Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    UBC Mining Method Selection

    Uploaded by

    sunny
    an advance mining method selection process for metal mines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    UBC Mining Method Selection

    Uploaded by

    sunny
    4K views6 pages
    an advance mining method selection process for metal mines.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    an advance mining method selection process for metal mines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    4K views6 pages

    UBC Mining Method Selection

    Uploaded by

    sunny
    an advance mining method selection process for metal mines.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 6
    He ay ares CUNPETH eR 199, OMY ele (BUS) IYYO BAIKEMA, MOReraAM. KSLA YU94 1U D090 UBC mining method selection L.Miller-Tait, R.Pakalnis & R.Poulin University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C, Canada ABSTRACT: The only selection technique that uses a numerical basis to evaluate the suitability of a mining ‘method is the Nicholas approach. This paper provides an empirically derived modification to the Nicholas approach in an attempt to use his numerical procedure for analyzing the selection process. As with the Nicholas approach, this selection process is only a preliminary analysis identifying the more likely and favourable mining method. It is not an analysis to determine the final method selected and should be considered during the preliminary feasibility stage. The Nicholas method with ground support and monitoring techniques, The UBC selection process is listed below The Nicholas method numerically ranks deposit Unmacterisies of ore geomety and rock mechanics characteristics of the ore zone, footwall and hanging wall, The rankings are then summed together with the higher rankings being the more UBC mining method selection 1) general shape/width favourable or likely mining methods. tach °a¥s-dimensional_—_—_ all dimensions are on ranking consists of a number “0 to 4” or “49”, the same order of 49” completely efiminates a mining method from ‘magnitude boing feasible. A value of “0” strongly suggests Plsty-tabular two dimensions are that this characteristic makes that particular ‘many times the thickness, which does not usually exceed 351 inregular dimensions vary over short distances ‘mining technique less attractive. ‘The value of “1 or 2” indicates that @ characteristic should not have a negative impact on a method. A ranking of “3 or 4” indicates a very favourable characteristic, for that particular mining method. ‘The rock 2) ore thickness mechanics characeristics are scaled with a very narrow <3m weighting factors scale according to ore zone, narrow 3-10 m hanging wall, or footwall. This system provides a intermediate 10-30 m quantitative approach far selecting a mining thick 30-100 m method. very thick 100m UBC mining method selection 3) plunge flat <20 degrees The UBC approach is simply a modified version _ intermediate 20 - $5 degrees ofthe Nicholas approach. This numbering system ste 55 degrees follows a very similar pattem to the Nicholas method. A value, -10, was introduced to strongly 4) depth below surface discount a method without totally eliminating it as shallow 0-100 m with the 49 value. Moreover, the rock mechanics intermediate 100-600 m ratings were adjusted to reflect improvements deep 600 m 13 5) grade distribution 6)rock mass ratings: very weak 0-20 uuiform = the grade at any point in the deposit weak 20-40 dloes not vary significantly from the mean grade moderate 40-60 for that deposit strong 60-80 pradational - grade values have zonal very strong 80-100 characteristics, and the grades change gradually from one to another. 7) rock substance strength: very weak <5 erratic ~ grade values change radically over short (anianial strengthiprincipal stress) weak 5-10 distances and do not exhibit any discemible moderate 10-13 patra in their changes. strong >19 Ranking of geometry/grade distribution for different mining methods mining general grade method shape ‘ore thickness ore plunge distribution depth MVP 1 VNN I TV? FT S$ 0 GE HID open pitminng 4 2°35 1 2 3 4 4 3°31 3 3 24 0-49 block caving = 42-0 -40-400«3 482 4 3 2 2 23 sublevel stoping 3 4 1 -101 3 4 3 214 443 3 42 sublevel caving 3 4 1 49-490 4 4 1 14 3.2.2 3.22 longwall mining -49 4-49 4 3 0-49-49 4 0-49 4 10 2 23 roomendpillar 0 4 2 4 3 1-49-49 4 0-49 4 20 3 3 2 shrinkage stoping 0 4 2 4 4 0 49-49-49 0 4 3°22 3 3 2 cu&fillsoping 1 4 4 3 4 4 10 13 4 2354 2534 top slicing 120 11021 420211 2141 ‘square setstoping 0 1 4 4 3 2 0 0 2 3 2 0 13 112 M= massive VN=verynarrow F = flat U=uniform $= shallow TiP=tabular narrow I= intermediate G = gradational I = intermediate or platy I= intermediate S ~ steep erratic D~ deep I= irregular T= thick VP-= very thick Rock mechanics characteristics Rock mass ratings, smining method ore zone hanging wall footwall vww MS VS VW WM 8 VS _vwW M_S vs ‘open pit mining 33333 23444 23 444 block caving 43.2049 33 322 333.22 sublevelsopng 91 3 4 4 4 4903 4 4 00233 sublevel caving 34310 44322 12333 Jongwallmining 6 6 4.22 65433 +--+ +--+ = roomandpilar = 49:0 3 $6 4903 5 6 - - = = = shrinkage stoping «©9200 «1s 333-0 0 2 4 4 0 02 3 3 cout and fll 01233 35433 33222 top slicing 32110 00233 00122 “square set 44100 44100 3 1000 RMR ratings: = VW=0-20, W=20-40, M=40-60, Vs = 80-100 164 Rock substance strength mining method ore zone hanging wall footwall vwwwoMs vwWwMs vwwM Ss ‘open pit mining 43°33 3344 334 4 block caving 4210 43.20 4321 sublevel stoping, Gea o14s 0133 sublevel caving 2332 432.1 1222 Jongwall mining, 6521 6522 Beas room and pillar e056 0026 ee shrinkage stoping = 0-134 o134 0233 cut and fill 0133 35 42 13°22 top sticing 392 10 Bee 2 2200 ‘square set 43.10 4210 32 v0 RSS ratings VW = very weak, W = weak, M = medium, $ = strong. Nicholas approach modifications ‘The UBC version modifies all rankings and cach characteristic except grade distribution and plunge The Nicholas approach was modified in an attempt to put more emphasis on stope mining rather than mass mining techniques such as caving. The reason for this is that most Canadian ‘underground mines utilize open stoping, room and pillar, or cut and fil mining techniques. Table 1 fists the mining methods used during 1994 in Canada. Table I. Mining methods utilized by Canadian mines. (source; 1994 Canadian Mines Handbook) iniving method approximate ‘open stoping. 52% cut an Gill 20% room and pillar 14% sublevel caving 3% Improved rock support techniques, mouitosing, and the use of remote operated equipment now make it possible to mine by open stoping techniques rather than caving in poor ground conditions. For example, Detour Lake Mine successfully utilizes a sub-level retreat method of open stoping using remote operated scoop trams (Pakalnis 1995). Moreover, as caving deposits require extensive rock mechanics and geotechnical analysis, this first pass approach would not justify recommending block caving or sublevel caving ‘until further evaluation had been carried out. Many mines, particularly vein gold deposits, are usually less than 10 metres Therefore, this selection technique adds a category, very narrow, to provide a more specific description for narrow vein mining. Very narrow is classified as 0-3 metres, ‘The reason for this thickness is to distinguish a range where open stoping, due to control problems, becomes impractical. When thicknesses become less than three metres, stoping, is generally conducted with stopers or jacklegs. This is a slower, less productive approach but provides a more accurate mining method with less development and dilution. For example, a drill jumbo would not be able to accurately drill « folded two metre thick gold vein. Furthermore, blast induced difution, while tolerable in a wider stopes, may he unacceptable in a very narrow stope. One metre of dilution in a ten metre wide stope would represent ten percent dilution whereas one metre of dilution in a three metre wide stope would result in 33 percent dilution. The UBC selection method utilizes deposit depth primarily to climinate or restrict the use of open pit mining Open pit mining is such a versatile uiining method that itis vistually always the most applicable mining method when depth is not considered, This modification reduces the applicability of open pit mining for deeper deposits ‘The UBC mining method selection classifies rock mechanics into two parameters: namely rock ‘mass rating (RMR) and rock substance strength (RSS), The rock mass rating consists of the Bieniawski's rock mass rating (CSIR - 1973). This rating classifies six parameters into a rating from 0-100 in which 0 is the worst and 100 is the best. Table 2 summarizes these classification parameters and their range of values. 165 Table 2 Bieniawski (CSIR) rock mass rating classification parameters range of values strength of intact rock material O- 15 rock quality designation (RQD) 3-20 spacing of joints 5-30 condition of joints 0-25 round water conditions 0-10 ‘The main reason for using, Bicniawski's suck mass rating is to utilize a more general rating, ‘which is more applicable for a first pass analysis. Morcover, the universal use of the rock mass rating allows for a more consistent analysis of data ‘The modified version of rock substance strength is very similiar to the Nicholas approach. However, as many Canadian mines have horizontal pressures in excess of twice the overburden pressure, maximum in situ stress is used instead of overburden pressure, Another category, very weak, was added to provide further definition (o rock substance strength The very weak category represents a range where, despite the rock mass rating. it would be unsafe for man entry without ground support ‘The weak category represents a range where it ‘may be dangerous for man entry without ground support, The moderate category represents a range where rock pressure should not pose a major hazard for mining operations. A strong rating suggests that ground pressure should have little effect on intact rock These categories regarding rock strength were then applied to each rating according to applicabi ratings lent themselves to either strong support methods or methods where there is no man entry. The moderate methods lent themselves to partial support techniques such as cut and fill. The strong categories were favourable for open stoping methods, shrinkage stoping, or room and pillar mining ‘The ore zone, hanging wall, and footwall have varying importance for mining operations. The UBC mining method selection addresses their relative importance by weighting the factors directly into the table. For example, the footwall rock mechanics characteristics are not given a value when considering room and pillar or longwall mining, However, to. make up for removing a category. the hanging wall and ore 166 zones were each given a possible rating of 6, rather than 4. Several other modifications to the Nicholas method were considered hut nat implemented. An initial consideration was to utilize hydraulic radius (Laubscher 1976) in the rock mechanics section of the report. However, it was decided that this would get too detailed for a first pass analysis Moreover, if there was only drillhole data, it ‘would be difficult to get an accurate prediction of what hydraulic radius would be required for fain data available, the hydraulic radius would largely reflect the rock mass rating values, Another consideration was to use the avoca mining technique as a separate mining method. Limited information and the similarity to shrinkage stoping, however, led to the decision to classify it under shrinkage stoping where it would be applicable for medium dipping deposits ‘The following. case example portrays a typical gold mine located in the Canadian shield Lastly, if there was limited yeotechuical Input data description general deposit shape tabular ore thickness 15 metres ore plunge 70 degrees rade distribution gradational depth 650 metres, rock substance strength 190 MPa RQD 60 percent joint spacing 0.5 metres. joint conditions slightly rough surface separation

    You might also like