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
BY CAVING
M
O
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
PLANNING
M
I
N
I
N
G
S
E
Q
U
E
N
C
E
D
R
A
I
N
A
G
E
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
T
A
B
I
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
R
E
L
O
C
A
T
E
I
N
F
R
A
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
D
R
A
W
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
C
O
N
T
I
N
G
E
N
C
Y
P
L
A
N
S
B
L
A
S
T
I
N
G
OPERATION
Figure 9.21: Relative influence of the main remedial measures for geotechnical hazards in under-
ground mining by caving.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
76
10. CONCLUSIONS
To develop this benchmarking 17 mines in 7 countries were visited, in order to collect relevant in-
formation. Also a comprehensive literature review was done to get complementary data, allowing
to obtain information on up to 88 additional mines; nevertheless, in most cases the additional data
do not include all the aspects considered in the benchmarking survey.
The interpretation of the data collected in this benchmarking has allowed to define the current
trends and practices of the underground mining by caving methods. These have been summarized
as histograms and/or curves to facilitate their use by the sponsors of ICS-II, especially during the
early stages of a new mining project.
To make even easier the use of this information, Table 10.2 summarizes the current trends for the
most relevant design parameters, and it can be used for pre-feasibility studies.
It is also important to realize when a problem originates and when it is detected during the different
stages of a mining project. As a first attempt, it is suggested use Table 10.1.
Table 10.1
POSSIBLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE ORIGIN AND DETECTION OF PROBLEMS
DURING THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF A MINING PROJECT
Stage of the Project Origin of the Problem Detection of the Problem
Pre-Feasibility Study 0% to 20% 0%
Feasibility Study 20% to 60% 0% to 5%
Basic Engineering 20% to 40% 0% to 5%
Detailed Engineering 10% to 20% 0% to 5%
Construction 10% to 20% 10% to 30%
Operation 20% to 60% 50% to 90%
(*) Modified from Sowers (1993)
Finally it must be noted that all the results presented in this report will be used as a starting basis
for the development of geotechnical guidelines for a transition from open pit to underground mining,
which corresponds to the second main activity of Task 4, and includes the following subjects:
5. CAVING PROPAGATION
6. SUBSIDENCE
7. CROWN-PILLAR
8. WATER INFLOWS & MUDRUSHES
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
77
Table 10.2
TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR A BLOCK/PANEL CAVING MINE
Mine Design Parameter Typical Value Comments
Rock Mass Quality 50 RMR < 60 If RMR > 60 rock mass cavability must be evaluated carefully.
Acces Decline
Currently 70% of mines prefer declines, and 20% declines and shafts as
mine access.
Block Height 210 m This typical block height could vary 20%.
< 50000 m
2
30000 m
2
50000 a 100000 m
2
75000 m
2
Footprint
Area
> 100000 m
2
170000 m
2
These typical areas could vary +20%. It is recommended to use equal or
larger areas, but not smaller than the typical values. Also, square areas are
better than the rectangular ones.
Area 10000 m
2
Smaller areas are not recommended, specially in massive rock masses.
Shape Square Internal corners must be avoided (e.g. a L shaped area).
Measures to Facilitate Slot Is highly recommended to facilitate cave initiation.
Caving
Initiation
Hydraulic Radius 20 to 30 m Avoid being close to the limit in Laubschers chart.
Spacing 15 m This is the current practice.
Height 4 m
D
r
i
f
t
s
Width 4 m
Could be increased but not decreased.
Undercut Height 8 m Could vary, but be careful if using small undercutting heights.
U
n
d
e
r
c
u
t
L
e
v
e
l
Undercut Rate 2100 m
2
/month
Could be increased but be careful with induced seismicity, specially if in a
high stress environment.
Crown-Pillar Thickness 17 m Could vary 20% (measured from floor UCL to floor EXT).
Spacing 30 m Could vary from 26 to 36 m.
Height 4 m
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
D
r
i
f
t
s
Width 4 m
Could be increased but not decreased.
Spacing 15 m Could vary from 13 to 18 m.
Draw Points
Influence Area 225 m
2
Could vary from 169 to 324 m
2
.
Draw Rates 0.20 m/day
This is an average value. Typically lower values are used at the beginning
of caving, and higher values are used when over 30% of the block height
has been extracted.
Capacity 11 ton It could vary 20%.
LHD
Equipment
Traming Distance 140 m Smaller tramming distances are preferable.
Powder Factor 400 grm/ton For undercutting blasting. It could vary 20%.
Oversize Limit 1.8 to 2.0 m
3
It could vary 20%.
RMR < 70 > 45
Subsidence
RMR > 70 > 60
is the break angle defining the mean inclination of the crater walls.
Geotechnical Hazards
The project must take account that collapses, rockbursts, subsidence, water inflows and
mudrushes, and hangups could occur (see Figure 9.20 for main causes and Figure 9.21 for
the most common remedial measures).
Instrumentation & Monitoring
The most common monitoring systems include displacements and seismicity. It is re-
commended to include a seismic monitoring system, specially in massive hard rock and/or
high stress environments..
(1) These typical values are intended only for the pre-feasibility stage of a mining project.
(2) RMR values are for Laubschers 1990 system.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
78
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report want to thank all the sponsors for giving them the possibility of develop-
ing this work. The authors also want to express their sincere gratitude to all the colleagues that
helped them to collect the information at each mine visited: Andina, Bingham Canyon, Cadia, Chu-
quicamata, El Teniente, Finsch, Grasberg Open Pit, Grasberg Underground (DOZ), Henderson,
Kidd Creek, Kiruna, Koffiefontein, Mount Keith, Northparkes, Palabora, Ridgeway, Salvador. It is
important to note that Grasberg, Henderson and Kidd Creek mines do not participate as sponsors
of the ICS-II Study, but they were willing to help the authors in developing this benchmarking study.
Finally, the authors want to acknowledge specially the support provided by Chuquicamata Mine of
Codelco to develop this work.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
79
12. REFERENCES
[1] Agapitio, J. & Shoemaker, D. (1987): Ground Stability and Support in Block Caving Operations at Mo-
lycorps Questa Mine, ROCK MECHANICS, Proceedings of 28
th
US Symposium on Rock Mechanics,
edited by I. Farmer et al., Balkema.
[2] Aimin, Z. & Yongxue, S. (2000): Application of Block Caving System in the Tongkuangyu Copper Mine,
MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[3] Alanis, M.; Hormazbal, E. & Karzulovic, A. (2000): Aplicacin del Metodo Observacional al Sector SW
de Mina Chuquicamata. Informe Tcnico elaborado por la Superintendencia de Ingeniera Geotcnica,
Subgerencia de Geologa y Geotecnia, Divisin Chuquicamata de CODELCO.
[4] Antikainen. J. (1990): Open Stope Design Under Adverse Rock Mechanical Conditions at Pyhsalmi
Mine, ROCK MECHANICS CONTRIBUTIONS AND CHALLENGES, Proceedings of the 31
st
U.S.
Symposium, W. Hustrulid & G. Johnson editors, Balkema.
[5] Antikanien, J.; Simonen, A. & Mkinen, I. (1993): 3D Modelling of the central pillar en the Pyhsalmi
mine, INNOVATIVE MINE DESIGN FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY, Proceedings of the International Con-
gress on Mine Design, W. Bawden & J. Archibald editors, Balkema.
[6] Apablaza, R. (2002): Personal communication.
[7] Arjang, B. (1997): DGround Stress Determination at the 6800 Level, kidd Mining Division. Work per-
formed for Falconbridge Ltd., Kidd Mining Division; Mining and Mineral Sciences Laboratories, Report
MMSL 96-047 (CR), Job N 51422, CANMET.
[8] Austin, G. (2002): DPersonal Communication.
[9] Baase, R.; Diment, W. & Petrina, A. (1998): Sublevel Caving at Craigmont Mines Ltd., Chapter 37 in
TECHNIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Hand-
book, Edited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[10] Barber, J.; Dirdjosuwondo, S.; Casten, T. & Thomas, L. (2001): Block Caving the EESS Deposit at P.T.
Freeport Indonesia, Chapter 53 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals
and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[11] Barber, J.; Thomas, L. & Casten, T. (2000): Freeport Indonesias Deep Ore Zone Mine, MASSMIN
2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[12] Barlett, P. (2001): Premier Diamond Mine, Chapter 52 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engi-
neering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid, and R. Bullock, SME.
[13] Barlett, P. & Croll, A. (2000): Cave Mining at Premier Diamond Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings,
Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[14] Barlett, P. & Raubenheimer, M. (1988): Collapse of the Gabbro Sill above an Open Stope at Premier
Mine, SANGORM SYMPOSYUM, Rock Mechanics in Africa, Nov. 1988.
[15] Barnett, W.; Guest, A.; Terbrugge, P. & Walker, D. (2001): Probabilistic Pit Slope Design in the Lim-
popo Metamorphic Rock at Venetia Mine, J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall.
[16] Barraza, M. & Crorkan, P. (2000): Esmeralda Mine Exploitation Project, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings,
Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[17] Bates, G. (1998): Open Stope Mining at the Magmont Mine, Bixby, Missouri, Chapter 7 in TECH-
NIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Ed-
ited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[18] Bawden, W. (1994): Integrated Seismic-Stress-Geomechanical Analysis of a Cable Bolted Back Fail-
ure, Mines Gaspe, Canada, ROCK MECHANICS; MODELS AND MEASUREMENTS CHALLENGES
FROM INDUSTRY, Proceedings of the 1
st
North American Rock Mechanics Symposium, , P. Nelson &
S. Laubach editors, Balkema.
[19] Beck, D.; Brady, B. & Grant, D. (1996): Analysis of Seismicity and Rock Deformation During Open
Stoping of a Deep Orebody, PREDICTIONS AND PERFORMANCE IN ROCK MECHANICS AND
ROCK ENGINEERING, ISRM International Symposium EUROCK96, Volume 2, edited by G. Barla,
Balkema.
[20] Blondell, J. (2002): Personal Communication.
[21] Blondel, J.; Aguirre, E.; Behn, G. & Toledo, C. (1993): Seismic Refraction and Tomography studies in
the El Teniente copper mine, INNOVATIVE MINE DESIGN FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY, Proceedings of
the International Congress on Mine Design, W. Bawden & J. Archibald editors, Balkema.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
80
[22] Board, M.; Seldon, S.; Brummer, R. & Pakalnis, R. (2000): Analysis of the Failure of a Large Hanging-
wall Wedge: Kidd Mining Division, Falconbridge, Ltd., CIM Bulletin, Vol. 93, N 1043, September 2000.
[23] Bonani, A. (2002): Personal Communication.
[24] Bronkhorst, D; Rheault, J. & Ley, G. (1993): Geotechnical Principles Governing Mine Design at the Wil-
liams Mine, INNOVATIVE MINE DESIGN FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY, Proceedings of the International
Congress on Mine Design, W. Bawden & J. Archibald editors, Balkema.
[25] Broome, M. & Sandy, M. (1988): Rock Mechanics Investigations at Mufulira mine, Zambia, Transac-
tions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (Section A, Mining Industry), Volume 97, January
1988.
[26] Brown, E. & Ferguson, G. (1979): Prediction of Progressive Hanging-Wall Caving, Gaths Mine,
Rhodesia, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (Section A, Mining Industry),
Volume 88, January 1988.
[27] Brumleve, C. (1988): Rock Reinforcement of a Caving Block in Variable ground Conditions, King Mine,
Zimbabwe, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (Section A, Mining Industry), Vol-
ume 97, April 1988.
[28] Brumleve C. & Maier, M. (1981): Applied Investigations of Rock Mass Response to Panel Caving,
Henderson Mine, Colorado, USA, Chapter 19 in DESIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUB-
LEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume I, edited by D. Stewart, SME, New York.
[29] Buksa, H. (2001): Sublevel Cave Mining Update at INCOs Stobie Mine, Chapter 44 in UNDER-
GROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by
W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[30] Butcher, R. (2002): Personal Communication.
[31] Calder, K.; Townsend, P. & Russell F. (2001): Palabora Underground Mine Project, Chapter 49 in UN-
DERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited
by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[32] Caldern, A.; Torres, R.; Surez, C.; Daz, M.; Karzulovic, A. & Barahona P. (1988): Diseo
Geotcnico Taludes Mina Chuquicamata, Informe Tcnico, Superintendencia Ingeniera Geotcnica,
Direccin de Planificacin, Subgerencia Planificacin y Gestin Estratgica, Divisin Chuquicamata de
CODELCO.
[33] Callahan, M.; Keskimaki, K. & Rech, W. (2000): A Case History of the Crusher Level Development at
Henderson, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[34] Carter, C. & Russell, F. (2000): Modelling and Design of Block Caving at Bingham Canyon, MASSMIN
2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[35] Casten, T.; Golden, R.; Mulyadi, A. & Barber, J. (2000): Excavation Design and Ground Support of the
Gyratory Crusher Installation at the DOZ Mine, PT Freeport Indonesia, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings,
Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[36] Cataln, A.; Hormazbal, E. & Karzulovic, A. (2000): Aplicacin del Mtodo Observacional al Sector
SE de Mina Chuquicamata, Informe Tcnico elaborado por la Superintendencia de Ingeniera Geotc-
nica, Subgerencia de Geologa y Geotecnia, Divisin Chuquicamata de CODELCO.
[37] Chen, D (1996): Geotechnical Assessment of Block Cave Mining in Northparkes Mines, NSW, AUSTRA-
LIA, ROCK MECHANICS, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES, Proceedings of the 2
nd
North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium: NARMS96, Volume 1; edited by M. Aubertin, F. Hassani & H. Mitri, Balkema.
[38] Chileshe, P. (1996): Interaction Between Underground and Opencast Workings at Nchanga Mine,
Chingola, Zambia, SURFACE MINING 1996, Johannesburg, SAIMM.
[39] Chileshe, P. (1997): Ground Stress and Movement Associated with Block Caving of the flat 25 dipping
Orebody at Nchanga Mine, Chingola, Zambia, SARES 97, 1
st
Southern African Rock, Engineering
Symposium, Proceedings.
[40] Chileshe, P. & Phiri, S. (1994): New Production from Exhausted Block-Caving Areas at Nchanga
Mine, XV
TH
CMMI CONGRESS, Johannesburg, SAIMM.
[41] Contador, N. & Glavic F. (2001): Sublevel Open Stoping at El Soldado Mine: A Geomechanic Chal-
lenge, Chapter 29 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and Interna-
tional Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[42] Dahner, C. (2002): Personal Communication.
[43] De Nicola, R. & Fishwick, M. (2000): An Underground Air Blast Codelco Chile - Division Salvador,
MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
81
[44] DeWolfe, V. (1981): Draw Control in Principle and Practice at Henderson Mine, Chapter 56 in DESIGN
AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume II, edited by D. Stewart,
SME, New York.
[45] Daz, J.; Espinoza, C. & Karzulovic, A. (2000): Evaluacin y Anlisis Colapso en Nivel 16 Produccin
LHD, III Panel, Mina Ro Blanco, Estudio DA - CG - 00 - 003, informe tcnico de AKL para Divisin An-
dina de CODELCO.
[46] Dinkowitz, S. (2002): Personal Communication..
[47] Doepken, W. (1998): The Henderson Mine, Chapter 44 in TECHNIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MIN-
ING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Edited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock,
SME.
[48] Dolipas, R. (2000): Rock Mechanics as Applied in Philex Block Cave Operations, MASSMIN 2000, Pro-
ceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[49] Dube, S. (2002): Personal Communication.
[50] Duffield, S. (2000): Design of the Second Block Cave at Northparkes E26 Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Pro-
ceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[51] Dunne, K. & Pakalnis R. (1996): Dilution Aspects of a Sublevel Retreat Stope at Detour Lake Mine,
ROCK MECHANICS, TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES, Proceedings of the 2
nd
North American Rock Me-
chanics Symposium: NARMS96, Volume 1; edited by M. Aubertin, F. Hassani & H. Mitri, Balkema.
[52] Espinoza, C. (1996): Analisis y Diseo de Crown Pillars, Memoria de Ttulo, Depto. Ingeniera de Mi-
nas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile.
[53] Fletcher, J. (1960): Ground Movements and Subsidence from Block Caving at Miami Mine, AIME
Trans., Vol.217, 1960. San Francisco Meeting.
[54] Flores, G. (1993): A new Mining Sequence to Minimize Stability Problems in Block Caving Mines, MSc
Thesis (unpublished), Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado.
[55] Flores, G. & Karzulovic, A. (2001): The Role of the Geotechnical Group in an Open Pit: Chuquicamata
Mine, Chile, 4
th
International Symposium on slope Stability in Surface Mining, Denver Colorado.
[56] Gallager, J. & Teuscher, J. (1998): Henderson Mine: Preparing for the Future; Mining Engineering, a
publication of SME, August 1998, Vol. 50, N 8.
[57] Goodrich, R.; Hardy, M. & Brechtel, C. (2001): Geotechnical Characterization and Structural Mine De-
sign at the Murray Mine, Northeasten Nevada, ROCK MECHANICS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST,
Proceedings of the 38
th
U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Volume I, Edited by D. Elsworth, J. Tinucci
& K. Heasley, Balkema.
[58] Grant, D & DeKruijff, S. (2000): Mount Isa Mines - 1100 Orebody, 35 Years On, MASSMIN 2000, Pro-
ceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[59] Guarascio, M.; Antonietti, M.; Fry, R. & Gallavresi, F. (1993): Stabilization of Unconsolidated Backfill at
Tara Mine, ASSESSMENT AND PREVENTION OF FAILURE PHENOMENA IN ROCK ENGINEER-
ING, A. Pasamehmetoglu et al. editors, Balkema.
[60] Hancock, F. & Mattson, R. (1982): Sublevel Caving at Granduc, Chapter 4 in UNDERGROUND MIN-
ING METHODS HANDBOOK, W. Hustrulid editor, New York, SME
[61] Hannweg, L. (2002): Personal Communication.
[62] Harrison, E. (2002): Personal Communication.
[63] Harvey P.; Bloss, M. & Bouliane, N. (2000): Cannington Mine 30 Million Ounces of Silver per Year
from a 300-m Cube, Chapter 27 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals
and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[64] Heden, H.; Lidin, K. & Malmstrm, R. (1998): Sublevel Caving at LKABs Kirunavaara Mine, Chapter 39
in TECHNIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Hand-
book, Edited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[65] Henry, E. & Dahnr-Linqvist, C. (2000): Footwall Stability at the LKABs Kiruna Sublevel Caving Opera-
tion, Sweden, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[66] Hepworth, N. (2002): Personal communication.
[67] Henry, E. & Marcotte, D. (2001): Developments in Ground Control Planning enhaced by RQD
Geostatistical Analyses at the LKABs Kiruna Mine, Sweden, ROCK MECHANICS - A CHALLENGE
FOR SOCIETY, Srkk & Eloranta editors, Balkema.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
82
[68] Hewson, S. (2002): Personal Communication.
[69] Hickson, R. (1991): Grasberg Open Pit: Ertsbergs Big Brothest Comes on Stream in Indonesia, Mining
Engineering, April 1991.
[70] Hornsby, B. & Sullivan, B. (1998): Excavations Design and Mining Methods in the 1100 Orebody,
Mount Isa Mine, Australia, Chapter 10 in TECHNIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from
Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Edited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[71] House, M.; van As, A. & Dudley, J. (2001): Block Caving Lift 1 of the Northparkes E26 Mine, Chapter
50 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Stud-
ies, Edited by W. Hustrulid, and R. Bullock, SME.
[72] Ingeroc (2000): Estudio de Medicin de Esfuerzos, Informe Final para Divisin Andina de CODELCO,
Ingeniera de Rocas Ltda.
[73] Internal Note (2002): Kidd Creek Mine Kidd Mining Division Underground Tour Guidebook.
[74] Jofre, J.; Yez, P. & Ferguson, G. (2000): Evolution in Panel Caving Undercutting and Drawbell
Excavation, El Teniente Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[75] Johnson, G. (1998): Sublevel Caving at the Stobie Mine, INCO Metals Co., Chapter 38 in TECH-
NIQUES IN UNDERGROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Ed-
ited by R. Gertsh and R. Bullock, SME.
[76] Johnson, G. & Soul, J. (1963): Measurements of Surface Subsidence, San Manuel Mine, Pinal Coun-
try, Arizona, Report of Investigation 6204, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, BUREAU OF MINES, Washington.
[77] Jude, C. (1990): Structural Analysis of a Mechanized LHD trench undercut caving system, ROCK ME-
CHANICS CONTRIBUTIONS AND CHALLENGES, Proceedings of the 31
st
U.S. Symposium, W. Hus-
trulid & G. Johnson editors, Balkema.
[78] Karzulovic, A.; Cavieres, P. & Gaete, S. (1994): Evaluacin Geotcnica-Geomecnica del Teniente
Sub-6, Sector NFW1 y su Impacto en el Mediano-Largo Plazo, Mina El Teniente EM-10/94, Depto. Es-
tudios y Mtodos Operacionales, Divisin El Teniente de CODELCO.
[79] Karzulovic; A. Cavieres, P. & Pardo, C. (1999): Caving Subsidence at El Teniente, Proc. Symp. Mining
Engineering, SIMIN 99, Universidad de Santiago.
[80] Karzulovic, KA. & Flores, G (2002): Visitas Tcnicas.
[81] Karzulovic, A.; Galeb, M. & Quiones, L. (1991): Evaluacin de la Experiencia Adquirida Durante el
Desarrollo y Explotacin de los Paneles I y II de la Mina Ro Blanco, informe tcnico de Ingeniera y
Geotecnia Ltda. para Divisin Andina de CODELCO.
[82] Keskimaki, K. & Jensen, E. (1992): Advances in Equipment Technology at the Henderson Mine,
MASSMIN92, The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, SAIMM, Johannesburg.
[83] Kozyrev, A. et al. (2001): Underground Mining in the Kola Peninsula, Russia, Chapter 30 in UNDER-
GROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by
W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[84] Kvapil, R. (1982): The Mechanics and Design of Sublevel Caving Systems. Underground Mining Meth-
ods Handbook, Editor W. A. Hustrulid, Pages 880-897. Society of Mining Engineers, AIME, New York.
[85] Kvapil, R. (1992): Sublevel Caving. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 2
nd
Edition, Editor H. l. Hart-
man, Vol 2: 1789-1814. Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Littleton, Colorado.
[86] Kvapil, R., Baeza, L., Rosenthal, J. & Flores, G. (1989): Block Caving at El Teniente Mine, Chile.
Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, section A: Mining Industry, Vol 98,: A43-56.
[87] Lacasse, M. & Legast, P. (1981): Change from Grizzly to LHD Extraction System, Chapter 10 in
DESING AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, edited by D. Stewart,
SME, New York.
[88] Leach, A.; Naidoo, K. & Bartlett, P. (2000): Considerations for Design of Production Level Drawpoint
Layouts for a Deep Block Cave, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[89] Li, T. & Cribb, B. (1999): Shotcrete Trials and Aplications in Poor Ground Conditions at Mount Isa
Mines, ROCK SUPPORT AND REINFORCEMENT PRACTICE IN MINING, Villaescusa, Windsor &
Thompson editors, Balkema.
[90] Libby, D.J. et al. (1985): The Tara Mines Story, Transactions of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
(Section A, Mining Industry), Volume 94, January 1985.
[91] Lupo, J. (1997): Progressive Failure of Hangingwall and Footwall Kiirunavaara Mine, Sweden, Int.
Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, Vol. 34 N 3-4, paper N 184, Elsevier.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
83
[92] Lupo, J. (1999): Numerical Simulation of Progressive Failure from Underground Bulk Mining Opera-
tions, ROCK MECHANICS FOR INDUSTRY, Proceedings of the 37
th
U.S. Rock Mechanics Sympo-
sium, B. Amadei et al. editors, Balkema.
[93] Malmgren, L. & Svenson, T. (1999): Investigations of Important Parameters for Unreinforced Shotcrete
as Rock Support in the Kiirunavaara Mine, Sweden, ROCK MECHANICS FOR INDUSTRY, Proceed-
ings of the 37
th
U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, B. Amadei et al. editors, Balkema.
[94] Management and Staff Ecstall Mining Limited (1974): The Ecstall Story, CIM Bulletin, Volume 67, N
745, May 1974.
[95] McMurray, D. (1982): Sublevel Caving Practice at Shabanie Mine, Rhodesia, Chapter 7 in UNDER-
GROUND MINING METHODS HANDBOOK, edited by W. Hustrulid, SME.
[96] McMurray, S. (1982): Mining Below the Gabro-sill, Premier Mine, Cullinam, South Africa, Chapter 5 in
UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS HANDBOOK, edited by W. Hustrulid, SME.
[97] Merino, L. & Tapia, R. (2001): Cavability of Inca Sector, El Salvador Mine, FLAC AND NUMERICAL
MODELLING IN GEOMECHANICS, Billaux et al. editors, Balkema.
[98] Moss, A. (2002): Personal Communication.
[99] Mossop, D. (2002): Personal Communication.
[100] Moyano, A. & Viene J. (1993): Remote Operation of LHD and Pick Hammers in Rock Burst Conditions
at El Teniente Mine, INNOVATIVE MINE DESIGN FOR THE 21
ST
CENTURY, Proceedings of the In-
ternational Congress on Mine Design, W. Bawden & J. Archibald editors, Balkema.
[101] Page, C. & Brennen, R. (1983): Stability of Large Open Stopes in Weak Rock, Chapter 15 in STABIL-
ITY IN UNDERGROUND MINING, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engin-
ners, Inc., C.O. Brawner editor, New York.
[102] Pastn, O. (1999): Evaluacion de la Socavacion de Baja Altura en Teniente 4 Sur, Memoria de Ttulo,
Depto. Ingeniera de Minas, Universidad de Santiago de Chile.
[103] Perason, N. (1981): The Development and Control of Block Caving at the Chingola Division of
Nchanga Consolidated Copper Mines Limited, Zambia, Chapter 18 in DESIGN AND OPERATION OF
CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume I, edited by D. Stewart, SME, New York.
[104] Player, J. (2001): Longitudinal Sublevel Caving, Big Bell Mine, Chapter 45 in UNDERGROUND MIN-
ING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid,
and R. Bullock, SME.
[105] Plessis, L. & Martin, D. (?):Numerical Modelling Studies for Design of High Rock Slopes at Palabora
Copper Mine, PROC. 7
TH
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ROCK MECHANICS, AAACHE, VOL 1, A. A. BALKEMA.
[106] Pothitos, F. (2002): Personal Communication.
[107] Power, G. (2002): Personal Communication.
[108] Preece, C. (2001): Finsch Mine: Open Pit to Open Stoping to Block Caving, Chapter 54 in UNDER-
GROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by
W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[109] Preece, C (2002): Personal Communication.
[110] Quinteiro, C.; Quinteiro, M. & Hedstrm, O. (2000): Underground Iron Ore Mining at LKAB, Sweden,
Chapter 43 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International
Case Studies, Edited by Hustrulid and Bullock, SME.
[111] Ran, J.; Seldon, S. & Counter, D. (2001): Underground Mining Induced Remobilization of a Hanging-
wall Wedge and Movement of Footwall Structures at Kidd Mine - A Case Study, paper to be published.
[112] Rech, W. (2001): Henderson Mine, Chapter 48 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering
Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[113] Rech, W. & Lorig, L. (1992): Predictive Numerical Stress Analysis of Panel Caving at the Henderson
Mine, MASSMIN92, The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, SAIMM, Johannesburg.
[114] Rech, W.; Keskimaki, K. & Stewart, D. (2000): An Update on Cave Development and Draw Control at
the Henderson Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[115] Rech, W. & Watson, D. (1994): Cave Initiation and Growth Monitoring at the Henderson Mine, SME
Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[116] Revista Minera Chilena, N 254, Agosto 2002.
[117] Rojas, E. (2002): Personal Communication.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
84
[118] Rojas, E.; Cavieres, P.; Dunlop, R. & Gaete, S. (2000): Control of Induced Seismicity at El Teniente
Mine, Codelco-Chile, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[119] Rojas, E.; Molina, R.; Bonani, A. and Constanzo, H. (2000): The Pre-Undercut Caving Method at the El
Teniente Mine, Codelco Chile, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[120] Rojas, E.; Molina, R. & Cavieres, P. (2001): Pre-undercut Caving in El Teniente Mine, Chile, Chapter
51 in UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Stud-
ies, Edited by Hustrulid and Bullock, SME.
[121] Sandy, M. & Player, J. (1999): Reinforcement Design Investigations at Big Bell, ROCK SUPPORT AND
REINFORCEMENT PRACTICE IN MINING, Villaescusa, Windsor & Thompson editors, A. Balkema.
[122] Schroeder, K. (2002): Personal Communication.
[123] Stawski, M. (2002): Personal Communication.
[124] Stevens, C.; Sandbak, L. & Hunter, J. (1987): LHD Production and Design Modifications at the San
Manuel Mine, ROCK MECHANICS, Proceedings of 28
th
US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, edited by
I. Farmer et al., Balkema.
[125] Stewart, R. &d Sacrison, R. (1983): Geological Engineering A Bridge Between Geologist and Miner,
in Chapter 12 in SME - AIME Fall Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah - October 19 - 21, 1983.
[126] Streeton, G. (2000): Geotechnical Aspects of Open Stope Design at BHP Cannington, MASSMIN
2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[127] Struthers, M.; Turner, M.; McNabb, K. & Jenkins, P. (2000): Rock Mechanics Design and Practice for
Squeezing Ground and High Stress Conditions at Perseverance Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings,
Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[128] Suarez, C. (2002): Personal communications.
[129] Szwedzicki, T. (1989): Pillar Recovery at Manghura Copper Mines, Zimbabwe, Transactions of the
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, (Section A, Mining Industry), Volume 98, September-December
1989.
[130] Tannant, D.; Martin, C. & Kaiser, P. (1997): Site Characterisation of the 6800 to 7800 Mining Block,
Technical Report submitted to Falconbridge Limited - Kidd Mining Division by the Geomechanics Re-
search Centre at Laurentian University.
[131] Taylor, J. & Chinamatira, R. (2000): The Evolution of Sublevel Caving at Trojan Mine, Bindura, Zim-
babwe, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[132] Terbrugge, P. & Hanif, M. (1981): Discussion of a Large Scale on the Footwall of the Nchanga Open
Pit, Zambia, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Weak Rock, Tokyo, September 1981.
[133] Thompson, P. (1989): Slope Stability at Finsh Mine, ROCK SLOPE STABILITY, Sangorm Symposium,
March 1989.
[134] Tobie, R. & Julin, D. (1982): Block Caving: General Description, UNDERGROUND MINING METHODS
HANDBOOK, edited by W. Hustrulid, SME.
[135] Tobie, R.; Thomas, L. & Richards, H. (1998): San Manuel Mine, Chapter 43 in Techniques in UNDER-
GROUND MINING, Selections from Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Edited by R. Gertsh and
R. Bullock, SME.
[136] Turner, M. & Player, J. (2000): Seismicity at Big Bell Mine, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane,
Qld, Australia.
[137] Uggalla, S. (2001): Sublevel Open Stoping Design and Planing at the Olympic Dam Mine, UNDER-
GROUND MINING METHODS, Engineering Fundamentals and International Case Studies, Edited by
W. Hustrulid and R. Bullock, SME.
[138] Van As, A. (2002): Personal communication.
[139] Van As, A. and Jeffrey, R. (2000): Caving Induced by Hydraulic Fracturing at Northparkes Mines,
PACIFICS ROCKS, ROCK AROUND THE RIM, Proceedings of the Fourth North American Rock Me-
chanics Symposium: NARMS 2000, Washington; Girard, J; Liebman, M; Breeds, C and Doe, T. editors,
A. Balkema.
[140] Vera, S. (1981): Caving at Climax, Chapter 14 in Design and OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUB-
LEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume I, edited by D. Stewart, SME, New York.
[141] Wilkes, T. (1992): The Support of Highly Fractured Rock in shallow Open Stopes at Koffiefountain
Mine, Orange Free State, Republic of South Africa, ROCK SUPPORT IN MINING AND UNDER-
GROUND CONSTRUCTION, Kaiser & McCreath editors, Balkema.
ICS-II, Task 4 GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
85
[142] Wilkie, N. and Holt, W. (1961): A Description of Open Pit Mining at Nchanga Consolidated Cooper
Mines Limited, Northern Rhodesia, Commonwealth Mining and Metallurgical Congress, 7
th
, May 1961,
Johannesburg.
[143] Wilson, A. (2000): The Past Focuses Support for the Future, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane,
Qld, Australia.
[144] Wilson, D. (2002): Personal Communication.
[145] Wood, P.; Jenkins, P. and Jones, I. (2000): Sublevel Cave Drop Down Strategy at Perseverance Mine,
Leinster Nickel Operations, MASSMIN 2000, Proceedings, Brisbane, Qld, Australia.
[146] Zappia, M. (1981): Gravity Caving and Production Hoisting at the San Manuel Mine, Chapter 16 in DE-
SIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume I, edited by D.
Stewart, SME, New York.
[147] Zerga, R. (1981): Development and Production Equipment in Use at San Manuel, Chapter 50 in DE-
SIGN AND OPERATION OF CAVING AND SUBLEVEL STOPING MINES, Volume II, edited by D.
Stewart, SME, New York.
ICS-II, Task 4
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES FOR A
TRANSITION FROM OPEN PIT TO
UNDERGROUND MINING
Main Activity 1:
APPENDIXES
BENCHMARKING REPORT
December 2002