Bull Eng Geol Environ (2014) 73:1165–1182
DOI 10.1007/s10064-014-0656-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface
subsidence: a numerical study based on a demonstration model
L. C. Li • C. A. Tang • X. D. Zhao •
M. Cai
Received: 13 March 2013 / Accepted: 4 August 2014 / Published online: 20 August 2014
Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract The block cave mining mechanism and asso-
ciated subsidence present one of the most challenging
engineering problems in rock mining. Although block
caving has been in use for many years, there has been
limited research on the impact caving angles have on sur-
face settlement and failure profiles, specifically when
associated with deep caves and surface propagation (i.e.,
not as part of caving into an existing open pit). We analyse
in this study block caving-induced step-path failure
development in a large-scale demonstration model utilizing
a numerical code based on a finite element technique that
incorporates an elasto-brittle fracture mechanics constitu-
tive criterion. Fracture initiation, propagation and coales-
cence, as well as the breaking of the intact rock bridge and
the evolution of a pressure-balancing arch in the stressed
strata, are represented visually during the whole caving
process. Based on numerical results, surface impacts of
block caving, such as subsidence profiles, break angles,
fracture initiation angles and subsidence angles at different
initial caving depths, are illustrated in this study.
L. C. Li (&)  C. A. Tang
School of Civil Engineering, Dalian University of Technology,
Dalian 116024, China
e-mail: li_lianchong@yahoo.com
X. D. Zhao
College of Resources and Civil Engineering, Northeastern
University, Shenyang 110004, China
M. Cai
Geomechanics Research Centre, MIRARCO, Laurentian
University, Sudbury, ON, Canada
Keywords Block caving  Numerical simulation  Failure
process  Surface subsidence  Stress evolution 
Elastic-brittle damage
Introduction
Block caving continues to be a favourable mining tech-
nique for maximising net present value from large, lower-
grade ore bodies. Block cave mining is characterised by
caving and extraction of a massive volume of ore, conse-
quently inducing major surface subsidence zones directly
above and in the vicinity of the mining operations. A
schematic figure of surface subsidence in block caving is
shown in Fig. 1. Block caving-induced subsidence may
endanger mine infrastructure and is a major concern for
operational safety. Moreover, changes to surface landforms
brought about by block caving subsidence can be quite
dramatic and may lead to pronounced environmental
impacts. Therefore, the ability to predict surface subsi-
dence associated with block caving mining is critical for
both mining operational hazards and environmental impact
assessments.
Problems associated with block caving have the fol-
lowing characteristics. First, most practical mining opera-
tions related to block caving are on a large scale. Mining up
to 1,000 m, even 2,000 m below the ground surface (bgs),
is a very common practice (Lupo 1997; Woo et al. 2009;
Szwedzicki 2001; Villegas et al. 2011). Therefore, in these
cases it is difficult to carry out comprehensive tests on
subsidence and surface breaking behaviour in the field.
Secondly, although several methods, including levelling,
total station surveys, global positioning system (GPS) field
surveys and differential interferometric SAR (DInSAR)
techniques, have been used for mining-induced subsidence
123
1166
Fig. 1 Conceptual
representation of surface
subsidence associate with block
caving mining, subsidence
characterization terminology,
after Van As (2003)
monitoring, these methods are limited to surface defor-
mation; fracture initiation and propagation, stress distri-
bution and failure-induced stress redistribution in the
stressed strata are still impossible to observe in the field.
Ground surface subsidence is the product of a complex
rock mass response to caving. Subsidence involves a series
of strata movements, such as the opening of tension cracks,
development of scarps, fracturing and break back of the
surface above and around the cave’s footprint, and break-
through of the cave itself to form a large crater (Brown
2003; Beck et al. 2006; Vyazmensky et al. 2010a, b).
Owing to scale problems and lack of access, the avail-
able subsidence prediction capabilities and the fundamental
understanding of the complex rock responses leading to
subsidence development remain limited. With advances in
computing technology current knowledge of subsidence
phenomena are being improved by employing numerical
modelling techniques. In recent years a number of
numerical codes, including FLAC (Singh et al. 1993),
3DEC (Li and Brummer 2005), PFC3D (Gilbride et al.
2005), DDA (Wu et al. 2004) and ELFEN (Vyazmensky
et al. 2010a, b) have been developed and applied in the
modelling of mining-induced subsidence.
In light of the growing use of block caving and the
importance of increasing knowledge regarding potential
surface subsidence, there is a genuine need for a compre-
hensive numerical study on the general principles of sur-
face subsidence development associated with block cave
mining (Singh et al. 1993; Li and Brummer 2005; Vyaz-
mensky et al. 2010b). In 2010 the Centre for Excellence in
Mining Innovation (CEMI) in Sudbury, Canada proposed a
demonstration project to explore the capability of codes to
simulate rock mass fracture and failure propagation to the
surface (CEMI 2010a, b). Although block caving has been
123
L. C. Li et al.
in use for many years, there has been limited research
conducted regarding the impact that caving angles (e.g.,
fracture initiation angle, break angle and subsidence angle
as shown in Fig. 1) have on the surface settlement and
failure profile, specifically when associated with deep
caves and propagation to the surface (i.e., not as part of
caving into an existing open pit). This is particularly rel-
evant for environmental reasons and in places where sur-
face structures or points of interest could be impacted, as
shown in Fig. 2. As illustrated in Fig. 1, three angles are of
interest: break, fracture initiation and subsidence angles.
The impact of block caving on surface subsidence where
open pits do not exist is not clearly understood in regards to
determining a relationship between surface subsidence and
mining depth. CEMI is interested in determining if existing
or newly-developed 2D or 3D modelling codes can cur-
rently or potentially accurately model progressive block
caving impacts to the surface from varying depths of block
initiation. This effort specifically focuses on failures to
ground surface without an open pit component.
The results of 2D numerical simulations conducted using
the rock failure process analysis (RFPA) code (Tang et al.
2000; Li et al. 2009) are presented in this study to demonstrate
surface subsidence profiles and failure modes at different initial
caving depths. The capability of RFPA in modelling of block
caving-induced subsidence is also discussed.
An introduction to the numerical code RFPA2D
RFPA2D represents a two-dimensional finite element code
that can simulate fracture and failure processes in quasi-
brittle rock. Block caving is applicable not only to loose
and fragmented rock but also to intact and hard rock. Hard
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface subsidence
Fig. 2 Macro deformation patterns observed in practice in which
topographic effects are minor (i.e., the mining is not as part of caving
into an existing open pit), a circular subsidence, b irregular with
scarps but without a distinct collapse structure/glory hole, and
c irregular with a distinct collapse structure/glory hole (Woo et al.
2009)
rocks subjected to engineering analysis are generally quasi-
brittle; failure in such rocks is a result of brittle fracture
initiation and propagation. Brittle fracture is the process by
1167
which sudden loss of strength occurs across a plane. Block
caving subsidence is the product of a complex rock mass
response to caving. This response involves widespread
failure of the rock mass in both tension and shear (Vyaz-
mensky et al. 2010a; Li et al. 2010; Zuo et al. 2008).
Therefore, a numerical approach based on elastic-brittle
fracture mechanics and incorporating coupled compressive
and tensile strength criteria is required to conduct the
appropriate simulation.
A brief introduction to the principle of RFPA2D
For heterogeneous rock the material properties, including
Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio and strength properties,
for the different rock elements were randomly distributed
throughout the analysis domain. To analyse the statistical
variability of the bulk failure strength Weibull adopted
statistics of extremes to characterise the local failure
strength using a probability distribution function (Weibull
1951). In modelling with RFPA2D the rock model is
composed of many elements and the material parameters of
these elements follow a Weibull distribution as defined by
the probability density function:
    m 
m l m1 l
u¼ exp  ð1Þ
l0 l0 l0
where l is the macroscopic magnitude of the parameters
(such as the Young’s modulus, Poisson’s ratio, strength
properties), i.e., the real values obtained from laboratory
tests, while the scale parameter l0 is related to the average of
the element parameter corresponding to l, i.e., the input
values for the numerical simulation. The homogeneity index
m is a parameter defined by the shape of the distribution
function that in turn defines the degree of material hetero-
geneity; a larger m implies a more homogeneous material
and vice versa. Heterogeneous material can be produced
numerically in a computer simulation for a material com-
posed of many elements. Each element is assumed to be
isotropic and homogeneous. Higher homogeneity indices
lead to more homogeneous numerical samples. Systematic
studies of the homogeneity index m have been published
previously (Tang et al. 2000; Wong et al. 2006).
The finite element method is employed in RFPA2D to
obtain the stress field. Elastic damage mechanics are used
to describe the constitutive law of each element. The ele-
ment is initially considered to be elastic and its elastic
properties can be defined by Young’s modulus and Pois-
son’s ratio. The stress–strain curve of each element is
considered to be linear elastic until the given damage
threshold is attained. In RFPA2D the maximum tensile
strain criterion and Mohr–Coulomb criterion are chosen as
damage thresholds. The maximum tensile strain criterion is
used first to determine whether an element is damaged. If
123
1168 L. C. Li et al.

εtu εt0 σ where k is the residual tensile strength coefficient given as

ε ftr ¼ kft0 and ftr is called residual tensile strength. et0 is the
- ftr strain at the elastic limit, which is the so-called threshold
strain for tensile damage, while etu is the ultimate tensile
strain at which the element would be completely damaged
in tension, as shown in Fig. 3a. Ultimate tensile strain is
defined as etu ¼ get0 , where g is the ultimate strain coeffi-
- ft0 cient. Under multiaxial stress states the element still
becomes damaged in tensile mode when the equivalent
(a) the case under uniaxial tensile stress major tensile strain e increases above the threshold strain,
et0 . The equivalent principal strain, e, is defined as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
σ
e ¼  he1 i2 þhe2 i2 þhe3 i2 ð4Þ
fc0
where e1 , e2 and e3 are the three principal strains, and \[
is a function defined as follows:

x x0
hxi ¼ ð5Þ
0 x\0

The constitutive law for an element subjected to multiaxial

fcr stresses can be obtained by substituting the strain e in
Eq. (3) with the equivalent strain e. The damage variable is
ε ε then expressed as
8
(b) the case under uniaxial compressive stress <0
> e[ et0
ket0
Fig. 3 Elastic-brittle damage constitutive law of elements subject to D¼ 1 etu \e  et0 ð6Þ
>
: e
uniaxial stress 1 e etu
The degradation of an element can then be calculated by
the element is not damaged in tensile mode the Mohr–
Eqs. (2) and (6). However, it must be emphasised when
Coulomb criterion is then used to determine if the element
D = 1.0 a damaged elastic modulus value of zero can be
damage is shear. The sign convention used throughout this
calculated from Eq. (2), which would make the system of
paper is that compressive stresses and strains are positive.
equations ill-posed. Therefore, in this model a relatively
The elastic modulus in elastic damage mechanics may
small number, i.e., 1.0 9 10-5 is specified for the elastic
degrade gradually as damage progresses and the elastic
modulus under this condition.
modulus of the damaged material is defined as
To describe element damage under compressive or shear
E ¼ ð1  DÞE0 ð2Þ stress conditions, the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is chosen as
where D represents the damage variable, and E and E0 are the second damage criterion.
the elastic moduli of the damaged and undamaged ele-
1 þ sin /
ments, respectively. The element and its damage are r1  r3  fc0 ð7Þ
1  sin /
assumed to be isotropic, and therefore, E, E0 and D are all
scalar. D ranges from zero (0.0) for undamaged material to where r1 is the maximum principal stress, r3 is the mini-
one (1.0), representing full failure. mum principal stress, / is the friction angle, and fc0 is the
When the element is under uniaxial tension the consti- uniaxial compressive strength. The damage variable under
tutive relationship illustrated in Fig. 3a is adopted. Fig- uniaxial compression is described as follows:
ure 3a presents the elastic-brittle damage constitutive (
relation with a given specific residual strength. When the 0 e\ec0
tensile stress in an element reaches the tensile strength ft0 , D¼ kec0 ð8Þ
1 e  ec0
i.e., r3   ft0 , the damage variable D can be calculated as e
8 where ec0 is the compressive strain at the elastic limit, k is
<0
> e [ et0
ket0 the residual strength coefficient, and fcr =fc0 ¼ ftr =ft0 ¼ k is
D¼ 1 etu \e  et0 ð3Þ
>
: e assumed to be true when the element is under uniaxial
1 e  etu compression or tension.

123
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface subsidence
When the element is in a multi-axial stress state and its
strength satisfies the Mohr–Coulomb criterion, the maxi-
mum principal strain (maximum compressive principal
strain) may be evaluated at the peak value of the maximum
principal stress (maximum compressive principal stress), ec0 .
 
1 1 þ sin /
ec0 ¼ fc0 þ r3  m ð r 1 þ r 2 Þ ð9Þ
E0 1  sin /
where m is Poisson’s ratio.
In this respect, we assume that the shear damage evo-
lution is only related to the maximum compressive prin-
cipal strain, e1 . Correspondingly, we substitute the
maximum compressive principal strain e1 of the damaged
element for the uniaxial compressive strain e0 in Eq. (8).
Thus, Eq. (8) may be extended to triaxial stress states for
shear damage, as follows:
( continuum mechanics (Fang and Harrison 2002; Ma et al.
0 e1 \ec0
D¼ kec0 ð10Þ
1 e1  ec0
e1
From the above derivation of damage variable D, which is
generally called the damage evolution law in damage
mechanics, as well as Eq. (2), the elastic modulus of the
damaged element at different stress or strain levels can be
calculated. The unloaded element keeps its original elastic
modulus and strength. That is to say, the element will
unload elastically and no residual deformation is incorpo-
rated in the element.
When modelling using RFPA2D the model is loaded in
a quasi-static fashion. At each loading step the stress field
is first examined and those elements that are stressed
beyond the pre-defined strength threshold levels are
assumed to be irreversibly damaged [the tensile stress (or
strain) criterion is used first to determine whether an ele-
ment is damaged. If the element is not damaged in tensile
mode, the Mohr–Coulomb criterion is then used to deter-
mine whether the element is damaged in shear]. The
stiffness and strength of the damaged elements are degra-
ded. The model, with its associated new parameters, is then
Fig. 4 Verification model with
horizontally oriented strata
84m
70m
5m
1169
re-analysed. The next load increment is added only when
there are no more elements strained beyond the strength-
threshold corresponding to the equilibrium stress field and
a compatible strain field. The model iterates to follow the
evolution of failure along a stress path in pseudo-time.
When modelling using RFPA2D elements whose ultimate
tensile capacity has been reached are displayed as cracks
with black colour in the post-processing figures. This
approach for simulating cracks is similar to a smeared crack
model, i.e., the crack is smeared over the whole element and
no special singular element is used for the finite element
analysis of these mesoscopic elements; this greatly simplifies
simulations of crack initiation, propagation and coalescence.
In recent years, with the advances in computers, an
increasing number of researchers have attempted to use a
similar principle in solving discontinuous problems through
2011). One of the main features of this model is that there is
no need for a pre-existing crack to simulate crack initiation
and propagation. The advantage is that the mesh topology is
left untouched (Pietruszczak and Mróz 1981; Pietruszczak
and Xu 1995; Pearce et al. 2000). A similar principle was also
addressed and applied in modelling rock/concrete damage
behaviours (Pietruszczak and Xu 1995; Fang and Harrison
2002; Ma et al. 2011; Pan et al. 2012, 2014).
A basic verification of RFPA2D’s capability
in modelling mining-induced strata movement
RFPA2D has been successfully applied in modelling of
hydraulic fracturing, tunnel and slope failures and water
outbursts in coal mines (Tang et al. 2002; Li et al. 2009,
2011, 2013). Before modelling block caving a simple model,
as shown in Fig. 4, is first setup to verify the RFPA2D’s
capabilities. The model is assumed to be composed of hor-
izontally layered stratum with each stratum having different
physical properties. The model is discretised into a mesh that
contains 30,000 elements with a size of 300 9 100 m. The
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
6m
9
10
11
Advance direction 12
123
1170 L. C. Li et al.

Table 1 Physico-mechanical Rock Homogeneity Young’s UCS, UTS, Poisson’s Density, Stratum
parameters employed in the strata index, m modulus, fc0/MPa ft0/MPa ratio, m q/(kg m-3) thickness,
verification example E0/GPa T/m

1 3.0 6 50 5 0.25 2,480 7

2 3.0 8 60 6 0.25 2,650 10
3 3.0 10 60 6 0.25 2,560 8
4 3.0 2 36 3.6 0.28 2,560 8
5 3.0 8 50 5 0.25 2,560 8
6 3.0 4 45 4.5 0.25 2,600 10
7 3.0 8 30 3 0.28 2,500 12
8 3.0 6 20 2 0.3 2,500 10
9 3.0 4 20 2 0.3 2,600 9
10 3.0 1.5 5 0.5 0.3 2,500 2
11 3.0 1 33 3.3 0.3 1,400 6
12 3.0 10 100 10 0.24 2,500 10

whole model is loaded with the self-weight of overburden
strata. The top of the model is set as a free boundary.
Normal displacements are constrained on the right, left and
bottom boundaries. To clearly show the effect of mining
activity on overlying strata movement the evolutionary
process of strata movement in this verification model is
simulated under step-by-step excavation. The thickness of
the stratum (No. 11) to be excavated in this model is 6 m.
For each step the excavation is advanced approximately 5 m
and the model is solved in a quasi-static fashion to reach an
equilibrium state. The mechanical parameters employed in
the modelling are listed in Table 1.
Figure 5 shows the dynamic process of overburden
strata movement with the step-by-step advancement of the
working face. The elastic modulus and shear stress distri-
bution of four representative excavation steps is illustrated
in Fig. 5. The grey scale in these pictures reflects the
magnitude of the elastic modulus and shear stress. The
brighter the element appears, the higher the elastic modulus
or shear stress. When the working face advances a distance
of 20 m the immediate roof is directly exposed to the
mined cavity and bends and subsides towards the working
space under the action of self-weight. Finally, the imme-
diate roof begins to separate from the overlying strata, as
shown in Fig. 5a-1. With further excavation the movement
of overburden strata becomes obvious as the span of the
suspending rock beam increases. Some cracks appear at the
heads and the middle bottom of the immediate roof. When
the advancing distance reaches 50 m the rock beam attains
its maximum suspending span and the beam fails and
collapses into the excavated cavity, as illustrated in
Fig. 5a-2. In the following the periodic movement stage
occurs when the stratum movement similar to the first
movement process of bending, subsiding, separating and
falling from the upper strata is repeated in the excavation
process. With advancing the newly produced roof can be
considered as a cantilever beam. Under the self-weight of
the rock strata the cantilever deflects and sags. One end of
the cantilever above the rear area of the working face falls
onto the previously collapsed rock mass. Then the canti-
lever caves when the other end has been cut off.
The evolutionary process of strata movement is impos-
sible to observe in practice. As an alternative method,
physical modelling of subsidence behaviour has been
extensively employed in studying the development of
fractures associated with strata movement (Whittaker et al.
1990; Tang et al. 2003; Lin et al. 2013). In physical
modelling the failure criteria and post-failure behaviour are
automatically taken into account by using a direct physi-
cally equivalent material. The main advantage of the
method is the fact that it can obtain visual impact in terms
of showing fracture patterns and strata movement. To make
a qualitative comparison the physical modelling results
based on physically equivalent material are presented in
Fig. 6. It is shown that the failure pattern shown in Fig. 5 is
consistent with these physical results. Fracture initiation,
propagation, stress distribution and failure-induced stress
redistribution are clearly observed in the numerical results,
as shown in Fig. 5b.
Numerical analysis of caving-induced strata movement
and surface subsidence
Background problem definition and modelling strategy
Ground surface subsidence and associated cracking is the
product of a complex rock mass response to caving. This
response involves complex kinematic mechanisms and com-
prises widespread tension, and shear failure of the rock mass
along both existing discontinuities and through intact rock

123
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface subsidence
(a-1) Advancing distance: 20m (b-1)
(a-2) Advancing distance: 50m (b-2)
(a-3) Advancing distance: 75m (b-3)
(a-4) Advancing distance: 115m (b-4)
Fig. 5 Numerically-obtained strata movement in the verification example. a Failure mode shown with modulus; b maximum shear stress
evolution
bridges. To investigate such a complex process a demon-
stration model as shown in Fig. 7 was proposed by CEMI
(2010b). In this model it is crucial that modelling is conducted
assuming caving to the surface, i.e., there is no existing open
pit above the zone of caving. Draw from the cave will be via a
panel method; therefore, we assume three panels drawn from
South to North and that : (a) all three panels are of equal size;
(b) the height of the undercut access is 3.8 m; and (c) draw
rates will be uniform across the footprint.
From an environmental standpoint most underground
methods have the advantage of creating less waste rock
than open pit mining (the exception to this would be if the
deposit were entirely exposed on the surface. In this
instance open pit mining may be environmentally prefer-
able to block caving). The primary disadvantage of block
caving is that it removes much of the supporting rock from
underneath the overburden, which often leads to subsi-
dence of the surface. The area of subsidence is usually
greater than the caved block but not as deep because it is
usually partly filled with collapsed rock from above the
1171
cave block. In the demonstration model shown in Fig. 7 the
mining environment is considered to be a porphyry type
deposit with rock properties as follows and as presenterd in
Table 2. The ore is brittle with post-peak strength loss. The
ore body boundaries are not explicitly specified and there
are three faults, i.e., north fault, south fault and west fault,
as shown in Fig. 7. Undoubtedly, the existence of faults has
an important impact on failure mode. When a mining face
encounters a significant fault with a moderate to steep dip
movement will occur on the fault regardless of the cave
angle through intact rock (Song et al. 2010; Vyazmensky
et al. 2010b; Villegas et al. 2011). However, the main focus
of modelling analysis in this study is to determine the
failure mode at varying initial caving depths. Analyses are
carried out to (1) determine surface subsidence profiles at
varying caving initiation depths to a total depth of 2,500 m
in 500 m increments, and (2) determine at each depth
increment the (a) break angle, (b) fracture initiation angle
(the limit [0.5 m subsidence is selected), and (c) subsi-
dence angle (Unlike caving into an existing open pit,
123
1172
Fig. 6 Failure mode of physical modeling using physically equiva-
lent materials (Tang et al. 2003)
caving to surface is particularly relevant for environmental
reasons and where surface structures or points of interest
could be impacted. A more rigid subsidence limit is nee-
ded. In this model the limit[2 mm subsidence is selected).
Therefore, the effect of slippage along the faults is not
considered and the faults are assumed to be a perfectly
bonded interface (strong interface) between adjacent ore
bodies. The impact of a fault on failure mode will be dis-
cussed further in ‘‘Impact of faults on surface
disturbances’’.
Model setup
Based on the demonstration model, the block caving-
induced rock failure process is simulated by RFPA2D in
this study. Five initial caving depths, 500, 1,000, 1,500,
2,000 and 2,500 m, are selected. Figure 8 shows configu-
ration of the model with an initial caving depth at 1,500 m.
The model discretised zone size is 6,000 9 2,000 m,
123
L. C. Li et al.
which is the main area of interest. The model has been
discretised into a mesh with 750,000 elements.
The top surface is set as free. Normal displacements are
constrained on the right, left and bottom boundaries. The
draw is simulated by taking away the rock mass in the
undercut zone step by step until caving develops to the
surface. For each step a rock mass 3.8 m in height and
1,500 m in length (the length of undercut) is excavated and
the model is solved in a quasi-static fashion to reach an
equilibrium state. Plain strain is assumed for all
calculations.
To determine the fragmentary characteristics of the rock
mass randomly generated joint sets are included in the
model. The average length of the joints is approximately
400 m and the average spacing of the joints is approxi-
mately 100 m. We are compelled to point out that in
RFPA2D a certain type of material is employed to repre-
sent the joints, i.e., the joint is assumed to be a ‘‘weak
material’’ with lower strength and stiffness.
The analysis and microstructural observations conducted
by Wong et al. (2006) required the Weibull parameter m to be
greater than 2.0, but fall within the typical range of
m = 2.0–6.0 reported for engineering materials (McClin-
tock and Argon 1966). Using RFPA2D, a series of numerical
models with different homogeneity indices had been built to
conduct tests on uniaxial compressive strength of rock
samples. It has been shown that a homogeneity index ranging
from 1.2 to 5.0 is common for rock (Liu et al. 2004).
Therefore, we selected the Weibull parameter m = 3.0 to
describe the heterogeneous material properties of rock mass
in this study. In addition, it is assumed that Young’s modulus
and strength properties conform to individual distributions
with the same homogeneity index, which means that all of
the parameters vary independently. The homogeneity index
only determines the degree of homogeneity, not the inde-
pendence of variability. The parameters employed in this
model are listed in Table 2.
Numerical results
Caving process
Figure 9 shows numerical results presented with an elastic
modulus. The dark elements represent the nucleated flaw.
Fractures form by connection of flaws. The numerically
obtained failure process shows that an extensive subsidence
mode forming a topographic depression on the surface
(subsidence trough) is observed. The subsidence is large in
the central area and decreases progressively towards the
sides.
Numerical results clearly demonstrate the caving pro-
cess, revealing the failure scale and failure mode of the
strata are dominated not only by the drawing activity but
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface subsidence 1173

Fig. 7 Configuration of the

demonstration model

(a) the ore bodies and undercut panels

(b) the configuration along section A-B

Table 2 Parameters employed Rhyolite Quartz- Sandstone and Biotite Joints

in the demonstration model monzodiorite Siltstone granodiorite
simulation
Homogeneity index, m 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 5.0
UCS, fc0/MPa 205 140 125 145 15
UTS, ft0/MPa 20.5 14 12.5 14.5 1.5
Young’s modulus, E0/GPa 60 50 40 55 1
Poisson’s ratio,m 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.23 0.35
Density, q/(kg m-3) 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 1,000
Residual strength 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
coefficient, k
Ultimate strain 10 10 10 10 5
coefficient, g

also by joints and rock bridges. Figure 10 shows the stress
evolution during the fracturing process. The shading
intensity indicates the relative magnitude of the maximum
shear stress within the elements. The stress concentration
initially appeared at the tips of the joints and at undercut
ends. During the drawing process it is shown that the
macro-fractures result in an evident stress concentration
around the newly-generated fracture tips. The concentra-
tion area (brighter) extends upwards with the propagating
fractures (Fig. 10b).
Because the variation in failure mode is highly sensitive
to the fragmented nature of the rock mass, the connected

123
1174 L. C. Li et al.

Fig. 8 Model for numerical x Randomly distributed joint sets

O
modeling (the case with an
initial undercut depth of z
1,500 m)

2250m

500m

3.8m
undercut

Fig. 9 Failure process of the case with an undercut depth of 1,500 m

123
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface subsidence
(a)
Pressure-balancing arch
(b)
(c)
Local tension failure
induced by boundary
effect
(d)
Fig. 10 Stress evolution in the case with an undercut depth of 1,500 m
fracture pathway is not straight but flexural, and the frac-
ture surface is rough. In reality there are two types of
failure for different materials: high-stress failure and low-
strength failure. In a homogeneous material failure begins
at the high-stress site, whereas in heterogeneous material,
e.g., rock, failure may start at the weaker locations because
of the presence of pores, micro-fractures, joints, grain
boundaries, etc. Heterogeneity is the main reason for fail-
ure that occurs in locations where the stress is not neces-
sarily the greatest. Therefore, strong interaction between
1175
Pressure-balancing arch
Pressure-balancing arch
Pressure-balancing arch
Pressure-balancing arch
the isolated fractures in this high-stress field causes the
fractures to propagate in a complicated manner.
Once the intensity of the stress concentration in a caved
zone of roof strata is released a stress shadow area (the
stress-released zone presented with a greyer colour) and a
pressure-balancing arch (the zone presented with brighter
colour) above the caved zone are apparent (Fig. 10b). The
pressure-balancing arch formation and dissipation process
is the evolution of the stress field and can be clearly
observed in the numerical calculations. The pressure-
123
1176 L. C. Li et al.

balancing arch must be broken for caving to continue. In
practice there are two approaches to destroy the pressure-
balancing arch: one is to conduct a certain excavation to
force the support points of the pressure-balancing arch to
move forward (just like the model in the verification
example shown in Fig. 5); the other is to continue drawing
to force the support points to move up. In this demon-
stration model the second approach, continuous drawing, is
employed to destroy the pressure-balancing arch. With the
drawing process the forming and breaking of pressure-
balancing arch is periodically repeated. The stratum
movement, including bending, subsiding, separating, and
falling from the upper strata, is also periodically repeated.
During a cycle more than one pressure-balancing arche can
be formed simultaneously.
In the caving process of metal mines the caving of roof
strata was usually characterised by periodic failure (Goel
and Page 1982; Song et al. 2010; Villegas et al. 2011). Its

Existed
joints

Newly generated
fractures in rock bridges
(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)
Fig. 11 Damage evolution in the case with an undercut depth of 1,500 m (presented with acoustic emission, AE)

123
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface subsidence 1177

basic development process can be summarised as: slowly Ground surface subsidence
caving (or caving stop) ? sudden caving (or accelerated
caving) ? slowly caving (or caving stop) ? suddenly Field data, e.g., GPS and DInSAR data, would be very
caving (or accelerated caving) ? surface subsidence. useful in the investigation of ground surface subsidence.
Usually before the sudden caving and collapse of the sur- However, subsidence monitoring in the field was not car-
face the phenomenon of slow caving or ‘‘stopped caving’’ ried out in this study. Therefore, only numerical results are
is observed and will last a long time. Therefore, it is clearly presented to predict the variation of ground surface subsi-
shown dynamic evolution of the pressure-balancing arch is dence. Figure 12 represents numerically obtained surface
an intrinsic result of periodic failure. As long as there is an subsidence for different undercut depths at 500, 1,000,
intact pressure-balancing arch the rock mass will not 1,500, 2,000 and 2,500 m. As observed in this figure, the
completely cave to the surface until all of the pressure- area of influence of the trough increases with the depth of
balancing arches are broken. the drawing excavation. Maximum vertical displacements
In the caving process fracture initiation always starts are produced in the central area. Subsidence decreases as
from the joints and propagates into the rock bridges. the distance from the central area increases, tending to
Almost all the pressure-balancing arches are formed along reach zero when this distance is sufficiently large. The
randomly distributed rock bridges. Since the rock mass in corresponding damage mode of the five cases (presented
the demonstration model is a quasi-brittle material with a with an acoustic emission (AE) distribution) with different
high strength after a rock element is damaged there will be undercut depth is given in Fig. 13. In this study the break
a large loss of strength and an evident stress drop. Once one angle of the surface can be obtained based on the damage
or several key rock bridges within a pressure-balancing mode.
arch are destroyed the pressure-balancing arch will be Recent attempts at relating surface subsidence to
immediately broken. Figure 11 shows damage evolution underground mining make use of the concept of a subsi-
within the whole model (red points indicate tension fail- dence trough (Villegas et al. 2011). A subsidence trough
ures, white points indicate shear failures), in which the forms as a gentle depression over a large area. The concept
partially-enlarged view in Fig. 11a clearly reveals the takes into account one of the most important observed facts
failure process of an intact rock bridge. Understanding the regarding subsidence, namely that the surface area affected
sequence of the geotechnical precursors in the caving is larger than the mined area. Locations of subsidence
process is an essential aspect of a successful geotechnical [0.002 m and subsidence [0.5 m are marked on Fig. 12.
monitoring program that allows for timely adjustment of According to these locations, the angles of subsidence and
mine design and implementation of remedial measures. fracture initiation are directly calculated and also marked

Subsidence >0.5m

1050m, 1380m,
64.4° 66.5°

Distance (m)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1 230m,
-1.5 50.6°
Surface subsidence (m)

-2
-2.5
-3 200m,
undercut depth = 500 m
-3.5 45°
-4 1710m,
-4.5 490m, undercut depth = 1000 m
-5
70.3°
40.5°
-5.5 undercut depth = 1500 m
-6
725m, 1900m,
-6.5 70.8° undercut depth = 2000 m
-7 33.4°
-7.5 2150m,
-8 900m, undercut depth = 2500 m
-8.5 20.5° 78.7°
-9

Subsidence >0.002m Subsidence >0.5m

Fig. 12 Deformation of the model surface

123
1178 L. C. Li et al.

Fig. 13 Final damage mode of

all cases with different undercut Break angle
depths (D)

(a) D=500m

(b) D=1000m

(c) D=1500m

(d) D=2000m

(e) D=2500m

123
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface subsidence
90
80
70
Angles (Degree)
60
50
40
30 Fracture initiation angle
Break angle
20
Subsidence angle
10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Undercut depth (m)
Fig. 14 Variations of break angles, fracture initiation angles and
subsidence angles with varying undercut depths
on Fig. 12. Then the variation of break, fracture initiation
and subsidence angle are plotted in Fig. 14. The general
trend is consistent with the findings of previous studies
(Lupo 1998). Fracture initiation and break angles decrease
with an increasing initial caving depth. Notably, the frac-
ture initiation angle is relatively large for the model with an
initial caving depth D = 500 m. In near-surface mining it
is relatively easy to cave to the surface without a wide
surface depression; the fracture initiation angle is closer to
the break angle. The subsidence zone is the buffer zone
between a rock mass in equilibrium and a rock mass in
failure. Surface disturbances within this zone are caused by
changes in the stress field. Displacements in this zone are
relatively small and consist of horizontal movements in the
direction of the mine and vertical movements as the surface
subsides. The subsidence angle in this study generally
increases with the increase of initial caving depth; how-
ever, the subsidence angle curve is convex in shape, which
indicates that with an increase of mining depth, the surface
impacts get smaller. This finding is consistent with the
results proposed by Brown (2003).
Impact of faults on surface disturbances
Another model was built to better understand the impact of
faults on subsidence angles and surface subsidence. For a
two-dimensional simulation the north and south faults
along section A–B are considered. In this case the included
north and south faults illustrated in Fig. 7 are defined as
severely weak interfaces. Figure 15 presents numerical
results of the failure process for this case. The broken rock
mass is concentrated between the south and north faults.
Because the ore body between the north and south faults is
a huge trapezoidal block the tensile stress or frictional force
cannot be effectively transmitted to the surrounding rock
mass beyond the trapezoidal block; and strata movement
1179
only occurred along the faults regardless of the cave angle
through intact rock. As a result, besides surface subsidence,
there is no evident fracture initiation beyond the faults.
However, with continuous caving potential failure may
come into being at the hanging wall zone. The hanging
wall failure zone is the area bounded on one side by the
caved rock zone and the other side by the surface subsi-
dence zone. As shown in Fig. 15c, discrete damage (pre-
sented with randomly distributed AE event) has already
formed in this area. Surface disturbances in this zone may
consist largely of surface cracks, sinkholes and shear dis-
placements. The shape of the hanging wall failure zone
shown in Fig. 15c is conceptualised as a planar shear sur-
face that intersects a tension crack near the surface and the
active mining level at depth. This geometry is similar to
that proposed by Hoek (1974) and Brown and Ferguson
(1979) for sites with comparable hanging wall failures.
Numerical results indicate in the case of critical geo-
logic structures (e.g., apparent large-scale faults), the pri-
mary failure mechanism occurs along pre-existing geologic
structures as well as through intact rock in the caved zone;
with shear failure, toppling and wedge failures are present
as potential secondary mechanisms. Numerical results
showed that hanging wall and footwall rock mass failure is
closely linked to mining activity, movements of caved rock
and the presence of geologic structures.
Conclusions and discussion
In this study a demonstration model was used to investigate
strata movement during the caving process. The RFPA2D,
based on a finite element technique incorporating an elas-
tic-brittle fracture mechanics constitutive criterion, was
utilised in the analysis of block caving-induced step-path
failure development in a large-scale model. This approach
allows for physically realistic modelling of block caving
through simulation of the transition from a continuum to a
discontinuum. Fracture initiation, propagation, coales-
cence, breaking of intact rock bridge and the evolution of a
pressure-balancing arch in the stressed strata are repre-
sented visually during the whole caving process. The
phenomenological approach provides supplementary
information on the stress distribution and failure-induced
stress redistribution, and shows in detail propagation of the
fracture zone and the interaction of the fractures sur-
rounding the mining stope. This fracture modelling can
provide insight into the evolution of fractured zones
impossible to observe in the field and difficult to consider
with static stress analysis approaches.
Caving of roof strata was usually characterised by
periodic failure. Numerical results indicate the dynamic
evolution of the pressure-balancing arch is the intrinsic
123
1180 L. C. Li et al.

a trapezoidal block

(a) failure mode presented with elastic modulus

(b) failure mode presented with maximum shear stress

Hanging wall zone

North fault South fault

(c) failure mode presented with acoustic emission (AE)

Fig. 15 Caving failure mode when the faults were taken into consideration (in this case, the undercut depth is 1,500 m)

motivation of periodic failure. As long as there is an intact
pressure-balancing arch the rock mass will not completely
cave to the surface until all of the pressure-balancing
arches are broken. Based on numerical results, the impacts
of block caving on the surface, including subsidence pro-
files, break angles, initiation angles and subsidence angles
at different initial caving depths, were illustrated.
Although natural cases are often much more complex
than numerical models considered here, the study addres-
sed complex rock mass responses to caving. This response
comprises global failure of the rock mass in both tension
and compression along existing discontinuities and through
intact rock bridges. It appears that the essence of a rock
mass response during caving is the key to successful ana-
lysis of surface subsidence. Based on the modelling results,
many factors associated with block caving still need be
considered in the future. For example: (a) the impact of
volumetric swelling (or bulk expansion) of a collapsed rock
mass during block caving will be included and studied,
because the volumetric swelling of collapsed rock mass can
presumably influence the periodic failure mode and the
magnitude of ground subsidence (Kemeny and Cook 1986;
Li et al. 2010); (b) in order to more accurately capture the
fracturing pattern and subsidence topography the simula-
tion of block caving-related subsidence in 3D is needed.
However, 3D simulation in the case of a large geometrical
domain requires fine mesh discretisation resulting in
extensive computational times, making this approach not
currently feasible to run on personal computers (PC). As
such, modelling based on high-performance computing
(HPC) or parallel processing technique is necessary.
Although detailed and realistic mine scale block caving
modelling in 3D has yet to be achieved, a few 3D models
based on parallel processing techniques have been applied

123
Block caving-induced strata movement and associated surface subsidence
in the small-scale modelling of geotechnical engineering
(Blaheta et al. 2006; Vyazmensky et al. 2010b; Li et al.
2012). Such application of this technique is very encour-
aging; (c) characterisation of joints in the model should be
more clearly presented. All the parameters related to joints,
such as density, orientation, mechanical properties, etc.,
have an important effect on the caving process. Although it
is hard for a geological engineer to accurately provide these
parameters, particularly on a large scale, it is important for
numerical prediction of surface subsidence.
Acknowledgments The study presented in this paper was jointly
supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 51279024) and the National Basic Research Pro-
gramme of China (Grant No. 2014CB047103). The work was also
partially supported by CEMI’s caving project, Canada. The authors
are grateful for these supports.
References
Beck D, Arndt S, Thin I, Stone C, Butcher R (2006) A conceptual
sequence for a block cave in an extreme stress and deformation
environment. In: Proceedings of third international seminar on
deep and high stress mining, Quebec City, pp 1–16
Blaheta R, Byczanski P, Jakl O, Kohut R, Kolcun A, Krecmer K,
Stary J (2006) Large-scale parallel FEM computations of far/
near stress field changes in rocks. Future Gener Computer Syst
22:449–459
Brown ET (2003) Block caving geomechanics. The international
caving study stage1 1997–2001. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre, University of Queensland
Brown ET, Ferguson GA (1979) Prediction of progressive hanging
wall caving, Gath’s mine, Rhodesia. Trans Inst Min Metall
A88:92–105
CEMI (2010a) A proposal for caving project—phase I. Centre for
Excellence in Mining Innovation (CEMI), Sudbury
CEMI (2010b) Caving project parameters—phase II. Centre for
Excellence in Mining Innovation (CEMI), Sudbury
Fang Z, Harrison JP (2002) Development of a local degradation
approach to the modelling of brittle fracture in heterogeneous
rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:443–457
Gilbride LJ, Free KS, Kehrman R (2005) Modeling block cave
subsidence at the Molycorp, Inc., Questa Mine. In: Proceedings
of 40th US symposium on rock mechanic, Anchorage, pp 1–14
Goel SC, Page CH (1982) An empirical method for predicting the
probability of chimney cave occurrence over a mining area. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 19:325–337
Hoek E (1974) Progressive caving induced by mining an inclined
orebody. Trans Instn Min Metall A83:133–140
Kemeny J, Cook NGW (1986) Effective moduli, non-linear defor-
mation and strength of a cracked elastic solid. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 23(2):107–118
Li H, Brummer R (2005) Analysis of pit wall failure mechanism and
assessment of long-term stability of pit walls Palabora mine.
Itasca Consulting Canada Ltd Technical report, Minnesota
Li LC, Tang CA, Zhu WC (2009) Numerical analysis of slope
stability based on the gravity increase method. Computer
Geotech 36:1246–1258
Li LC, Tang CA, Liang ZZ (2010) Investigation on overburden strata
collapse around coal face considering effect of broken expansion
of rock. Rock Soil Mech 31(11):3537–3541
1181
Li LC, Yang TH, Liang ZZ, Tang CA (2011) Numerical investigation
of groundwater outbursts near faults in underground coal mines.
Int J Coal Geol 85(3):276–288
Li LC, Tang CA, Li G, Wang SY, Liang ZZ, Zhang YB (2012)
Numerical simulation of 3D hydraulic fracturing based on an
improved flow-stress-damage model and a parallel FEM tech-
nique. Rock Mech Rock Eng 45:801–818
Li LC, Tang CA, Wang SY, Yu J (2013) A coupled thermo-
hydrologic-mechanical damage model and associated application
in a stability analysis on a rock pillar. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol
34:38–53
Lin P, Zhou Y, Liu H, Wang C (2013) Reinforcement design and
stability analysis for large-span tailrace bifurcated tunnels with
irregular geometry. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 38(9):189–204
Liu HY, Roquete M, Kou SQ, Lindqvist PA (2004) Characterization
of rock heterogeneity and numerical verification. Eng Geol 72:
89–119
Lupo JF (1997) Progressive failure of hanging wall and footwall
Kiirunavaara mine, Sweden. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
34:184.e1–186.e11
Lupo JF (1998) Large-scale surface disturbances resulting from
underground mass mining. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35:399
Ma GW, Wang XJ, Ren F (2011) Numerical simulation of compres-
sive failure of heterogeneous rock-like materials using SPH
method. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48:353–363
McClintock FA, Argon AS (1966) Mechanical behavior of materials.
Addison-Wesley, Reading, p 770
Pan PZ, Yan F, Feng XT (2012) Modeling the cracking process of
rocks from continuity to discontinuity using a cellular autom-
aton. Computers Geosci 42:87–99
Pan PZ, Rutqvist J, Feng XT, Yan F (2014) An approach for modeling
rock discontinuous mechanical behavior under multiphase fluid
flow conditions. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:589–603
Pearce CJ, Thavalingam A, Liao Z, Bicanic N (2000) Computational
aspects of the discontinuous deformation analysis framework for
modeling concrete fracture. Eng Fract Mech 65:283–298
Pietruszczak S, Mróz Z (1981) Finite element analysis of deformation
of strain-softening materials. Int J Numer Method Eng 17:
327–334
Pietruszczak S, Xu G (1995) Brittle response of concrete as a
localization problem. Int J Solid Struct 32:1517–1533
Singh UK, Stephansson OJ, Herdocia A (1993) Simulation of
progressive failure in hangingwall and foot wall for mining
with sub level caving. Trans Instn Min Metall A102:188–194
Song WD, Du JH, Yin XP, Tang GY (2010) Caving mechanism of
hangingwall rock and rules of surface subsidence due to no-pillar
sub-level caving method in an iron mine. J China Coal Soc
35(7):1078–1083
Szwedzicki T (2001) Geotechnical precursors to large-scale ground
collapse in mines. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 38:957–965
Tang CA, Liu H, Lee PKK, Tsui Y, Tham LG (2000) Numerical
studies of the influence of microstructure on rock failure in
uniaxial compression—part I: effect of heterogeneity. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 37:555–569
Tang CA, Tham LG, Lee PKK, Yang TH, Li LC (2002) Coupled
analysis of flow, stress and damage (FSD) in rock failure. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 39(4):477–489
Tang CA, Yu GM, Liu HY (2003) Numerical test on mining-induced
rock fracture and strata movement. Jilin University Press,
Changchun, pp 3–7
Van As A (2003) Subsidence definitions for block caving mines.
Technical report. Rio Tinto Technical Services, Sydney, p 59
Villegas T, Nordlund E, Dahner-Lindqvist C (2011) Hangingwall
surface subsidence at the Kiirunavaara mine. Swed Eng Geol
121(1–2):18–27
123
1182
Vyazmensky A, Stead D, Elmo D, Moss A (2010a) Numerical
analysis of block caving-induced instability in large open pit
slopes: a finite element/discrete element approach. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 43:21–39
Vyazmensky A, Elmo D, Stead D (2010b) Role of rock mass fabric
and faulting in the development of Block caving-induced surface
subsidence. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:533–556
Weibull W (1951) A statistical distribution function of wide
applicability. J Appl Mech 18:293–297
Whittaker BN, Gaskell P, Reddish DJ (1990) Subsurface ground
strain and fracture development associated with longwall
mining. Min Sci Technol 10:71–80
Wong TF, Wong RHC, Chau KT, Tang CA (2006) Microcrack
statistics, Weibull distribution and micromechanical modeling of
compressive failure in rock. Mech Mater 38:664–681
123
L. C. Li et al.
Woo K, Eberhardt E, Van As A (2009) Characterization and
empirical analysis of Block caving-induced surface subsidence
and macro deformations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd CANUS
rock mechanics symposium, Toronto, pp 1–10
Wu JH, Ohnishi Y, Nishiyama S (2004) Simulation of the mechanical
behavior of inclined jointed rock masses during tunnel con-
struction using discontinuous deformation analysis (DDA). Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 41:731–743
Zuo JP, Li HT, Xie HP, Ju Y, Peng SP (2008) A nonlinear strength
criterion for rock- like materials based on fracture mechanics. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci 45:594–599