From Green Field Site to Block Cave Mine — Results of
Northparke’s Drill and Blast Design Process
D M Vink 1
ABSTRACT
The green field site is one that has no history of mining and as such it
presents the designer with a blank canvas, on which any number of drill
and blasting options can be drafted. No matter which mining method is
selected all technology and experience will need to be acquired from
outside sources, applied quickly and produce the right results.
North Limited, in joint venture with the Sumitomo Group (20 per
cent), have developed Australia’s first block cave mine at Northparkes in
New South Wales, Australia. This innovative and large scale mining
project was taken from a green field site in November 1993 to a fully
commissioned block cave mine in December 1997. Northparkes’
Endeavour 26 mine is now producing at a rate of 3.9Mt per annum from a
27Mt ore block.
Prior to 1993 no history of mining activity existed at Northparkes. The
rock had never been blasted and many questions were raised about how it
would behave. While it was clear that the Endeavour 26 (E26) orebody
contained geotechnical properties appropriate to block caving, the
blasting methods required to establish a block cave mine had never been
used in Australia and no designs were available. The joint venture
partners had no prior experience with block caving and it was
immediately apparent that this blasting technology would have to be
acquired from foreign sources and applied to the unique local conditions.
Conceptual designs for the block cave drill and blast were first drafted
in 1994, first issued for drilling in December 1995 and first blasted in
January 1996. 470 km of drill metres and four million tonnes of rock
were blasted to complete the undercutting project by September 1997.
1. Northparkes Mines, PO Box 995, Parkes NSW 2870.
FIG 1 - Conceptual design history of the E26 Mine block cave.
Underground Operators’ Conference Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998
This paper will provide those developing new drill and blast projects
with an inside view of how one small technical team solved many design
challenges to successfully construct Australia’s first block cave mine
under strict quality controls and ambitious time constraints.
INTRODUCTION
The E26 orebody was found in 1976. Its low-grade large volume
properties put its owners in a quandary as to the most effective
means of exploiting the resource. Traditional Australian methods
like open cut and open stope mining provided viable extraction
options but did not exploit the large volumes of low-grade ore.
From 1984 mining feasibility studies recognised the caving
potential of ore in the gypsum leached zone which as illustrated
in Figure 1 ends 200 m below the surface. In 1986 a proposal to
open cut this 200 m deep ore zone was examined but the shape of
the orebody left a large portion of the low-grade ore in situ.
From 1990 to 1992 a total underground mining option was
examined and in this plan the 200 m gypsum leached zone and a
40 m crown was to be caved into a void generated by open stope
mining below.
In January 1993 new geotechnical information revealed that
the rock would cave down to 330 m below the surface, 130 m
below the gypsum leeched zone. In May the design was revised
to 70 vertical metres of drill and blast firing into inclined
extraction drives as illustrated in Figure 1 (Wulff, 1993).
149
D M VINK

Work completed by Dennis Laubscher in 1993 introduced the

concept of Mining Rock Mass Rating (MRMR) to Northparkes
which showed that the Endeavour 26 orebody would
theoretically cave at a hydraulic radius of 33.2 m, 480 m below
the surface. In January 1994 the North Limited board accepted an
expansion plan proposal from Northparkes Mines, which was
based on an innovative and technically difficult block cave mine,
480 m below the surface. This design had 90 m of high strength
rock blasted out as open stopes above a horizontal extraction
level. In addition to these design changes the report contained
plans for a production ramp up from 2.6 Mt /annum by July 2000
to 3.9 Mt /annum by July 1997.
By 1995 MRMR studies had increased confidence in the
cavability of Northparkes’ ore and the blast column was further
reduced to a height of 60 m in the form of a double undercut, see
Figure 1. It wasn’t until this point that the mining method had
been selected and contract drill and blast design could proceed.
These decisions formed the basis of an ambitious plan to raise
the net present value of the underground project and rapidly
exploit its grade and volume.
Development mining started in November 1993. At this point
no drill and blast design had commenced which was fortuitous in
the sense that on a green field site much information is revealed
during development and mining reserve drilling. Mine designs
change radically from the concepts that are envisaged by the
feasibility studies and a system of review is required. This allows
designers to react quickly to new information as it reveals itself
during the mining process.
As the decline development progressed at Northparkes it
became clear that the frequency and orientation of joint sets in
the main decline was different to those inside the orebody and
extraction level. Exploration drive development through the
orebody revealed the true extent of horizontal joint setting and
gypsum veining. Oriented core drilled from these drives added to
the information base and lower decline mining revealed a weaker
rock mass at the extraction level than was previously calculated. FIG 2 - Drill and blast design process.
In response to this technical challenge the design team found it
necessary to change the mine orientation three times. The final
direction was selected to minimise the number of joint sets A 60 m high double undercut was selected to break up the high
parallel to the draw point brows and extraction tunnels. strength rock above the extraction level and ensure early high
The drill and blast design process that Northparkes’ followed productivity by limiting oversize.
is illustrated in Figure 2. This process was conceived in late-1994 Development of the draw points and draw bells only took
evolved and developed throughout the blasting operation. Co- place when the blasted stress cover was provided from above.
operative working relationships with the contractor were critical The draw bells were blasted ahead of the lower undercut rings
to the implementation of quality assurance systems and design and provided a space for their toe blasts. The lower undercut
review. rings were each charged twice. First their toes were fired down
The short-term nature of this blasting project did not justify an into the bells and then the rest of the ring was fired forward like
owner-operator fleet and contracts were awarded for all mining the upper undercut rings.
activities. A drill and blast contract was awarded to Brandrill At 400 m the height of Northparkes ore column is unique and
Limited in August 1995 and to obtain the desired results it was double that of most block cave mines the technical team could
structured with an emphasis on quality assurance. Facility for identify. The draw columns and tonnage’s per draw point are the
blast design review post contract award was built into the design highest of any block cave so much effort was spent on
process and contract (Figure 2). Brandrill’s contract was for 431 minimising blast damage to ensure the extraction levels longevity
km of drilling, 316 km of charging and 4.1 Mt of blasted rock. (Vink, 1995).

DRILL AND BLAST DESIGN The design team

The design
To ensure the success of Northparkes block cave a number of
unique and innovative features were essential to its application of
a double undercut (Figure 3).
Firstly it had to provide advanced cover for the extraction level
to protect it from potentially damaging abutment stress. This was
achieved by blasting out the upper undercut, which worked like a
sublevel cave with very broad rings, ahead of the mining below.
Next the overcut panels were fired outside the orebody, and
connected to the upper undercut by blasted slots and up hole
rings.
Preferring to work from first principles, and in what may be
judged by some as an unusual move, the design team were
selected, almost entirely from their calibre as individuals and
capacity to work as a team. A more comfortable approach might
have been to select international candidates with extensive block
cave mining experience. The team was given a clear and tangible
mandate - To create the first block cave mine in Australia. For
the project to be successful it became clear that the normal
design parameters used for block cave mines had to be pushed
out to new boundaries. The only way to accomplish this feat was
through a philosophy of implementing advanced proven
technology in every aspect of the drill and blast process.

150 Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998 Underground Operators’ Conference

 FROM GREEN FIELD SITE TO BLOCK CAVE MINE

FIG 3 - Northparkes mines Endeavour 26 block caving mining sequence.

From August 1993 to April 1994 this small technical team was
employed by the manager mining. It was led by a planning
manager and senior geologist. The planning manager took
responsibility for development design and ground support. Two
geologists were employed under the senior geologist to complete
orebody modelling. Rock mass analysis was undertaken by one
geotechnical engineer. A surveyor experienced in mine design
and drafting was employed to create the first construction
drawings and a mining engineer was employed with
responsibility for all drill and blast design. This small design
team was supported by four dedicated technicians providing
drafting and geology services (Figure 4).

Consultants
Given the limited experience of this team leading consultants
were employed in each core area of the mine design. They
provided an experience base to the team and valuable input to the
design process (Figure 4).
International block cave mining consultant, Dr Dennis FIG 4 - Mine design team.
Laubscher, was employed from 1993 to assist them in
establishing the principles on which a conceptual drill and blast
Guilfoyle and Associates were consulted to vet the upper and
design was completed. Unlike other block cave mines which had
lower undercut designs in the light of their drill and blast design
developed after long histories of mining soft secondary
experience. Karl Guilfoyle specialised in practical blasting and
(weathered) ores or surface open cuts the decision to block cave
was able to provide detailed design advice down to the detonator
the Endeavour 26 orebody in primary (unweatherred) ore was
and explosive selection.
made from core data.
The Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre (JKMRC)
Dr Dennis Laubscher was able to compare the rock mass
were increasingly involved in block cave mining and had
properties at Northparkes with block caves found elsewhere in
established links with El Teniente and Andina mines out of their
the world and guide the Northparkes design team towards a mine
Santiago office in Chile. The experience of G Chitombo and A
concept that was appropriate to the local conditions. Laubscher’s
Tunstall was drawn upon to vet drill and blast designs in the light
geotechnical analysis and models convinced the design team that
of their Chilean work.
a 42 m high double undercut was sufficient to break up the high
strength rock at Northparkes. From the outset Northparkes were strongly focused on
minimising damage to their final mine structures. The JKMRC’s

Underground Operators’ Conference Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998 151

D M VINK
Blasting and Reinforcement Technology (BART) project was
sponsored by Northparkes and through the JKMRC support was
provided for blasting studies to minimise damage to the
extraction level and its honey comb of drawbells and pillars
(Vink, 1995).
The short-term intensive construction phase of a block cave
mine lends itself to the out source of contract work forces in all
aspects that are not part of its long-term operation. Conceptual
drilling and blast design is no exception.
Blastability
During the design phase much information about the blasting
conditions in the underground mine was coming to light from the
decline development. The rock was not particularly hard at 110
MPa average strength and jumbo drill penetration rates were high
compared with other sites. The rock was elastic and shot very
well, rounds pulling to the end with little measurable butt
(Chitombo and Tunstall, 1995). The rock was quite
homogeneous and ground conditions varied little in the decline.
There was virtually no water in the decline and backs support
was limited to two rows of seven hollow groutable bolts every 3
m round. Development mining averaged 65.2 m/wk verses a
contract rate of 58 m/wk from March to June 1994, in a 5 x 5.5
m heading. Hoist shaft sinking averaged 19.7 m/wk verses a
contract rate of 16.3 m from April to June 1994. These rates of
advance continued and this evidence built a picture of a rock type
that was easily blasted.
Diamond drill hole geotechnical information from the ore-
body showed that it was far more jointed and gypsum veined
than the decline, and could be expected to fracture more easily
for that reason. The design team were not disappointed and each
time development headings entered the vicinity of the ore-body
they struck jointed and gypsum veined rock. Bearing in mind the
level of technical risk associated with designing a block cave
mine from core data and the huge amount of capital funds
committed, this prolific jointing and veining came as a great
relief after the excellent ground conditions encountered in the
main decline.
FIG 5 - N-S section; A to F represents the mining sequence.
152 Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998
Simple MRMR rock mass data was compiled on the mines
visited by the technical team and compared to their drill and blast
designs and then related to Northparkes’ ground conditions. In a
surprising outcome the variety of caving drill and blast designs
locally and internationally fell within a narrow band of
parameters that could be defined by some simple geometric
guidelines and rules of thumb. As for many other mines the
simple spacing and burden rule described by Persson, Holmberg
and Lee 1994, held true for all Northparke’s drill and blast
designs.
Formula: 1<S/B<1.3
S = hole spacing
B = hole burden
Differences in Northparkes’ rock mass from other mine sites
resulted in some fine tuning of selected drill and blast designs
within these parameters rather than radical changes.
Opening patterns
No shots had ever been fired at Northparkes so the first drill and
blast patterns were conservative designs. Upper undercut rings
were first fired as single rings of 16 holes on 1.6 m burdens in
open blast conditions (Figures 5 and 6). Consistent with the
blastability expectation of Northparkes rock these conservative
burdens were opened up to 2.5 m. The 16 hole patterns were
reduced to 14 and single ring firings in open conditions increased
to double rings in choked. Increased confinement in choked
conditions was causing blast damage to the top of the next ring.
In July 1996 the emulsion product was then lowered from 1.2 to
1 density (ANFO is equivalent to 1). The stope was loaded open
and an Optec survey of the void proved the blast had pulled to its
design without damaging the next ring in choked conditions.
At each step blasts were tested for success by measuring
damage to the brow, the next ring and by loading open the stope
for survey (Figures 5 and 6).
Underground Operators’ Conference
 FROM GREEN FIELD SITE TO BLOCK CAVE MINE

FIG 6 - E-W section.

Quality assurance
All drilling and loading activity was contracted out to Brandrill
Limited and ICI were subcontracted to charge. Quality
Assurance (QA) of the final product was dependent on accurate
drilling and precise blasting of the principals designs. The
contracts provided for the introduction of a full quality assurance
system and in April 1997 Brandrill became quality assurance
accredited at the Northparkes minesite.

Flow charts
Quality control of the drill and blast operation commenced with a
detailed flowsheet of steps in the process, starting with design
and ending with review of the blasted product (Figure 7). Any
variation from design led to an in specification or out of
specification decision that was controlled by standards consistent
with the contract and acceptable to the principal. For example a
drill hole measuring three per cent deviation from the contract
specification of ±2 per cent was not redrilled if the principal was
satisfied that it could be fired to achieve the design result.
In the drill and blast flow chart acceptable design from the
principal was issued to the driller by the contract foreman who
composed the driller’s QA checklist. From this point the driller
received the check sheet and the shift boss ensured that the
driller’s flow chart was followed.
All flowsheets were first composed by the principals engineers
in very close consultation with project management and the
contractors engineers. End products, like the driller’s QA sheet
(Figure 8) are practical working documents that were copied onto
water proof paper for use on the job. Operators filled out these
sheets on the drill rig and returned them to the shift boss for
filing to ensure a full record for future reference. FIG 7 - Drill and blast flowchart.

Underground Operators’ Conference Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998 153

D M VINK

FIG 8 - Drillers QA checklist.

154 Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998 Underground Operators’ Conference


The flow sheet technique provides a tool to set up quality
control for any drill and blast activity. Work practice was defined
in the flow sheets (Figure 9) and the way in which job was done
became the way it was defined on the sheet.
Contract conscience
The responsibility for measuring and reporting out of
specification drill and blast results as Non-Conformance Reports
(NCR) was placed with the contractor. Once established this QA
system operated as a conscience so that out of specification work
was picked up, not by the principal, but by the contractor. The
principal is not immune from QA obligations and minimum
standards were applied to the quality of their drill and blast
designs and project management.
This system required careful introduction and auditing but
once established the principal and contractors line management
were freed from some contract enforcement for more productive
FIG 9 - Driller’s QA flowchart.
Underground Operators’ Conference Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998
FROM GREEN FIELD SITE TO BLOCK CAVE MINE
work. In this circumstance the principal and contractor had a
close working relationship in which deviations to the plan were
reported by the contractor and a course of action was preferably
agreed or enforced to the contract specification if required.
This QA did not replace traditional management structures like
shift boss, foreman, site manager and contract manager.
Blast investigation
The results of each blast were inspected for fragmentation, signs
of misfired holes, unblasted explosives and damage. This was the
last step in the drill and blast quality assurance system.
Audits
Audits were carried out on a periodic basis or when quality
control problems became apparent. In such cases the QA
standards were tested on the job by measuring the results and
taking operators through their QA sheets.
155
D M VINK

Hole measurement Northparkes’ primary motivation was to break the upper

undercut rock and they were not concerned with draw control on
Under the contract five per cent of all holes drilled were surveyed this level. They believed that the unusual geometry of the upper
at the superintendents direction for conformance to their design undercut would not effect its blasting characteristics and that the
specifications. In practice this was a suitable amount of holes to principals required to successfully blast the upper undercut
measure since Northparkes were mostly interested in checking would be the same as those of a sub level cave.
critical blasts (eg Slots and transition rings), new patterns and
Literature searches and technical visits of some Australian
very long holes. Often the quality of an entire ring (375.5 m and
SLC mines revealed the growing popularity of larger burdens and
14 holes) could be assessed by measuring three holes (Figure 5).
holes at mines like Redeemer and Mt Lyell. 89 mm holes, 2.5
Once the success of a design was proven and it was being drilled
burdens and 3 m spacings were selected for Northparkes’
accurately the need to survey was greatly reduced. In the first
contract undercut ring designs. (Figure 10). Practical application
draw bells every hole was surveyed. Later it was limited to the
and testing of these designs subsequently proved the accuracy of
slot and perimeter holes. Northparkes used up its entire five per
substantial background work that was completed in 1995. The
cent of hole surveys, which was provided in the contract lump
natural underground rill angle of blasted rock was measured by
sum.
Optec survey at 41 degrees in July 1996. The assessment of drill
metres made in contract documents (431 km) was sufficiently
The double undercut - a unique application accurate since on completion 470 000 m had been drilled,
Northparkes were focussed on ensuring that their extraction level including all the extension of contract draw bell slots.
infrustructure was blasted out without damage. Experience at
other block cave mines revealed that blasting and abutment stress
were the cause of pillar damage and defined the life span of the
level. Northparkes chose to avoid abutment stress damage
entirely by blasting out the undercut in advance of the extraction
level draw point and draw bell development. They did this by
first firing the upper undercut out and connecting it to the lower
undercut via over cut panels to provide a blanket of vertical
stress cover over the extraction level. A full 45 degree stress
cover was provided for the South West quadrant and low strength
rock in the North West (NW). Following HI cell measurement of
the abutment stress this was reduced to 90 degree cover for the
east side of the NW quadrant and the other two quadrants (Figure
5).
Northparkes application of a double undercut is unique when
compared to other high undercuts like Codelco’s Andina Mine in
Chile. At Andina the undercut is used to break up all the primary
(unweatherred) rock so the entire ore block can be caved through
a slusher system, without the expense of developing a Load Haul
Dump (LHD) extraction level (Chen, Dawson and Vink, 1997).
Calculations predicted an MRMR of 56 for Northparke’s rock
mass up to 60 m above the extraction level (Figure 3). To ensure
the caveability of the E26 Mine at an MRMR of 50 and reduce
predicted oversize, Northparkes decided to blast this rock out.
However the double undercut necessary to do this blasting broke
only 21 per cent of the primary rock (unweatherred) column
underneath 200 m of gypsum leached (weatherred) ore. FIG 10 - Standard upper undercut ring.
Northparkes’ application of a double undercut is also unique in
the sense that the upper undercut was fired first to provide stress
protection for the extraction level. No development of draw Tall, narrow and long slots
points and draw bells took place without stress cover provided by Northparkes faced the challenge of designing and firing out a 29
the blasted upper undercut above. A technically simpler and m high and 2.6m wide slot to start the upper undercut (Figure
conventional way of blasting out high undercuts is to open each 11). This was drilled in a 4.2 m wide 4.5 m high drive with 64
level simultaneously like an open stope and fire it into prepared, mm holes drilled on a 1.3 m x 1.3 m pattern. The centre hole
open draw bells. This exposes extraction level infrastructure to lagged the sides by 0.3 m to create a more favourable break out
abutment stress and blast damage. angle.
The first firing to a slot is a crucial step in which success is
Local technology - upper undercut. dependent on the true drilled location of each hole, their burden,
The shape of Northparkes’ upper undercut rings (Figure 10) was the charge and delays selected. Failure will freeze the shot and
not consistent with any local or international block cave or sub- lead to time consuming remedial drilling and firing delaying the
level cave (SLC) operations Northparkes could identify. The entire project. At Northparkes the raise was surveyed using the
angle of the sides of each ring were selected at 50 degrees, well Optec Cavity Monitoring System (CMS). The first shot holes
above the angle of repose for blasted material which had been were surveyed with a Multibore in the hole survey tool. These
measured on surface stockpiles at 36 degrees. The width of each results were plotted on Autocad. The firing sequence was
ring at 28 m was a function of the tunnel spacing on the determined from the plots and each strip hole was triple primed.
extraction level. This created a unique geometry where the ring The four delays used in the mines first undercut firing were 25,
height of 30 m was almost the same as the width and no parallels 75, 125, 300 ms from the ICI ms range. The key is to balance the
could be drawn from this shape to typical sublevel cave rings risk of hole cut off (widely spaced delay) and void space to
which are designed as a function of theoretically or practically prevent freezing (close delay). The range selected was successful
determined draw zone ellipses. and this method adopted as a standard.

156 Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998 Underground Operators’ Conference


FIG 11 - Upper undercut slot.
The slot fired was 190 m long. The concern with such a tall-
narrow-long slot was that it could loose height and require
recovering or freeze portions of the retreating undercut rings
before they were established. To avert the problem it was loaded
empty and surveyed with the Optec CMS. Survey results showed
full height was achieved for the entire slot. No reslot was
required.
A key to success in such a situation lays in locating the raise in
a position which allows access for firing from both sides. In this
case the raise can be stripped out piece meal to full height from
the south side and then brought to vertical on the North by stand
up stripping. Failure to pull the full height of the raise strip is not
the disaster it represents in a raise which has only end access for
example. This system of stripping open slot raises was used with
a 100 per cent success rate at Northparkes. No reslots and no
remedial drilling was required.
Upper undercut - centre access drive slot
Of primary importance was to ensure full undercut of the
orebody. No pillars could be left behind since they would form a
path for stress concentration from the cave to the extraction level
pillars. Initially the upper undercut was loaded open to check for
blast performance, but as the hydraulic radius increased the
brows were closed for safety reasons.
Once the upper undercut passed a hydraulic radius of 23 the
backs fell in and blasting was carried out in choked conditions.
This first caving event was confirmed by measurement of open
geotechnical monitoring holes. It must be stressed however that
continuous caving was not achieved at this hydraulic radius.
The centre access drive (CAD) which was mined to speed up
development and reduce congestion, provided a unique
opportunity (Figure 1). It was recognised that a reslot in the
centre of the orebody could provide a fresh start for each drill
drive to guarantee full back height once again.
The CAD was drilled and fired as a reslot at 80 degrees and
parallel to the drill drive rings. The irony of this strategy was that
while not proven to be necessary on the upper undercut which
Underground Operators’ Conference Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998
FROM GREEN FIELD SITE TO BLOCK CAVE MINE
fired out easily, it provided a full reslot on the lower undercut
when blasting operations were challenged by hole dislocations
and redrill requirements.
Over cut panels
Over cut panels were designed to create a blast connection to the
blasted upper undercut by a horse shoe shaped slot running
around the South, West and North of the lower undercut (Figures
4, 5, 6 and 12). This was blasted out to provide the edges of the
extraction level with 45 degree stress cover for development and
draw bell firing. Over cut panels went through a rapid change of
design following site visits at El Teniente’s Isla Mine and
comments made by Northparkes’ principal consultants.
The technique of mass firing 4 m high panel style undercuts
drilled parallel to their access drives had not been successful at
other block cave mines. This approach resulted in small pillars
being left behind in the undercut. These formed points of stress
concentration and required remedial drill and blast from their
extraction levels. Learning from this experience Northparkes’
adopted the more successful diagonal drilling technique (Figure
12).
FIG 12 - Typical stress overcut panel.
Even at drill and charge densities approaching cut-off slot
levels blasting success could only consistently be achieved by
firing two rings at a time. In addition it was essential to send a
remote unit across the last fired rings to remove blasted rock an
provide void space for the next firing. QA requirements were
made to ensure that the loaders only stopped mucking when the
cut off slot rill was sighted. This had also been the experience of
other mines.
In block caving it is not sufficient to simply wreck the panels.
They must be removed so that the extraction level pillars are not
loaded by stress concentrating pillars. Northparkes learnt through
difficult experiences of six ring firing, that two rings is the
maximum number of rings that will give reliable and repeatable
results. Over cut panels never perform like slots because despite
their similar geometry’s the effects of gravity work against the
broken rock movement to choke and freeze the blast no matter
what the void space calculations show.
Sending a Toro remote 450D LHD across an opening inside a
roughly hewn blasted pillar appears an impossible ask to the
inexperienced. In practice this quite achievable by using the
finely blasted dirt to build a ramp and road base (Figure 12).
157
D M VINK

Lower undercut
Void space
As for the upper undercut void space was provided by loading a
minimum 30 per cent of the blasted rock from the last firing to
create low density choked conditions for the next ring firing.
Bucket counts were set for every blast at three loading points
(Figure 5). The next firing was not taken until suitable void space
was provided. The low density firing rule was used for 100 per
cent of the lower under cut blasts.
In July 1997 damage to the rings caused by loading led to a
radical revision of swell removal policy which took into account
the space being provided by the opened draw bells. The blasted
swell removal was reduced to 11 per cent. However in order to
ensure the success of each blast a 220 bucket load (8.5 t/bucket)
was stipulated every six rings from loading point one (Figure 5).
This ‘mass load’ was in effect the quality check which
guaranteed there were no frozen rings above the brow. Failed
blasts did occur and brows did open but in every case these were
bombed and loaded until they fell in. Techniques to bring down
frozen ground centred around persistent remote loading, assisted
by bombing, firing in adjacent drives, remedial drilling and firing
when the brow closed. Northparkes did not leave any frozen
ground behind because of the unacceptable risk of point loading
through rock that was not properly blasted.

Hole diameter and rings

Northparke’s lower undercut is significantly different to those
found in other block cave mines. The larger drill drives (4.2 m x
4.5 m high) have allowed the use of more productive larger long
hole drilling rigs. The Brandrill Underground Drill (BUD) rig
employed at Northparkes drilled 89 mm diameter holes with 2.4
m long T45 drill steels. Longer drill steels require less change
outs, less joins in the rod string and provide more accurate, faster
drilling and cheaper holes. Ultimately with larger holes less
metres are drilled and costs are lower to break the same amount
of rock. Rates of 8000 m per month were consistently achieved
with these top hammer machines. Accuracy’s of two per cent
from the collar were consistently achieved. Most block cave
mines drill 64 mm holes over distances of 12 to 14 m.
Low holes
In single undercut mines rilling over the low holes is not a
problem as the brow can be loaded empty. In traditional double
undercuts like Andina the brows are much lower and the drives
are much smaller so rilling over low holes is less of a problem.
The firing plans for the lower undercut at Northparkes required
something unique for their 4.2 x 4.5 m high drill drives. The
solution involved firing toes of the holes two rings ahead of the
two rings at the brow. These toes were blasted into open bells
below. The technique worked very well and little stemming (ICI
plastic stops) was required to ensure useful holes for the second
blast (Figures 5, 6 and 13).
Transition rings
The lower undercut was commenced in fully choked conditions.
The complex geometric task of starting the lower undercut
blasting operation was solved by carefully pre firing portions of
the transition rings to the slot (Figures 6 and 14). Drawbells were
then opened beneath the first rings and they were fired forwards
into choked slots and down into open draw bells. While simple in
concept this single step in the entire blasting project was subject
to the most engineering scrutiny.
In drill drives four and five deteriorating ground conditions in
the slot necessitated its early firing before development had
broken through. Access to the ground for transition ring drilling
was severely limited and extra drill drive stubs were mined.
Transition ring drilling patterns were closed up to 2.5 x 2.5 m to
ensure breakage.
FIG 13 - Typical lower undercut ring.
External consultants were employed to vet drill and blast
designs which were modelled on Auto cad and viewed in three
dimensions on Datamine. Engineers marked up the drilled holes
for firing and ICI designed the firing sequence in close
collaboration with design staff. These once off drill and charging
operations were more closely scrutinised than any other.
North and south drive main rings
These rings are asymmetric (Figure 5) and designed to join the
retreated slots fired in drill drives one and eight. At first they
appear prone to hole cut-off and toe loss, but in reality the large
toe areas were very successful because the lowest portion of each
ring was fired in advance.
Drill drive four deteriorates
Drill drive four deteriorated to the point where by remedial
ground support was required and rings 25 to 29 were lost to
access (Figure 5). North side ground covered by these rings was
drilled and fired from drill drive five like south side rings. The
cause of this unplanned deterioration is directly attributable to
loading south side draw points from extraction tunnel four.
Deterioration ceased immediately when those draw points were
closed to loading activity.
The lead and lag of drill drives on the undercut level had only
a minor effect on ring damage when compared to loading
activity. This was quantified by hole measurement as part of the
pre charge QA process. Echo bounding equipment and hose
pushers were used to measure all holes in the lower undercut.
Lower undercut ring damage
Excepting adjacent ring blast damage of 2 m (Figure 5) which
caused a reduction to design charged metres of ten per cent the
upper undercut was fired out without hole loss of any kind. The
lower undercut rings, by stark contrast, slowly became subject to
hole loss by block dislocation in the ring portion above 50
degrees and up to three rings back from the brow.

158 Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998 Underground Operators’ Conference

 FROM GREEN FIELD SITE TO BLOCK CAVE MINE

FIG 14 - Northparkes standard skull shaped drawbell.

Underground Operators’ Conference Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998 159

D M VINK
After blasting of the south west quadrant, an average of 50 per
cent of charge metres in the ring portion over 50 degrees became
inaccessible across all drill drives in the lower undercut. A redrill
rig was incorporated into the charging cycle to solve this problem
in July 1997.
Toes always fired well with good charge metres but following
toe firing the lower undercut ring was a precarious main ring
geometry leaning out at 70 degrees into an active cave. The key
to ring preservation at the brow was to exclude the cave loaders
from drawing within two draw bells of the blasting front (Figure
6). The absolute minimum swell removal policy was
implemented so that lower undercut rings were supported by
packed blast rock.
The stepped blasting front was straightened and maximum
lead/lag distances of 10 m were set between drill drives (±4
rings). But this was of a secondary importance to the loading
strategy. Cave stress modelling showed concentration in the
lead/lag sections of the blast front but hole measurement of these
areas did not reveal any significant hole loss.
Redrill rig
A full time redrill rig was incorporated into the blasting cycle
with a rigorous QA system of hole measurement. Owing to the
rill from the brow obscuring access to the brow rings it was
sometimes necessary to drill standard remedial drill rings
dumped at 62 and 66 degrees for the ring portion over 50
degrees. Approximately 20 per cent of lower undercut holes
outside the South West quadrant were cleaned/redrilled.
A QA flowsheet was written in which provision was made to
fire up to three rings if the front ring was missing by blast
damage, loading out or if the third ring would need a second
redrill after firing the ring pair. Very poor ground conditions and
safety considerations sometimes led to three ring firings. These
firings were successful and checked by loading 220 buckets (at
8.5 tonnes/bucket) every six rings. The three ring firing technique
was used for a period two months.
Draw bells
Two bell advance rule
Draw bells could not be fired out more than two in advance of
the lower undercut blasting front because they formed a mini
undercut of the main ring toes over the minor apexes (Figures 5
and 6).
Skull shape
All Northparke’s drill and blast design problems started with the
definition of a basic geometric shape. Surface tests of proposed
draw point layouts were carried out with a diesel Toro 450D unit
and the operators specified their preference for a brow that was
perpendicular to the draw point. To meet this design request a
skull shaped bell was designed which is wider on side closest to
the centre of the extraction level. El Teniente engineers revealed
that this design had been tried before in the Isla Mine. While
simpler symmetrical designs are most common at El Teniente,
the skull shaped design had a successful mining history.
Northparkes went ahead with the skull shaped draw bell design
(Figure 14). Brow rings were drilled and fired as a pre split if the
burden to the steel set was greater than 1.5 m. The burden to the
brow ring is arguably the most important wear surface in the bell,
defining the length of the draw point and providing a wear
surface for all the rock draw from that point.
Firing
A steep learning curve was traced out with draw bell firing at
Northparkes. From the outset designs were conservative and
160 Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998
tempered with the experience of other block cave miners. Having
decided on the skull shaped geometry Northparkes was faced
with three main drilling and firing options.
Wedge firing was discounted because of its damaging effects
to the pillar structure. Blind boring of the raise was discounted
on time and cost constraints. Up hole raising was discounted on
damage criteria. Slots were selected and mined as conventional
raises, 1.5 x 1.5 m in geometry. Slicing of the slot toes into these
raises was tried but with limited success. Entire holes were lost
to blast damage as were the toes of the next blast. The limited
collar space was damaged by escaping gases and charge
conditions were not satisfactory.
Single slot firing was the answer. Conventional raise stripping
and long hole raise stripping was tried with success. The same
collar damage problems occurred with long hole stripping. Long
hole stripping was tried with long delay to the body of the main
blast and found to be successful when combined with built in
brow support for the south and north side blasts. In its final
format bells were blasted as single slots with one North side and
one south side firing. In the case of early cave connection bells
were fired in double ring choked conditions with loading for
swell relief.
Only 47 000 m of draw bell drilling was tendered in the drill
and blast contract document as slots had not been offered in the
original scope. Raises were tendered separately once the slot
design had been selected but this was of no consequence to the
contractor who was pleased to drill the extra metres as a contract
extension under the same terms and conditions.
Undercutting rates and production ramp up
The upper undercut which was started in January 1996 was
completed in June 1997 having been fired out at rates
approaching 50 rings per month. Completion of the upper
undercut was slowed once enough stress cover was provided for
extraction level development.
The lower undercut panels and slots started firing in July 1996
and were complete by March 1997. Undercut cut panels were
slow to fire out peaking at about 30 rings per month.
The lower undercut rings firing program started in January
1997 and was completed in September 1997. At its peak the
lower undercut was fired out at 60 standard rings per month over
a three-month period. These advance rates were only achieved
after the introduction of the redrill rig, minimum swell loading
rules and exclusion of the cave loading operation.
The projects performance was measured against the expansion
plan which set the target as an annualised mining rate of 3.9 Mt
by July 1997. Challenges in the rate of developement and
undercutting resulted in a slow production ramp up during 1996,
however in 1997 the technical difficulties were overcome and
this financial year to-date has returned an annualised production
at the rate of 3.9 Mt per annum.
CONCLUSIONS
Technical blasting success at Northparkes’ Endeavour 26 project
has demonstrated that brand new block cave drill and blast
methods can be specifically designed to suit the unique
conditions of green field sites on the Australian continent.
Drill and blast technology was developed rapidly from local
and international sources by a small design team who were able
to consolidate the experience of many external sources.
The contractors employed at Northparkes executed works to
the highest quality assurance standards and this was made
simpler because the project management were committed to
implementing these systems prior to writing the contract
documents.
Underground Operators’ Conference

Drill and blast design quantities were estimated accurately by
using fundamental design principles which only varied a small
amount when the rock mass was fully understood.
REFERENCES
Chen, D, Dawson, L R, Vink, D M, 1997. El Teniente and Andina Mine
Technical Report, North Mining Limited pp1-20.
Chitombo, G, Scott, C, 1995. Development Blasting Trials on the 9800
Extraction Level, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre,
University Of Queensland, Department Of Mining and Metallurgical
Engineering, JKMRC/AMIRA/BART, Project P447, pp2-17.
Contract Number D70-223, 1995. Endeavour 26 Mine contract for Drill
and Blast, North Limited, Northparkes Mines, Vol 1, Technical
Specification, Vol 2, Technical Specification.
North Limited, 1994. Northparkes Expansion, Board Report from
Northparkes Mines to the North Limited Board requesting approval
to expand, pp1-8, Appendix1-3.
Underground Operators’ Conference Townsville, 30 June - 3 July 1998
FROM GREEN FIELD SITE TO BLOCK CAVE MINE
Persson, P A, Holmberg, R and Lee, J, 1993. Rock blasting and
explosives engineering, Ch 8, pp 233-259 (CRC Press:1994).
Tunstall, A, 1994. Blasting Investigations at Northparkes Mines, Julius
Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, University Of Queensland,
Department Of Mining and Metallurgical Engineering, Project P93F,
pp2-17.
Vink, D M, 1995. Minimising Blast Damage to the Extraction Level Of
Northparkes Mine’s E26 Block Cave, in Proceedings Explo ‘95
Conference, pp 251-260 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Brisbane).Vink, D M, 1995. Sub Level Cave Drill and
Blast Practice At Mt Lyell Mine, North Limited, Northparkes Mines,
pp 1-15.
Vink D M, 1997. Northparkes Endeavour 26 Mine Drill and Blast Files,
North Limited, Northparkes Mines, 9830, Vol 1-2, 9818, Vol 1-3,
9800, Vol 1-2.
Wulff, 1993, Northparkes Mines Chronological History of the
Conceptual Design Work for E26N Deposit June 1984 - May 1993,
North Limited, Northparkes Mines pp 1-27.
161