LHD versus mechanized grizzly

in III panel of Andina

Augusto Aguayo, Claudio Campos, Manuel Mansilla, Jorge Sougarret, Andrés Susaeta
Andina Division, Codelco Chile

Abstract
The secondary ore of the III Panel of Andina Division is being mined concurrently through a mechanized grizzly and
a LHD layout. The design criteria as well as layouts and materials handling system are presented.
The retro analysis of 7 years of mining results with a comparison between methods regarding recovery, dilution,
stability, costs, etc. is presented in a quantitative and qualitative way.
Results show that grizzlies have been a much better system than LHD, from the economic and technical standpoint.
Weakness of both methods are described.
The analysis intends to project the advantages of the full gravity system (grizzlies) over intermediate hauling systems
(LHD). The potential projection of this experience to future designs in more competent rock is considered, with concepts
of continuous mining and preconditioning techniques.

1. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF ANDINA MINE
The Rio Blanco Ore deposit is located at an altitude of
3240 m (undercut level) in the Andean range
approximately 50 km to the north of the city of Santiago.
The Mediterranean climate is characterized by cold and
rainy winter seasons and hot and dry summer
conditions. The average snow downfall over the crater is
over 10 meters.
Total underground tonnage is of 45.000 ton/day. The
mine has been caved since 1970 in three different
panels. The actual III Panel is being mined by grizzlies
and LHD concurrently. The LHD layouts are located
mostly in primary rock, mining secondary and grizzlies in
secondary rock.
2. DESIGN PARAMETERS
Table N°1 presents the principal design parameters of
the LHD and Grizzly layouts of the Andina III Panel.
These designs have been in operation for more than 8
years.
Figure N°1a and b shows a typical design plan of the LHD
system and in Figure N°2a and b the III Panel Grizzly design
is presented.

Table N°1 - Design Parameters

Parameters Grizzly LHD

Rock
- Fragmentation Assessment 3% > 1 m3 10% > 1 m3
- Primary 0m 0 - 120 m
- Secondary ore column 220 - 300 m 220 - 450 m
- Lithology Granodiorite, Andesite, Magmatic, Granodiorite, Andesite, Magmatic,
granodiorite porphyry Riolite granodiorite porphyry
Design 9x9 13 x 13
9 x 11 (limited sectors) 13 x 15 ( Ore pass singularity)
Geometry Grizzly layout Teniente layout
Extraction system Gravitational to truck 7 yd3 LHD
Ore Transfer Ore pass (2 x 2 m) Ore Pass (2.5 x 2.5 m)
Haulage 50 & 80 ton truck 50 & 80 ton truck
Development cost
(up to caving) - Project 1200 US$/m2 750 US$/m2
Total caved area up to 2003 56.159 m2 96.176 m2
Ore Reserves (Up to 2003 caving) 36 Million t 151 Million t
Average in situ ore column height 280 m 256 m
Estimated Dilution Grade (%Cut) 0.5% Cu 0.5% Cu
Project % Dilution entry point 65% 75%
Project extraction rate 0,44 ton/m2*day 0,56 ton/m2*day

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 415

 Figure 2a

Figure 1a

Figure 1b Figure 2b

Figure N° 3 shows a profile of the primary/secondary

rock interface with the extension of the LHD and grizzly
layouts.
As it is shown the LHD as well as the grizzlies are
primarily extracting secondary ore. The dilution of the III
Panel is mainly the remnant of the II and I Panel, which had
very high grade. The main dilution (sterile rock) is of riolite
coming from the north of the subsidence area, but through
the years have migrated and diluted most of the subsidence
area. The riolite is used as a lithologic tracer of dilution
percentage.

3. OPERATIONAL RESULTS

The operational results to compare Grizzlies and LHD for

the III Panel consider a combination of results from all
information up to 2003 and some specific sectors for each
method that have been mined up to closure of the draw
points.

• Caving Sequence
• Following figure N°4 shows the effective and future caving
sequence of the III Panel by year, starting in 1995 for the
grizzly (in blue) and LHD sectors (in red).
• Development and operational cost
Following costs are effective average results for
representative areas and tonnage. Figure 3

416 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004

 Primary rock presence in the lower part of the column, poor
performance of the ore pass system (due to mud), hang
ups, etc. The dilution entry point for LHD sector has been
lower than planned, as well as the projected productivity.
The following Table N°4 shows the planned and effective
production by sector up to 2003:

Table N°4
Effective tonnage production
by year for LHD and Grizzly

UN 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total
Grizzly
Real kton 615 2,647 5,845 4,840 5,999 7,084 6,649 6,318 6,828 46,824
Program kton 1,124 4,090 4,208 4,861 5,091 4,765 5,944 5,885 5,476 41,444

LHD
Real kton 624 4,570 6,829 8,581 8,904 8,969 8,353 46,832
Program hton 2,945 4,679 9,340 11,435 10,256 10,315 10,724 59,694

Figure 4
Development: As a result of a more dense draw pattern
(9 x 9 meters), the grizzly design is more intense in
development and construction (specially drop boxes and
loading chutes), thus generating a higher development cost.
Following Table N°2 shows Grizzly and LHD development
cost from caving to transport level in US$/m2.
Table N°2 Development Cost
UN LHD GRIZZLY
• Grade & Fine Copper Production
Even considering the low Copper prices that as an effect
generated a lower caving area in the III Panel, and lower cut
off grades, the average effective grade is higher than the
planned one, mainly due to higher grades in the grizzly
sector, explained by the higher dilution entry point and
probably higher dilution grades.
In the LHD sector grades have been a little lower than
planned, with also a lower tonnage extracted. The dilution
entry point was lower than estimated.
Table N°5 shows extracted average grades by year for
both sectors.

Development Cost US$/m2 770 1.200 Table N°5

Average extracted grade by sector

Operating: Operating costs are presented up to transport 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total
(not included) due to differences in distances, for Grizzly
comparison purposes of both methods. Repairs of the Real 1.089 1.405 1.308 1.259 1,182 1.307 1.308 1.285 1.355 1.293
production infrastructure (production, ore passes, chutes,
etc.) are included in the cost. The total cost per ton including Program 1.155 1.188 1.187 1.154 1.161 1.324 1.339 1.203 1.039 1.199
operation and development has been estimated considering
the effective tonnage per square meter produced by each LHD
method, accounting the collapses. Table N°3 summarizes Real 1.690 1.584 1.439 1.338 1.179 1.016 1.035 1.236
these results. Program 1.687 1.518 1.257 1.176 1.205 1.203 1.202 1.255

Table N°3 Operational Cost When comparing the global balance of fine copper
produced, the result shows approximately 62.000 tons
Cost Grizzlies LHD below the project, mainly due to lower production in the LHD
Operational 0,773 US$7t 1,094 US$/t sector.
Table N°6 shows the results expressed in fine Copper
Total Cost 2,05 US$/t 2,24 US$/t production for both sectors, against the planned tonnage.

Table N°6
• Total Extracted Tonnage – Productivity Fine Copper Production by sector
Total Tonnage : Production was initiated in the grizzly
sector, effective produced tonnage was under the planned UN 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total
schedule during the first two years. After that the situation
was reverted, from 1997 to 2003 production from the Grizzly
grizzlies have been more than 5 million tons higher than the Real kton 6,7 37,2 76,4 60,9 70,9 92,6 87,0 81,2 92,5 605,4
original project. The effective average dilution entry point for Program kton 13,0 48,6 49,9 56,1 59,1 63,1 79,6 70,8 56,9 497,1
the isolated draw zone (Pedza) for this sector is at 75%
extraction, that is 10% higher than the projected value LHD
(65%). Productivity has been higher than planned also. In Real kton 0,0 0,0 10,6 72,4 98,3 114,8 105,0 91,1 86,5 578,7
the other hand, the LHD sector has systematically been
Program hton 0,0 0,0 49,7 71,0 117,4 134,4 123,6 124,1 128,9 749,1
under the planned productivity, due to a series of factors:

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 417

• Draw Practice - Uniformity of Draw:
One of the relevant parameters of draw control in a panel
caving operation is the uniformity of draw. This parameter is
being controlled with the Uniformity Index (IU). Figure N°5
presents the results for the index, indicating the % of total
tonnage per year drawn with uniformity (uniform and semi
uniform draw).
Figure N°5: Tonnage drawn with Uniformity
4. BACK ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION RESULTS
• Recovery of reserves
The Grizzly sector has had a 18% higher recovery of
mining reserves than the LHD sector to date. The column
height were similar thus the grizzly sector has recovered up
to 350 m columns, compared to the 296 m of LHD. The
good recovery of the grizzlies can be explained due to the
very good interaction of a 81 m2 draw pattern, compared
with a 175,5 m2 LHD layout, for the same caved material.
Figure N°6: LHD Area A % dilution entry curve.
418 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004
• % Dilution Entry Point
Represents the extracted percentage of the in situ column
when the dilution is reported in the draw points. In the case
of Andina the dilution corresponds to caved material from
the II Panel, overlaying the III Panel. The steel arches,
concrete and other materials from this level are a very good
tracer of the dilution, and have been mapped in every draw
point. This dilution corresponds to the "isolated column
dilution" or Pedza. The expected dilution from the
"interactive zone" should be determined when the
permanent increase in dilution percentage starts. The
mapping of a specific lithology (ryolite) that has
contaminated the subsidence area from the north side of the
crater, that can be easily recognized from the andesite and
granodiorite As seen in Figures N°6 and N°7 where all the
mapping information has been summarized for Area A –
LHD and Areas 1 and 2 Grizzlies of the III Panel, there is a
very good correlation between the Pedza appearance and
the increase of ryolite percentage for both cases (not
considering the effect of side dilution that is incorporating
early ryolite). There is also a clear change in the dilution
curve slope showing the Pedzi (Dilution from the interactive
zone).
The summary of the total tonnages extracted, caved
areas, dilution entry points, etc. for the sectors presented in
the figures is presented in Table N°7.
• Available Area
The strength of each design can be evaluated considering
the geomechanic behavior through the III Panel caved area.
For the grizzly system a total area of 56.159 m2 have been
caved over 9 years, without the loss of a single draw point
due to collapses. With the LHD system a total of 96.176 m2
have been caved most of the development in primary rock,
with a total loss due to collapses of 26.369 m2, that
corresponds to 27,4% of the total caved area. Evidently this
is one of the greatest weakness of the designed system.
Massmin 2004
Figure N°7 – Grizzlies Area 1 and 2 % dilution entry curves

Table N°7 Draw Results

Item Grizzlies LHD

Unit productivity(without collapses) ton/m2 952 795

Total Area m2 22.607 22.626
Total Tonnage ton 21.526.627 17.995.873
Total % Extraction % 145% 118%
Total % Ryolite extraction % 6,7% 6,7%
Ryolite Tonnage ton 1.351.803 1.032.012
Pedza % 73% 64%
Pedzi % 89% 79%

• System Productivity
Effective productivity of each system has been evaluated Table N°8 – Productivity (t/m2)
considering the average tonnage produced per active
square meter, by year. In following Table N°8 productivity for 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total
each sector by year is summarized. The grizzly sector had Grizzlies
a program of 150 t/m2 and has an average of 177 t/m2 per Real t/m2 91 149 260 215 163 181 188 134 210 177
day. The LHD had a program of 185 t/m2 and the effective
productivity (not considering the collapsed area) is 136 t/m2. Program t/m2 71 129 138 128 143 180 204 175 182 150

• Ore pass availability and Mud Problems LHD

Moisture coming from snow and water precipitated in the Real t/m2 70 168 144 151 153 135 129 136
subsidence area generates mud conditions for both the Program t/m2 70 157 190 217 212 222 214 195
grizzly and LHD systems. The vulnerability of the LHD due
to ore pass closure due to mud problems and repairs is high
(great area to one box). Low ore pass availability has
generated low productivity of the LHD system. • Ore Reserves Recovery
The ore reserves recovery has been calculated with
• Summary the total extracted tonnage per caved area (this
With the above information, Table N°9 was computed includes the collapsed areas) the total productivity for
summarizing the main results of the two caving extraction the grizzly sector is of 940 t/m 2 against 667 t/m2 of the
methods used in the Andina III Panel. LHD.

Massmin 2004 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 419

 Table N°9 Summary of back analysis results

Index Observation Grizzlies LHD

Investment (cost/m2) From under cut to transport level 1200 770
plus caving
Design strength Strength of design is evaluated Total caved area = 56159 m2 Total caved area = 96176 m2
against collapsed area Total collapsed area = 0 m2 Total collapsed area = 26369 m2
% Area loss = 0% % Area loss = 27,4%
Unit Productivity Ton per open productive area 177 t/m2 136 t/m2
per periiod
Ore Reserves Recovery Total tonnage per closed area 940 t/m2 667 t/m2
(with collapsed area percentage)
Total Cost Operation to truck transport 0,773 US$/t 1.094 US$/t
(exclusive) with repairs)
Total Cost Operation plus development 2,05 US$/t 2,24 US$/t
% Pedza % Extraction 73 64
% Pedzi % Extraction 89 79
In situ reserve recovery % of mining reserves recovered 136% 118%

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:

With the compiled results the conclusions are:
• Total cost including development and operations,
considering collapses areas, is 9,2% lower for Grizzlies
against LHD.
• Operational problems with LHD are higher due to high
vulnerability of the ore pass system.
• Ore reserve recovery (due to 81 m2 layout against 169
m2) is much higher in grizzly layout (41% higher).
• Dilution control even with the lack of uniformity in the
grizzly sector has been much better in grizzlies, obtaining
same total tonnage of dilution (ryolite) for 20% additional
recovery.
• For secondary ore, or for cave fragmentation that can be
handled by a gravitational system, it should be preferred
over a LHD extraction system.
• If fragmentation of the cave can be managed (ie: through
preconditioning of the rock) a gravity based method,
should be much efficient than an LHD alternative.
• The LHD design should be reviewed to endure stability of
the future developments of the III Panel.

420 Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004 Massmin 2004