Dilution Control in Underground Mines PDF

Australian Centre for Geomechanics Dilution Control in Underground Mines
Ernesto VilIaescusa Introduction
r SEMINAR ENTITLED
DILUTION CONTROL IN
UNDERGROUND MINES
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
PRESENTED By
ERNESTO VILLAESCUSA
WA SCHOOL OF MINES
Section 1
cURtin
©Ernesto Villaescusa
Dilution control
In
Underground mines
Introduction
Australian Centre for Geomechanics

April 2004
Ernesto Villaescusa
Professor of Mining Geomechanics
Western Australian School of Mines
This publication may not, in whole or part, be copied, photocopied, reproduced, translated or reduced to any electronic
medium or machine readable form or by any means without prior consent, in writing from the Western Australian School
of Mines or the Author.
cURtin Introduction
Dilution
cURtin Introduction
Classification ofDilution
MINE DILUTION
..............................................................
.. r ., r .. r
EXTERNAL INTERNAL ORE LOSS
I .&. J ~
r I
I
., Ir .. r \. .. r
UNPLANNED PLANNED GEOLOGICAL
J~ J~ A l.
•
INSTABILITY NATURE OF EXPLORATION
CONTAMINAnON MINERALIZAnON OREBODY
MINING MINING METHODS DELINEAnON
METHODS
=.=
- --
-- -
=----
~=--
...---
cURtm Introduction
--
Dilution, recovery and ore loss
I
100 - 40
35 r• HW • FW • Total
•
96 - 30
~
~
25 • •
e-
~ c
::R 92- .9 20
0
~
>- .:a • •• ••
Ci 15
~
">0 88 - • •
.
~
""
84 -
10
5
0
1
• •
• n
• •
•• • •
•
• •
t - &
•
-----
•
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
80 I I I 1 Ore Lost (%J
0 20 40 60 80
Dilution (%)
(Andersen and Grebenc, 1995)

Introduction
Internal Dilution
• Low-grade material contained within the boundaries of an

extracted stope
• Due to insufficient internal delineation of waste pockets within
an orebody
• Occur in situations where the blasting
mining method gictates a outline
minimum width of extraction

planned
dilution
D waste
• ore
Introduction
External Dilution
• Waste material from sources located outside the planned
stope boundaries
• Low grade material from stope wall overbreak
• Contamination from backfill

Slice Ring 12
• Mucking of waste from stope

floors Fault Still Dominate ~
Failure Mechanism
Introduction
Geological Dilution
• Waste rock or ore-losses incurred during the exploration and

orebody delineation stages
• Geological models are based on
limited information
• Unlikely to coincide exactly with mineralization lost
the real orebody
• Problem is a function of the ... ...
... ... non mineralization
sampling pattern ~ gained
... ...
...
... ...
(Price, 1993)
cURbn
Economic impact ofdilution

,,------,, Effect of mine grade on mill performance
, ~'o«(_--- The real but unknown deposit
,, ,,"
14 I
1._------ !
~ 13 .......... j jOre grade (% Ni)
Ore lost Z "' ..L i -- 1.5
~ 12
The estimated deposit ~ . . . . . . !....... 1 .. - .... 2.0
Internal dilution """i'! 11 r··..... ............ 1 _ .. - 3.0
OJ)
~
;,
10 ..................................-i-. ··_·:.:.~·~<~l~:~~·.·:············ .·····
"'>~
Ore lost [i 9
The estimated deposit after the
decision of cut-off grade u"
"0 8
7
I
!
!
! ,
'\"
.
Dilution j , "
6 -l-----+-----+---...::>......:..~
Ore lost in pillars 85 90 95 100
The deposit after mine design
Dilution from mining method Recovery to concentrate (% Ni)
Ore drilled, blasted, but lost

,,: -.--1iIii--iq-
, The mined deposit Costs avoided by not moving I ton of dilution
I
• -"1;!!!!!!! Dilution drilled, blasted, loaded and
transported to the concentrator Mine cost $ 3.71
Overbreak
,,,------ Mine cost (direct) $ 2.31
,, Ore which becomes concentrate
, Ore lost in tailings Mine cost (indirect) $ 16.00
• Dilution treated by the concentrator
$ 22.02
(Elbrond,1994) (Ashcroft, 1991)

L
cUAbn
Economic impact ofdilution
-'...."
.s
<l::
16
:.2
'"....<U 12
0
~
u
0 8
:0
¢::
:.2
'"
Cl 4
::r:
...:I
0
0 20 40 60 80
Dilution (%)

Parameters Influencing Dilution
Orebody delineation
Under sampling of orebody boundaries
Errors in decisions regarding cut-oft grades
Down hole survey errors
Lack of geotechnical characterization
Design and Sequencing
Poorly designed infrastructure
Poor stope design (dimensions)
Lack of proper stope sequencing
Lack of economical assessment
Stope development
Non alignment of sill horizons
Poor geological control during mining
Mining not following geological markups
Inappropriate reinforcement schemes
Drilling and Blasting
Poor initial markup of holes
Set-up, collaring and deviation of blast holes
Incorrect choice of blasting patterns,
sequences and explosive types
Production stages
Mucking of backfill floors
Mucking of fall ofts and stope wall failures
Contamination of broken ore by backfill
Leaving broken ore inside the stopes
Poor management of waste rock
(tipped into the ore stream)
Mine Management
Lack of supervision and communication
Excessive turn over of personnel
Limited time for planning
Lack of stope performance reviews
No documentation and proper training
Performance indicators based on quantity
(focus on tonnes as opposed t(' "1etal content)
Lack of leadership and vision
• Orebody delineation
•Under sampling of orebody boundaries
•Errors in decisions regarding
cut-off grades
•Down hole survey errors
•Lack of geotechnical
characterization Stope
outline
((V. v- p~/'1 J{~ 0 ~.,r J'o;.Jr~/rJl')
(. J,Vo-'''' P-oJ<. Jl1tll S~·e.1j.L ) Enonkoski
Nickel deposit
Section
K=34.776
(Lappalainen and Pitkajarvi, 1995)

• Design and Sequencing

• Poorly designed infrastructure
• Poor stope design (dimensions) Ore Lost
• Lack of proper stope sequencing

• Lack of economical assessment
. _ I''''''rvh",~c o!- 5U~ -Ievvl ,·JewA
...... - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
I
,,
I
.. _-------
--- ------------,
• Stope development
4666 Level
•Non alignment of sill horizons
Ul
g Metasediments
•Poor geological control during 00
'"
mInIng 4633 Level
~_Final stope
boundary
•Mining not following

geological markups
4600Level
•Inappropriate Section 10300

Looking West
reinforcement schemes

cURbn
• Stope development
Undercut does not always

Results in failure!!!!
'-
• Drilling and Blasting

-Poor initial markup of holes
-Set-up, collaring and deviation of blast holes
-Incorrect choice of blasting
patterns
-Sequences and explosive
types
• Production stages
•Mucking of backfill floors
•Mucking of fall offs and stope wall failures
,-----------------,
·Contamination of broken ore by i Area to be extracted
backfill Filling from second access

+--
Production blasting
· . .. ,....
······· ......
....... ,...........
.. Unsupported
------
..- ..... .....
------ ...--
-
......
.. ,' .»:- ------
.... -... .....
------ -- -
•Leaving broken ore inside the ····
·· ..... ..........,.
. .. .
.
. ... .
hangingwall
area ------
..... ...... ......
------
.....--
.......-..---
','"· .. ... ... ------
stopes ------
... .. ..
.. .. ..
------ ..-..
-
.... .... .... ..-
Filled during bench
extraction ------ ..-..
· · . .... . . ------ ....--
................. , . .. .. ..
.. ............. .
· ,. .. .. .. .. . ..
" ------
.. .. ..
•Poor management of waste rock : :.;.; : .. : : :. :
··· ..
·. . ..
"
.. ....,.
.. , .,.. .. ---.....c.aJ Mucking
(tipped into the ore stream) Filled on previous

lift
• Mine Management
•Lack of supervision and communication
•Excessive tum over of personnel
•Limited time for planning
•Lack of stope performance reviews
•No documentation and proper training
•Performance indicators based on quantity
(focus on tonnes as opposed to metal content)
•Lack ofleadership and vision
cUAbn
Variables influencing mine dilution
Input Process variables Process Dilution

15
• Management attitude
Management
Geologists
Drillers
attitude
grade variation AA
drilling accuracy f yV~
A •
iii
Orebody definition
Blasting design
Samplers sampling accuracy II A
A,...+ AA I 10
Blasters wall quality .Vvy' 'vv Fill quality
Geologists
Engineers
interpretation
of ore contacts
design layout
A/IIv:
I\A iI. ~
'.YV V Ajv
r
A/\
V\ IlIll Ground control
Rock 5
o Others
Mechanics
Sandfill
Bolters
stress conditions
movement
fill competency
ground support
/#:fJ
~
practices
o
Australian Centre/or Geomechanics Dilution Control in Underground Mines
Ernesto Villaescusa Geotechnical Data Colfec/ion and Modelling
SEMINAR ENTITLED
DILUTION CONTROL IN
UNDERGROUND MINES
SECTION 2
GEOTECHNICAL DATA COLLECTION

AND MODELLING
PRESENTED BY
ERNESTO VILLAESCUSA
WA SCHOOL OF MINES
Section 2
)
$iiIIIlr
~
~"'=L w~m
---
o:::=::_=-
_.
'""= - ~~
U~
._.
CURbn
--.-~
-~
&~~~-"tV(4~~@ ©Ernesto Villaescusa
Dilution control
In .
Underground mines
Stope Design Process

Geotechnical Data Collection

April 2004
Ernesto Villaescusa
-;:;-- m
=-.~
cURbn
J:L
ill
~--. t?*."._~~~@
Mine Planning Process
• Provides the means for a safe, efficient, continuous and

economic recovery of ore
• Helps to maintain a long term security of production
• It ensures satisfactory economical returns
• Approach suggested: divide the process into 6 key stages
.
c
r--
c,...)
-.~ .J::L
-=-=
=.). m~sm
""'/#
-- I'ii,"i!l Introduction
cu~
~-
&?~"'i::?" .. @
Suggested Methodology:
Basic Input:
• An initial orebody delineation :
• Rock mass characterization using
borehole data
,. • Mining method selection '
Control ofExcavation behaviour:
• Global design issues
• Detailed design stage
Closure ofthe mine design loop:
• Back <analysis and documentation
=.5
-_
- ..
- -- J:L
~
-- --
~=
-:::;: ::-
cURtin
&~.~-:t53~'I'@
Mine Design Process Stages
-~~.
~ ~I I
}~ ~
I " I Geology
i
Roekmass c,baractei:iiiltiim I Geology & rock

mecba01CS
I
A.ccess & infrastructure,<l ~ ~I Mine planning I G

L
o
Stope ~ pillar sizes 4 Rock Mechanics I B
A
L
i ',"'
I
_ I ~ ~I Mine planning & Rock Mechanics I D
E
I I 1-1 Mine planning I

S
I
G
NO N
YES
D
Infill delineation drilli'!g Geology E
T
Drill &'blast design A
Mine planning I
L
Rock reinforcement Rock mechanics E
D
Detailed economies" Mine planning D
E
Extraction monitoring Operations, Mine planning S
Geology & Rock mechanics I
G
NO YES N
~
c
Acceptable
design " J} CLOSURE OF
DESIGN LOOP ~
-=-.=a..
;:.!;;'" JL
1...U"A'5m
~-
--:::
cURtin
- ~
0-.
~
Rock Mass Characterization - Key Assumptions
Key Geotechnical Parameters
• Large geological discontinuities

:::iPATCHy
SIL (CinCAT/ON
• Joint set characteristics "
• Representative intact rock

properties
I
•
i
• In-situ stress measurements
".
== m
:;;;-'.""
--
~~~ e;L_~€J
-~
...J::L.
';\,,$
~m
Rock Mass Characterization - Key Assumptions
-Regions with similar engineering behaviour can be

delineated within a rock mass
-Similar joint set characteristics - orientation, frequency,

size and surface strength
- Similar degree of weathering or alteration
- Similar intact rock properties - strength and deformation
•
- Similar stress fields
- Similar permeability
~
L "'.
. ::::-.. ~
=.l'..
c~n~
.
·....-.----
llit
~ ~
Rock Mass Characterization
• Presence of major geological features, changes of lithology

and prevailing anisotropy
• Systematic collection of
geotechnical information
is essential
• Achieved by logging of drill cores,

directly by structural mapping
or using geophysical techniques
_.=
-:::
- -'-
~~m
u,
l~ 'f;J!r
---
-- &~~~~"S'J
cURbn
Core Logging Methods

• Information extrapolated hole to hole using geological
assumptions
• Provides estimates of:

- Lithological boundaries
- Alteration
- Weathering
- Orebody size, shape, grades,
continuity
- Geotechnical characteristics
- Hydrology
c
r--
v
=
-.-
m.
f
sm
7l" ~
-;;;:;;.-.
-"L
c~n &~.•~@
m
--- mJ
~.:-c

Typical procedures:
• Core logged, photographed, split, bagged & sent to be assayed
• Geotechnical information collected at this stage
• Data entered into a data base
• Logging by geological split or
detailed (each metre) within
orebody boundaries
• Interpretation and identification
of major geological structures
-...
~=.~
-::=
1m J:L
k. ~
I~~
~~ &:'w .•_~, ... @
Discontinuity linear frequency

fiT Discontinuity linear frequency
AL = =--- Stope wall behaviour
LT Very poor > 17
Poor 12 - 17
nr is the total number of Fair 7 - 12
discontinuities Good 4-7

Very good 1.5 - 4
Lr total length of line Excellent <1.5
~~
Description Value
RQD=100 Rock Quality Designation RQD
L.JLT A. Very poor 0-25
B. Poor 25-50
i=l C. Fair 50-75
I
Xiis the length of i-th length D, Good 75-90
greater than the threshold E, Excellent 90-100
vats tc v
..--
=·'m
== =;;:;;;;:, ..
~~
cURtin
"-~
-~
U1l
d'»'
7<,.!";>'
1rJJ..
Q........_=t5!".... @
"-
Drillhole intercepts
--=.,
\
•
I
•. f:, n 0 ~
-.
0 • lh
-,
• •
-•-• •
=--~ -
I~ frl • -'1
17 I. nl" ,
,..,. tr • •
• • r
•
Yin III II --::;l! 1--
•
• -~ • • • I
, no "--r • I II 11::;- -. 'I "'"I 7

I
1~ 1[/ I--C;~' •
7 - -- I
_::bz ~2< IT 'I • III
,
I
- b · ·
.~- •
• 0<
)' I r h~~
I I
r,
Il 1 rl=
1 r
.
-T'. •
.-
j - •
•
I ' 1 riO 7 --
- ~ 11 II II 1 I D •
• -
or+fI'" II.IT ~ I-
1 /
•
• ~_IJ I ! ' ~,
J. i V •
i--J
--'
y.~ , 'I I- ',' -I- l-=:::f

1/-· -.-
~ n. ., - • •
- • /
•
j...J • eJ j...J j...J j...J Lu Lu iw
~ ~
I; !; !; !; ~
5J ~ m ~ ~ ~ 1J;
Blue - Hangingwall Intercept, Green - Footwall Intercept

-.-.
=
= =
m
...l:L
=-.-= =
--
'-__ :;::or
CURlIn
-~t...z t?~'7_:ffa..~,@
Discontinuity linear frequency

_ ;tfJri~ '.. .5?\ 0 ~ 181,
17
15.3
13.6
-11.9
-1 D.2
-8.5
-6.8
"- 5.1
3.4
1.7
~
c FFim
,
IlIl
o
Pi
&
~
I
:::
.~
~
:::
.-, .~
. -.J ~
~
,0
.....
~
~
~
Cl
~
\oJ
~
~
IlIl
0
P,
0
CJ
a::
<=>
<=>
CO
C\J
L[) ....
'Q" CO
C"1
<:0
N ('\j
-~ ....
=.. is [m-=-.·.rn
=$ ~~
c~n ;;.11>
~..-" @'lr'$~'~"@

Advantages: I
• Depth of information and areal coverage
• Routinely collected with minimal expenditure
• Identification of the majority of geotechnical parameters
Disadvantages:
• Potentially different geological .interpretations
• Small core size data - not ideally suited for geotech logging
• Core loss may occur in broken rock masses
• Discontinuity infill may be washed out during drilling
Biases: I
• Preferential sampling of discontinuities normal to drillhole

axiC·
r---
"-" - , ,
v ,
- ~
-~
=~J
:=..~~
=:=-
cu~n
.
=::"...-
U'O
lm
J:L
R .A.
:~
a1l
GJ.....~,@
at
Delineation & Characterization
Rock Mass Characterization - Large scale features
• Information collected and modelled in 3D using computer

programs I
• A three dimensional model of faulting can be developed
• Data incorporated into geological level plans
• Maintained and updated as

additional information from
direct access becomes
available
r
r
) r
~
~
=:: ~
r
.....
~ ~
~ ~
~
.....N ~ [
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
6 ~
~
~ I
=:: ::::
.....
~
~
.....~
~
~ ~
~
.....=:: .....N
......
~
~
~
~
~
~ ~
~
~
6 ~
~
~
~
~
~
~ I
J
l
l
., ,-----,
---
-.~
::
-- 'E?"
.....
"'=, -. .
-.k.L
UiiiSm
--== ::" ~ Delineation & Characterization
~.
~
&:;"'''~~M@
-~

~= J:L
~
==
. ..= ~
70.~
~ID
-
cufibn
......
--
-
Rw..-:cJi••'@ Delineation & Characterization

O.5m 1.0m
,.
1.5m '1.0m
1.5m
O.5m
,.. .......
L
r---- ~-,..
,
-...)
---,
......
(])
Cf)
......
c
.-
o
.--.
()
:;::;
Cf)
CO
..c ::J
() 0-
o
...... (])
!.-
Cf)
Cf)
(])
0) ::J
c .-
0-
:;::;
C
c ..c
.-
o
.--. ()
(])
(]) ......
0)
CO
() c
.-
Cf) -0-
!.-
o E
c
.- CO
Cf)
~
•
- -m
~
=- -...=:=
'=-
CU~
"'=--
-
...If:L
WAsm
R..~
I~
Q..• ~@
- .-
Rock Mass Characterization - Minor scale features
Representative & unbiased information

required I
• Location of major geological features

• Discontinuity orientation, frequency,
size, surface strength ...•••....
/
• Information to carry out a @-- -

SIfBnfJ/II PersIstence
{L9lJ//I}
'~2'"
X
FI6/d
V6S5eS
~\{
rock mass classification
~~~~W
Spaci/V r:wv~ t1 (j/9flIslion
- intact rock strength I I - /1'1
L"?/ i,:;:, /
,/
~,q
,h,••
- ground water -~ ~.•... ~~,.,. "~ • r, &

....,.tn'
.-
C<nIov
cor. IS>aps)
- joint condition CAJslily

F/lICf/f(J
Dens,ty)
• r---
C
- • ..,. J:L
~~~
~~ @.,,~.,.£0
--
Intact Rock Strength
• Measured through indices such as point loading, uniaxial and

triaxial testing and by the determination of the elastic
constants E and v
• The intact rock strength indices are likely to vary across an

orebody (anisotropic rock masses)
• Several modes of failure experienced during testing:
• Failure through intact rock (axial splitting), structural features

(shearing) and combinations (multiple cracking)
-.-
-===-=- '"C
-=.....:::::::
-~
CU'Rtm JMt
JL
lI,.lflSm
,-,
- --.:.;.':'-:'" ~
Des testing
• Shear failure is observed along oblique planes to the direction of maximum

compression suggesting that bonded grains are displaced along a shear plane,
• Multiple cracking is observed when the rock disintegrates along many planes of
random direction.
• Axial splitting is referred when cracks appear parallel to the direction of the axial
load suggesting that the bonds between the grains failed in tension,
r---
c ,
.....",
i
,
=:.
. ---=:.- ~
cURbn
-~
......... -:......:-
~.
~. .
&:...c...
~c ~@
Intact Rock Strength

45
40
,., 35 N= 140
~ 30 X = 213.8
"g. 25 S' = 1706.9
Rock type: shale " 20
~
15
Core size: BX 10
5
o
o 50 100 ISO 200 250 300 350 400 450
UCS (MPa)
Failure: Ca) Through intact rock
35
N-68
N =68 30 X - 98.6
35 S' - 1998.9
X= 111.7 ,., 25
30 "1iJ 20
s'= 2296.7
C 25
"
~ 20 "
C'
:: 15
r..
...
g' 15
10
r.. 10
5
5 I
o r-- o
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 o 50 100 150 200 250 300
UCS(MPa) UCS(MPa)
(c) Along other wellkness (b) Along bedding
-.-
:c:.
==
-=-~
~==
~::'"
cunb'n
=
-~
~
.J1L
LI.lfJsrn
Stress-Strain Behaviour
-~;::..,,'" @~
Critical strain fieri!

(Ye
=E
cr ~
cr c cr c c ;:L-- If
I
/ I
I
/ I
'"'"Cl.l '"'"Cl.l '"'"Cl.l / I
.....'"' '"'
..... .....'"' / ",:I
-.-'"
~
ell -.-<
'"
ell
><i
-.-'"
~
ell
/
/
/ I
I
I
I
I
I
/ I
I
Or I I .. or I I .. 0"<"" f I I ..
£1 £1
I< £Crit" I £1 £Crit
~
Axial strain Axial strain Axial strain
a) Category A b) Category B c) Category C
After Li (2004)
c
---- -J
~ ...-
=- -=-
;;;; :
....kL
~Asm 'f;?J?
~;:- ~n~ Stress-Strain Behaviour
CUR~
-:=.....- Q~ .•~tr~Q
1000
~
• Category A
Natural upper bound of intact rock
• Category B
Young's modulus (E=125GP a)
o Category C
-(IJ
a..
100 .!.
-
~
l /)
::::l 10
::::l 0
"C 00
0
E 0
!'l
Ol
s:::
::::l
1
.o~J~ o / ' Lower limit
0 .~
0
>-
0.1
Soft rocks Hard rocks

0.01 I .." , , .. I ,I", , , , , I '." , , , , I
1 10 25MPa 100 1000
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)
After Li (2004)
-.-
m
=2 J:L
-=--=
~;:-
cURtm
---.-~
~~
@...'''"i::V''~' @
Critical strain fi erit

(T,
=E
1.4
I
• Category A
1.2 ~
, #5 Crit = 5/
,,
0
• Category B
--
0~ 1.0 o Category C
,, , B
c
.-
, A
~goo
--
... 0
(\J 0.8 0 0 0
I 00
(/)
0e 00
,OQl 0 0
0.6 ,
rP / 0
-
(\J 00
j:OO
0
() 0
0
0
'C 0
U 0.4 / 0
OJ
\/
Selected points to show
0.2 -1 ~
stress-strain curves
0.0 I'
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Strain at failure (%)
After Li (2004)
~
c v
-.-
=r
~
=-':....:::i.. ~m
--'~ ~~
cURtm
--~'~
ill
@..,Y~aM;@
Critical strain 5 Crit =E

(Jc
100 L '
--
-e;e.
New critical strain relationship
a Critical strain
• Strain at failure
...
CIl
~
:::l
....III
10
- ~
..... _--- ---- . .
l:
....~
~.. ~*
.•. .
~\~
1
f/)
oc5
l:
i.t\t\\:
Q).a+ a a. •
.......
III
f/)
III
(,,)
0.1 - a
••+o
~ ~~..~
at. ~ ~atural1ower
• f'
bound
.. 1strain for
of cntlca
:;:;
'C - - - - -- .Jt1' k
' hard rocks
U Soft rocks - - : Hardroc s
0.01 I . " . , , .. I .,.. . . . . I .. . t , , t, I ,. ,
0.1 ... ,. I
1 10 25MPa 100 1000
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)
After Li (2004)
0)
"-.....
~
s::::
CI)
"0
cts
-.....
o
"-o
s::::
Q..
-.-
=
-- ~
:=...~
--_
,r
_. ,
cURbn
- ...... ~
..
~
~@
ISRM point load testing - WASM data
500 I i
400 - ..••• •
••
•
y =20.103x
• R2 =0.4203
_ 300 \
co
a. • •
-~
~
200 11 0
•••
.~+> ~
::::>
• •+0 •
•
100~. .! ...~~.
*.~ ~.
0
••••
• I
~.
•
a , .. . . . I i i i I
o 5 10 15 20 25
Point Load Index - 15 (50) (MPa)
Australian Centre for Geomechanics Dilution Control in Underground Mines
Ernesto Viliaescusa Numerical Modelling Approach
SEMINAR ENTITLED
DILUTION CONTROL IN
UNDERGROUND MINES
SECTION 4
NUMERICAL MODELLING ApPROACH
PRESENTED By
ERNESTO VILLAESCUSA
WA SCHOOL OF MINES
./
Section 4
cURtin
©Ernesto Villaescusa
Dilution control
In
Underground mines
Stope Design Process

Numerical modelling

April 2004
Ernesto Villaescusa
-.-
-=.-:..=.-
~=
~~'
--
-~
Intact rock
Rock mass
m---"'::~~-I
Ecrit
Ecrif
Axial strain
Rockmass strength
mb = m. exp ( GSI
I
-100J
28
For GSJ < 25 ,
For GSJ> 25
GSI
s=exp ( - --- -100J a = 0.5 s=o a ·0.65- GSI
200
9
Rockmass strength
Where the parameter GSI can be expressed in terms of the classification indices of
Bieniawski (1976, 1979) and Barton et al (1974).
• The total RMR should be obtained by adding the first 4 ratings for strength, ROD,
joint spacing and condition to the last value for 'ground water, which assumes the
excavation to be completely dryThe ratings for orientations are ignored.
For RMRa9 >23, GSI = RM/19 - 5
For RMR76<18 or RM~9 <23, GSI =91nO +44

where
o = (RDOIJn) (JrIJa)
L
cURtin Rockmass strength
Emnirical Relations & Procedure Reference Eauation Number

_ (RMR-1OO)/18.75
Gem - Gee Ramamurthy, 1986 (5.10)
G em = o.5e O.06RMR
(MPa) Trueman, 1988 (5.11)
J
G em = 0.7rQ3 (MPa) Singh, 1993 (5.12)
= 05 RMR-15
Gem . Ge Kalamaras et aI, 1995 (5.13)
85
(RMR-1OO)/20
G em =Ge
e Sheorey, 1997 (5.14)
Gem
= 0 . 022 G e 0038GSI i
e Hoek, 1998 (5.15)
II
I
lIo.~k~J:3~().w~proc~dure .. - .. .. -_. -. ..
Hoek and Brown,
------ .. - . ...
1997
... -_._-- .. -- ... -- -- "-_._- - ,~ -
Note: r is the bulk density of intact rock (kN/m\

Rockmass strength
Rock mass compressive strength determined by empirical relations
Rock (J em (MPa)
(Je GSI
mass or I Hoek, I I
description (MPa) I Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq. I Eq.
RMR Brown
I (1997)#
5.10 5.11 5.12* 5.13 5.14
I 5.15 I
I I
V/g quality I
hard rock 150 75 64.8 39.5 45.0 57.4 52.9 43.0 ] 57.0 I
mass I, I
i
i
I
i
Average II I II
I
quality rock 80 50 I
I 13.0 5.6 10.0 22.7 16.5 6.6 I
I
11.8 i
mass I I I
I I!
Vip quality I
rock mass
20 30 I
I
1.7 0.5 3.0 10.8 1.8 0.6
I 1.4
I I
Massive I
2:neiss
110 75 I 43.0 29.0 45.0 57.4 38.8 31.5
I, 41.8
I
Quartz mica
schist
30 65
I 8.2 4.6 24.7 39.6 8.8 5.2 I
I
7.8 I
i
Graphitic I I
15 24 I 1.0
J 0.3 2.1 8.7 0.8 0.3 I 0.8 !
phvllite - . i .
3
* The bulk density of all rock types is assumed as 26kN/m , and Q-index in Eq.5.12 is calculated by
using RMR = 91nQ + 44 (Bieniawski,1984).
Rockmass deformation modulus
Empirical Reference Equation

relations Number
Em = 2RMR -100 (RMR > 50) (GPa) Bieniawski, 1978 (5.1)
Em = 2510gQ (Q > 1 ) (GPa) Barton et aI, 1980 (5.2)

I
E = 1o(RMR-IO)/40 Serafim and Pereira, (5.3)
m CJ c > 100 MPa) (GPa) 1983
Nicholson and
Em = 0.0028RMR2 + 0.geRMR/22.82 (%) Bieniawski, 1990
E (5.4)
Em = 0.5U - cos(;r * RMR/100)] Mitri et aI, 1994 (5.5)

E .
E = ~1O(GSI-1O)/40 (CJ c < 100 MPa) (GPa) Hoek and Brown, 1997 (5.6)
m 100
- .. - -- --
-.-
=
:: ':5i:
=
=..:.:.-=
~=-
cURtm Rockmass deformation modulus

100 .,.------,---,..-----,-----,--r-----,----r------;----,
-
ll.
co
+ Bieniawski (1978)
<.!)
-; 80 - • Serafim and Pereira (1983)
II)
co i
E -------l--------r-·-------~--l---
.lI::: ' I '
o
o 60
-
I
-----------'-------t-I- --..... - ~---- . - - - - ----c-ft-
+
~
IE m=2,RMR-1100+
!
o
II)
~---
!
i i i
--------r--
i
-reo-;-----r-
-
I
~ i
~ 40 ---.~+
:
r--- -._. ·----·-T~ --_. --- --
"C
o i !
E I
----------,._--+- -~_._--~ - -1--------.. ,.--.;. ----
·~--j----~-~i
l: ;+ iE m-25logQ
-o
.-
co 20 --
E
Y7'"r-- -t-----L--~--------
,
-
i
!
~ i
o ! -----t- ------
(1)
o o k=:=b::::::kd~D~--L--.-L-L--L-J
o 20 40 60 80 100
Rock Mass Rating, RMR
L
curmn Rockmass strength
Input: Sigei= 85 MPa mi::: 10 GSI= 45
Output: mb= 1.4026 Sigtm= -0.13 MPa k= 3.01

s= 0.0022 Sigem= 11.36 MPa phi= 30.12 Degrees
a= 0.50 Em- 6913.68 MPa eoh= 3.27 MPa
Calculation'
I Sums r;-
",-----------------,
Hoek-Bro\ll11
0.70
Sig3 1.00E-10 3.04 6.07 9.11 12.14 15.18 18.21 21.25 85.00 ~ criterion
Sig1 4.00 22.48 33.27 42.30 50.40 57.91 64.98 71.74 347.08 1Il"
Sig3sig1 4E-10 68.23 202.01 385.23 612.01 878.92 1183.65 1524.51 4854.56 1Il
Sig3sq 1E-20 9.22 36.86 82.94 147.45 230.39 331.76 451.56 1290.18
-
~ so
1Il
i ~o
Cell formulae:
'(3 )0
c: Mohr-Coulomb
.;:
mb = mi'EXP((GSI-100)/28) 0.20 criterion
~
s= IF(GSI>25,EXP((GSI-100)/9),O) o
'(i 10
a= IF(GSI>25,O.5,O.65-GSi/200) :E o~ ___1
Sigtm = 0.5'Sigci'(mb-SQRT(mb'2+4's))
o 15 20 25
k= (sumSig3si91-(sumSig3'sumSig1)/8)/(sumSig3sq-(sumSig3'2)/8)
Sigem = sumSig1/8-k'sumSig3/8
Minor principal stress (MPa)
phi = (ASIN«k-1)/(k+1))'180/PIO
eoh = Sigem/(2'SQRT(k))
Em = IF(Sigei>100,1000'1QA((GSI-10)/40),SQRT(Sigei/100)'1000'1 0'(GSI-10)/40))
Sig3 = Start at 1E-10 (to avoid zero errors) and increment in 7 steps of Sigci/8 to O.2S*Sigci
Si91 = Sig3+Sigei'«(mb'Sig3)/Sigei)+s)Aa
SIg3sig1 = Slg3'Slg1
Sig3sq = Si93'2
cURtin
.--- Rockmass strength
--
Table 4. Intact rock and rock mass classification
data Wit
. h esttrnate d roc k mass parameters
Mine Site Rock Type RMR76 mb s a (J"e E (J""" Em (J"e / (J" em E/ Em

(MPa) (GPa) IfMPa) (GPa)
Host rock 70 5.82 0.0357 0.5 185 100 60.3 31.6 3.07 3.16
Ora Banda
Ore body 55 3.41 0.0067 0.5 145 55 30.8 13.3 4.71 4.14
Quartz 56 5.19 0.0075 0.5 116 83 29.6 14.1 3.92 5.89
Porphyry 57 3.66 0.0084 0.5 76 ---- 17.1 13.0 4.52 -----
Harlequin Gabbro(dolerite) 66 8.02 0.0229 0.5 165 66 56.2 25.1 3.17 2.63
Basalt 62 4.37 0.0147 0.5 86 61 22.1 18.5 3.94 3.30
Granodiorite 59 6.94 0.Ql05 0.5 228 ----- 67.5 16.8 3.79 -----
Quartz 59 5.32 0.0105 0.5 106 ----- 28.2 16.8 3.80 -----
Porphyry 61 4.22 0.0131 0.5 221 ----- 55.2 18.8 4.28 -----
Bullen
Gabbro 67 8.31 0.0256 0.5 281 ----- 98.4 26.6 3.01 -----
Basalt 70 5.42 0.0286 0.5 246 ----- 75.4 28.2 3.19 -----
Basalt (Tramways Dome) 78 7.75 0.0868 0.5 180 78 76.9 50.1 2.34 1.56
Basalt (Karribalda Dome) 78 7.75 0.0868 0.5 228 80 97.4 50.1 2.35 1.60
Basalt (Widgiemooltha Dome) 78 7.75 0.0868 0.5 130 79 55.5 50.1 2.32 1.58
Kambalda Intermed. Porphyry 68 5.42 0.0286 0.5 110 87 33.7 28.2 3.24 3.09
Nickel Felsic Porphyry 79 8.03 0.0970 0.5 219 62 97.0 53.1 2.26 1.17
Mines Ultramafic (Talc chlorite) 66 6.53 0.0229 0.5 59 80 27.0 23.2 2.19 3.45
Ultramafic (Talc magnesite) 66 6.53 0.0229 0.5 30 33 10.0 13.8 3.00 2.39
Ultramafic (Antigorite) 73 8.39 0.0498 0.5 226 70 88.0 37.6 2.57 1.86
UItramaficrLizardite) 62 5.66 0.0147 0.5 109 37 31.0 20.0 3.52 1.85
Mt Charlotte Dolerite (Unit 8) 75 7.78 0.0622 0.5 177 70 70.3 42.2 2.52 1.66
Mt Isa Pb Mine Shales 75 9.01 0.0622 0.5 185 80 76.8 42.2 2.41 1.90
New Ultramafic 51 3.95 0.0043 0.5 40 25 7.7 7.0 8.42 3.57
Celebration Gabbro 72 9.94 0.0399 0.5 208 81 82.6 33.5 2.47 2.28
MtMarion Ultramafic 60 7.91 0.0117 0.5 103 67 32.5 17.8 3.17 3.76
Volcanite 76 5.7 0.0695 0.5 222 70 83 46.7 2.67 1.50
Ouikumpu
pyrite 84 9.2 0.1690 0.5 105 122 55.7 70.8 1.89 1.72
cuatm Rockmass strength
Table 4. Intact rock and rock mass classification
data with estimated rock mass parameters (Cant'd)
ere E er em Em
Mine Site Rock Type RMR76 mb s a O'c / <J cm E/Em
!MPa) (GPa) !MPa) (GPa
Felsic 69 6.94 0.0319 0.5 220 75 75 29.9 2.93 2.51
Granitoid 64 8.29 0.0183 0.5 210 81 71 22.4 2.96 3.62
Centenary MMD 69 6.28 0.0319 0.5 231 91 76 29.9 3.04 3.05
MMOD 69 6.28 0.0319 0.5 242 89 79 29.9 3.06 2.97
ULP 58 4.24 0.0094 0.5 123 70 30 15.8 4.08 4.40
Basalt 55 3.41 0.0067 0.5 153 91 33 13.3 4.63 6.80
Felsic 69 6.94 0.0319 0.5 167 ----- 57 29.9 2.93 -----
Granitoid 64 8.29 0.0183 0.5 130 ----- 44 22.4 2.96 -----

Darlot MMD 69 6.28 0.0319 0.5 235 99 77 29.9 3.05 3.30
MMOD 69 6.28 0.0319 0.5 240 87 79 29.9 3.03 2.91
Tuff 64 4.15 0.0183 0.5 126 ----- 33 22.4 3.80 -----
ULP 58 4.24 0.0094 0.5 131 81 32 15.8 4.08 5.14

Grit 82 11.57 0.1353 0.5 140 70 73.8 63.1 1.90 1.11
Kanowna
Pornhvrv 68 7.97 0.0286 0.5 110 65 38.5 28.2 2.86 2.31
Belle
Conglomerate 82 11.57 0.1353 0.5 140 70 73.8 63.1 1.90 1.11
Ultramafic 63 5.60 0.0164 0.5 150 61 43 21.1 3.49 2.89
Yilgarn Star
Ore 47 3.77 0.0028 0.5 40 27 8 5.3 5.00 5.09
Dolerite 75 11.06 0.0622 0.5 335 92.6 148 42.2 2.26 2.19
Junction
All are 68 4.78 0.0286 0.5 141 74.7 42 28.2 3.36 2.65
Malu Ouartzite 78 10.94 0.0868 0.5 250 80 117.5 50.1 2.18 1.60
Telfer Gold Outer siltstone 47 1.36 0.0028 0.5 30 20 4.0 4.6 7.32 4.35
Footwall saudstone 58 4.23 0.0094 0.5 150 60 36.3 15.8 4.13 3.80
Massive strong rock mass 75 7.25 0.062 0.5 110 ----- 43 42 2.56 -----
Average Quality rock mass 65 4.5 0.02 0.5 30 ----- 8.2 13 3.66 -----
Hoekaud
Poor Qualitv rock mass 24 0.66 0 0.53 15 ----- 0.34 0.87 44.12 -----
Brown
Massive weak rock 80 16.3 0.1084 0.5 51 ----- 28.3 40.2 1.80 -----
(1997),
Massive strong rock mass 80 7.25 0.1084 0.5 110 ----- 48.9 56.2 2.25 -----
Hoek (1998
Average Qualitv rock mass 70 4.5 0.0357 0.5 30 ----- 9.05 17.3 3.31 -----
Poor oualitv at shallow death 20 0.55 0 0.55 7.5 ----- 0.52 0.5 14.42 -----
CURbll Rockmass strength
Table 5. Estimated rock mass parameters from
numerical modelling experience.
Mine Site Rock Type a , <MPa) E (GPa) a em (MPa) Em (GPa) a , la ,m EI Em

Host rock 185 100 95 40 1.95 2.50
Ora Banda
0", bodv 145 55 70 16 2.07 3.44
Quartz 116 83 18 15 6.44 5.53
Porphyry 76 - 10 12 7.60 ---
Harlequin Gabbro (dolerite) 165 66 38 32 4.34 2.06
Basalt 86 61 14 19 6.14 3.21
Granodiorite 228 - 31 9 7.35 --
Quartz 106 -- 16 15 6.63 ---
Bullen
Porphyry 221 - 28 12 7.89 --
Gabbro 281 -- 73 38 3.85 --
Basalt 246 -- 56 32 4.39 --
Mt Charlotte Dolerite (Unit 8) 177 70 100 65 1.77 1.08
Mtlsa Pb Mine Shales 185 80 94 60 1.96 1.33
New Ultramafic 40 25 ----- 11 --- 2.27
Celebration Gabbro 208 81 ----- 32 --- 2.53
Basalt (Tramways Dome) 180 78 90 50 2.00 1.56
Basalt (Karnbalda Dome) 228 80 114 50 2.00 1.60
Basalt (Widgiemooltha Dome) 130 79 65 50 2.00 1.58
Kambalda lntermed. Porphyry 110 87 55 30 2.00 2.90
Nickel Felsie Porphyry 219 62 109 50 2.01 1.24
Mines Ultramafic (Talc chlorite) 59 80 30 20 1.97 4.00
Ultramafic (Talc magnesite) 30 33 15 10 2.00 3.30
Ultramafic (Antigorite) 226 70 113 55 2.00 1.27
Ultramafic fLizardite)' 109 37 55 30 1.98 1.23
Mt Marion Ultramafic 103 67 33 18 3.17 3.76
Volcanite 222 70 45 59 4.93 1.19
Outkumpu
PYrite 105 122 71 43 1.48 2.84
Grit 140 70 73.8 63 1.90 1.11
Kanowna pomh~ 110 65 38.5 28 2.86 2.31
Belle
Conolomerate 140 70 73.8 63 1.90 1.11
Ultramafic 150 61 13.1 12 11.45 5.08
Yilgarn Star are 40 27 13.1 12 3.05 2.25
Dolerite 335 93 200 90 1.68 1.03
Junction All ore 141 75 108 78 1.31 1.00
Malu Ouartzite 250 80 75 58 3.33 1.38
Telfer Outer siltstone 30 20 2 8 15.00 2.50
Footwall sandstone 150 60 15 17 10.00 3.53
Massive strom! rock mass 110 -- 43 42 2.56 _._-
Averal!e Qualitv rock mass 30 -+- 8.2 13 3.66 ----
Hoek and
Brown
Poor nualitv rock mass 15 - 0.34 0.87 44.12 .-
Massive weak rock 51 28.3 40.2 1.80
(1997),
---
Hoek (1998) Massive stronp rock mass
Avera2e Qualitv rock mass
110
30
48.9
9.05
56.2
17.3
2.25
3.31 _..--
Poor Qualitv at shallow deoth 7.5 ..... 0.52 0.5 14.42 ---
cUAtm Rockmass strength
25 16 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
IIRock mass 14 ~Rock mass
20 classifications 12 - classifications
;>-.
u o Numerical modelling ~ 10 - [] Numerical modelling
c(]) 15 expenence c
& g. 8 expenence
(])
.... 10 - (])
.... 6-
~ ~ 4
5
2
0 o
0 <2 2-33-44-55-6 >6 o <2 2-33-44-55-6 >6
Range of eY e / eY em Range ofE/Em

cURbn Rockmass strength
1000,,---------------------------
• Hoek-Brown method
o Hoek (1998)
--
ra
a. 100
6 Kalamaras et al (1995)
Upper limit
-
~
rJ)
:::l
::::l
"C
o 10 Trend line:
E
.....
c:
o
ra
E
Em
R2
= 1.60-°.em75
= 0.6937
1
~
o
Lower limit
0.1 +--~~~~'_'+-~~~~~i_~~~~~_'+_-~~-'-~~
0.1 1 10 100 1000

Rock mass compressive strength (MPa)
Aftqr Li (2004)
.--- ~
Rockmass strength
m O'cm
Critical strain of rock masses CCrit =E
m
100
ell
C.
-
(!)
(f)
90
80
70
•
::J
::J 60
"'C
0
E 50
c:
-...
0
ell
40 .------e- ·0.3% strain - - - - - - -
E 30 ~~~@»» --------------------.- -0.2% strain· - - - - - - -

....w
0
20
C • 0.1 % strain
10 • 0.05% strain
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
After Li (2004)
cURbn Rockmass strength
0.001 +--~~~~~t---~~~~-'---'--t-~-~~~'-'-t--~~~~..........j
0.1 1 10 100 1000

After J i (2004)
,
m (Jcm
cURtm Critical strain of rock masses Cerit =-
Em Rockmass strength
0.5.,.-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
-C 0.4
• H-B method
o Hoek (1998) R 2 == 0.2978
l:
-~
rJl
III
u
:;:;
0.3
l::. Kalamaras (1995)
'C
u
~ 0.2
III
E
.lil: •e
~
U
o 0.1 • o
m
CCrit = 0 .52 CCrit
0.72
R 2 == 0.4849
0.0 +-----.,-------.,-------.,-------r------j
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Intact rock critical strain (%)
(6.12)
0.72
and a em =5. 2E m&Cril (6.13)
After Li (2004)
-
-== -==-,
::::..-. :.=
--~ m U cm
cURbn Critical strain of rock masses B eri! =E m
Rockmass strength
Table 6.3 Comparison of rock mass compressive strength
Em &Crit
U cm (MPa)
\'line Site Rock Type
(GPa) (%) H-B I) H ') K 3)
Eq.6.12 Eq.6.13
Host rock 31.6 0.\85 60.3 58.2 65.3 46.2 48.8
)ra Banda
Ore body 13.3 0.264 30.8 25.8 38.4 27.7 26.5
Quartz 14.1 0.140 29.6 21.4 31.4 \5.6 17.8
'[arlequin Gabbro 25.\ 0.250 56.2 44.6 54.4 49.6 48.\
Basalt \8.5 0.\4\ 22.\ 20.0 26.3 20.6 23.5
:t Charlotte Dolerite (Unit 8) 42.2 0.253 70.3 67.3 67.7 84.3 81.5
Basalt (Tramways
50.1 0.23\ 76.9 76.7 72.0 91.3 90.6
Dome)
Basalt (Kamba\da
50.\ 0.285 97.4 97.2 91.2 \\2.8 \05.5
Dome)
Basalt (Widgiemooltha
50.\ 0.\65 55.5 55.4 52.0 65.\ 71.1
Dome)
<.ambalda Intermediate Porphyry 28.2 0.\26 33.7 32.\ 37.5 28.2 33.1
Nickel Fe\sic Porphyry 4) 53.\ 0.353 97.0 97.0 88.9 148.2 130.5
Mines
Ultramafic
23.2 0.074 27.0 15.9 \9.4 \3.5 18.5
(Talc chlorite)
Ultramafic
13.8 0.091 10.0 8.\ 9.9 9.9 \2.8
(Talc magnesite)
Ultramafic (Antigorite) 37.6 0.323 88.0 79.7 83.8 95.9 86.6
Ultramafic (Lizardite) 20.0 0.295 31.0 25.3 33.3 46.5 43.\
Mt Isa Pb Mine Shales 42.2 0.23\ 76.8 70.4 70.7 77.\ 76.5
New Ultramafic 7.0 0.160 7.7 6.\ 9.6 8.8 9.7
:elebration Gabbro 33.5 0.257 82.6 70.6 75.9 68.0 65.5
H!W Ultramafic 31.6 0.\46 46.0 35.9 40.2 36.3 41.0
ilt Marion Footwall Ultramafic 31.6 0.195 57.0 43.7 49.\ 48.7 50.6
Lode Gneiss 30.5 0.3\6 44.0 33.7 37.8 76.1 69.1
Volcanite 46.7 0.317 83.0 87.7 86.2 117.0 106.2
)utkumpu
Pyrite 70.8 0.086 55.7 56.2 45.7 48.1 63.0
(
Aftel _i (2004)
::::.?'
- -.
gJ
~m.
---
--
-----
~~ m _ (J,m
-- U1J ..
~_
cURtIn
---. ...
-~
f.?.~r~(~~@
Critical strain of rock masses GCrit - E
m
Rockmass strength
Table 6.3 Comparison of rock mass compressive strength (Cont'd)
Em CCrit (J,m (MPa)

Mine Site Rock Type
(GPa) (%) H-B I) H 2) K 3)
Eq.6.12 Eq.6.13
Felsic 29.9 0.293 75.0 666 76.4 69.3 64.3
Granitoid 22.4 0.259 71.0 52.6 66.7 45.9 44.1
Magnetic Dolerite 29.9 0.254 76.0 69.9 80.2 60.0 57.9
Centenary
Magnetic Quartz
29.9 0.272 79.0 733 84.0 64.2 60.9
Dolerite
Lamprophyre 15.8 0.176 30.0 24.5 34.7 21.9 23.5
Basalt 13.3 0.168 33.0 27.2 40.5 17.7 19.2
Magnetic Dolerite 29.9 0.237 77.0 71.2 81.6 56.1 55.2
Dariot Magnetic Quartz
29.9 0.276 79.0 72.7 83.3 65.2 61.5
Dolerite
Lamprophyre 15.8 0.162 32.0 26.1 37.0 20.2 22.1
Grit 63.1 0.200 73.8 69.5 59.3 99.7 103.0
Kanowna
Porphyry 28.2 0.169 38.5 32.1 37.5 37.7 40.8
Belle
Conglomerate 63.1 0200 73.8 69.5 59.3 99.7 103.0
Ultramafic 21.1 0.246 43.0 36.2 468 41.0 40.0
Yilgarn Star
Ore 5.3 0.148 8.0 5.2 8.7 6.2 7.0
Dolerite 42.2 0.362 1480 127.4 128.1 120.6 105.5
Junction
All ore 28.2 0.189 42.0 41.1 48.1 42.1 44.1
Malu Quartzite 50.1 0.313 117.5 106.6 100.0 123.7 112.8
Telfer Outer siltstone 4.6 0.150 4.0 39 6.5 5.5 6.1
Footwall sandstone 15.8 0.250 36.3 29.9 42.4 31.2 30.3
Note: 1) The Hoek-Brown method (Hoek and Brown, 1997).

2) Hoek (1998) empirical relation, i.e. Eq.5.14.
3) Kalamaras ef 01 (1995) empirical relation, i.e. Eq.5.12.
4) The intact rock UCS was 219MPa and the GSI of the rocks mass was 79.
After Li (2004)
-.-
='E§
=--
-- ~
- -~-
---'t.L
~ Rockmass strength
-- . ' - t?,..,r_"'{j§5,@j
m _
(J'cm
Critical strain of rock masses B erit - E
m
100 160
"C 140 • "2-:0 140 j Y=0.9675x
~ y = 1.0082x 5 '(;' R' = 0.7753 0
5 ...... 120 R' = 0.7939 • •• t; ~ 120
·c"
~ I'-, 1 0 0 . • "'6
.::: 100 0 00/ 0
..c::: :1S
'-"• • ...... ""
1:'. 1"""l 0
.. M8 0 . ~..; 80 0
c ~ •• l-. do 0 0
~ ~ 60 OJ)
•
..
,.. :
'~.-
" ~
C
60 A~O
~ c 40
(U •
. . . . . • s:::; r.f:I 40 0 A 0
~
'"C "'"
20 .> ~
g
" 20
~ 0 P:: 0
o 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200
Rock mass strength estimated using Rock mass strength estimated using
Hoek-8rmrn method (MPa) the Hoek-Bro\rn method (MPa)
After Li (2004)
~
c
;m
. . . .""
~:::..=
-- .
J:L
~~
fill
cURtin €~~4:5:w~@
--
'""""'-
Numerical modelling
Prediction of induced stresses from mining n

,'lI('a)
~ ....
.-v. . . . P7g".!_~.
(:!~
"-.!.'. ~ ~"J'=r
'111.'
.
u:-'.....n.-. rill
tH'. ')(;.• I..... I
•
f'
Input:
• Estimate of in-situ stress field with depth
• Deformational properties on a rock mass scale
..
• Initial excavation geometry ~
, EllI
FIgure 1 COB 'lilly uu".IHI
• Overall sequence of extraction
. · -',. !.
~1~L-~;J~I::!l~rt''!S'''iaii':1ii~!''I!'l!f.i';~:::J
. u. ""',. II.m..
~
•• ~ i"t\~~1'[i:d:::3tLlIL4'
ott .."..,.., _ '----' I
r
n',1 .2< •• JO:' "'•• a.1 '1.' ..... i
I
n.".1 ----....M W .•-liiir.""l T2II':T j
4
Output: - --1..-- - _ 1
,
~
•• I
,.1 ••
j
• Stresses I -p.- "I
• Displacements ~
!
i
I
.
I .
• • 4-"
Flr/ur, f COB with slmpl. blocll exc.v.rlon In vlt:lnlty of ROB

j ·.l..
Figure f COB with ,Imp" blocll uClv,rlon In vicinity or ROB ;lOd COOS
ill
I
-.'"'=
= ~
- g
_::-
...... ...--
CURtin
m -"L
~~
n~
g"._ot}'f""©
-~
Numerical modelling
Prediction of induced stresses from mining
Interpretation:
• Compare predictions with empirical failure criterion
Validation:
• Prediction validated against I ~I.r", ro., 2 ZIIIU

IKl~) UNitt liUl Ztl,it .su.l' .... e 58.8 W.e 1iLit BIt.1I '.k iLi..
..•
> ,
l
I
field data and observations

Limitations of linear elastic modelling (often used)
,
• Does not predict movement, fall-off or dilution
I ,
from faults I ...L.
• Does not predict complete failure of a rock mass I
1_- ~
and any resultant stress re-distribution Figure 1 COB with simple block excavation In vicinity of ROB and COOS. With faults.
~
L ....)
-.-
-== -;" J
-=-.;;..;;:::..
'- ..:-
clJAbn 4lt
-kL
w~sm
--
~--.-~
&~@
Numerical modelling
Table 2. Average Uniaxial Compressive Strength per rock type. 14

(MPa)
130
Rock Sample UCS STDev
120
Type Number (MPa) (MPa) 110
Hangingwall 9 114 25.1 100

rock
90
Orebody II 107 42.2
Footwall 7 139 40.1 80
rock A ~
70
Footwall IS 107 23.0
RockB 60
50
Figure 2. Modelled UCS variability across an orebody hangingwall boundary.

-.-
--= =.--
--
=...
'~~
.~
~
~
J.L
cURl:m
-~~
~
t?;o.'Y'i:r~l@
Numerical modelling
Rock mass
Type Em O"cm rPm
- (GPa) (MPa) (0)
Hangigwall 31.6 46 40
Rock
•
Orebody 30.5 44 43.7
Footwall 31.6 57 40
Rock A
Footwall 31.1 44 43.7

RockB
I
. c
~
....)
, ~
~r
~
---
...
-=.
..:.-.-
"""'.::; :;!'"
CUAtm
~;,;,;;o;;.;.l::..~
~.
m {Lm
~3f$'
t?~.,.J~.@
Numerical modelling
Orientation and magnitude with depth required
Principal Stresses (MPa) /~·C~.·

o / \ \ ~
"·250 I ' \ '
20
i \" \
40
i
60
I
/ \ \ \\
o IU 01 ( \ Il>\
~ __ .j+-~~-'o.
HI °2
-300 .. ------- .. -: ... - - -

~_ -~ ------
o
6
•
RI0 3
AEo J
C·----\J
\"'. \\ /,y'
• AE (J2
o '"
" ~~,_._y/7
·........._•.J.-o
///
AEo, I-U at 363m and AE at 493m

·350
/"
/ ........1 . .--..". ",
Principal stresses and planes
...........•.. , , , /
1 \.
-'~'.-'-'---~"
.
·400
(\---- \ 1)
~
Ei \\ \\ "
/1
~
Z. ·450 \~""____
,,--::._-~:..
\ ~/,//i ./
,
"
Cl ......_,_-.L.~_.-,..-"
"
AE principal orientations at 493m
·500 . ---~- .. _-_ .. ..-. --- -... ····~t······-·- .. _- 0,(1.2%).0, (1.7%). 03(2.9%)
//
.......
=t;I --....
~'.
...- -:----.-.~~'"
.
/' /' '\ i
/ ~/
- !. \
'
-550 ·· _.. - .'.. -- - - ~ ---- -- .. -- - -_..•...

i
fi
-01
--_
- ......__.-J' "I .
\ \ i J
·600~ "............•.•.........•. \\ ''\ I
! /.
" I _.",,/
'·,~..._I,.,", __/
AE principal orientations at 595m
~650 ! I !~ 0,(3.2%).0, (1.4%).° 3(6.6%)
C-.=
-----
::..-= ~Rsm
cURtln
~~
-:::;:;-m
............
~
J:!L
Qw.•~@
Numerical modelling
Interpretation of numerical modelling results

0"1
Increasing
DL=3
Damage
DL=2
;...
·
0"1
90
• ··
r···········/··················/······················
DL=l
DL=O
0"1
\ ......................................•
. . .
80 /"/
e .
~ m m m mmm.m+ ~ ~.)
70
DL=O DL=1 DL=2
•......................................................................................................······I··.······················j
DL=O
Increasing
Damage
---c
5
0"1 - Confinerr.. ~nt 8....)
- 1
~.,.
~~r
J.L ~
,
~.:&.
~A
-:..:.-
~;::="'"
""';;;:..."":::.:..."""*
~
G}-~-:e:un.,@
Numerical modelling
Failure criteria calibrated locally
Unsupportable
cr driven failure
;...
(J
POB
./-..... . ;,/-.. ....................+ (Jl .......................................•.
..
..
.;,/-~ .... +.... •
..
@r :;;/- ··Ie
Damage
i threshold
cr 3 - Confinement £
-.-
= ~
==.;;
c~n
~~m
'"
~~
ll"~ Numerical modelling
~ ..--.. {O?wu._~c,~.. @
-~
tan 2 ( 45 + ¢ m /2)
Strength Factor A = a em + a 3
a 1
Strength
I.. 1 Factor-A
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
UCS= 13" ¥I '95 6 1 "1
~
c ...,)
"".=
----- -.----
__ :::r
~
h.
wnsm )
cURtin
~~~
~
&~.,~~~~.~@
Numerical modelling
0" em + 0" 3 tan 2 (45 + ¢ m /2)

Strengt4 Factor A =
0"1
Strenglh
i i Faclor-A
LOO
1.10
1.20
1_30
1.40
L50
L60
L70
L80
1.90
2.00
! """'I-;
ucs = 13 35"'-T-"'<"Ii I I
)
A review of empirical methods used to estimate rock mass compressive strength
and deformability in the mining industry
E. Villaescusa
Western Australian School or Mines, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
J. Li
Western Australian School or Mines, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
ABSTRACT: The most widely used empirical relations, based on rock mass classifications, to estimate the
rock mass compressive strength and deformation modulus are reviewed. The estimates from the relationships
are compared for a wide range of general rock mass conditions and the most appropriate relationships are
chosen. In addition, the selected relationships are used to quantify the scale effect by comparing the intact
rock properties determined in the laboratory with the rock mass properties estimated using data from 15 mine
sites. The results from the rock mass classifications are then compared with the actual estimates used at those
15 underground mines, where the geotechnical engineers simply downgrade the intact rock parameters (based
on underground observations and experience) as inputs to numerical modelling. Finally, the paper compares
the rock mass strength estimates using a recently developed method based on rock mass critical strain with
corresponding estimates using the conventional Hoek-Brown method.
) 1. Introduction 2. Rock mass compressive strength and

deforrnability
The deformation modulus and compressive strength The rock mass compressive strength is a measure of
of a rock mass can be determined by in situ testing. the peak load carrying capacity of a rock mass (i.e
Such tests are used in civil engineering and involve stress driven failure) and is likely to be a fraction of
among others, plate bearing, hydraulic pressure the intact rock strength due to the presence of
chamber, flat jack, radial jack, and direct shear tests geological discontinuities (Hoek and Brown, 1980).
(Lama and Vutukuri, 1978 and ISRM, 1981). These The actual value depends upon the geometrical
tests are extremely expensive and time consuming, nature and strength of the geological discontinuities,
and consequently, rarely carried out within the as well as the physical properties of the intact rock
mining industry. On the other hand, over the last bridges.
two decades, a number of empirical relations to The modulus of deformation (or deformation
estimate the deformability and compressive strength modulus) is the ratio of stress to corresponding
of a rock mass based on rock mass classifications strain during loading of a rock mass including elastic
have been developed (Bieniawski, 1978; Serafim and inelastic behaviour. This is different to the
and Pereira, 1983; Kalamaras et ai, 1995; Hoek and modulus of elasticity or Young's modulus, which is
Brown, 1997; Sheorey, 1997; and Hoek, 1998). the ratio of stress to corresponding strain below the
Furthermore, at some mines the rock mass proportionality limit of a material, i, e, intact rock
properties are estimated by simply downgrading (ISRM, 1975).
some of the intact rock properties, which are then
used as ,inputs to numerical modelling, The results
3. Empirical relations based on rock mass
from the numerical modelling are calibrated with
observations of the rock mass behaviour at the mine classifications
sites and the input of the rock mass parameters are
"fine tuned". Given that large scale testing of a rock mass is cost
prohibitive in mining operations, a practical
alternative is to estimate the rock mass properties
from rock mass classifications and intact rock core
sampling testing. Consequently, a number of Table 2 shows uniaxial compressive strength
empirical relationships to determine the values for typical intact rocks, as well as GSI and
deformability and strength of rock masses using the rock mass strength values from Hoek and Brown
rock mass classification indices have been proposed (1997) and the resulting estimated rock mass ' )
since the late 1970s. compressive strengths calculated using Eqs.1 to 6
from Table I. Analysis of the data suggests that
3.1 Estimation ofrock mass compressive strength Equation 2 (Trueman, 1988) may not work well for
cases in which a rock mass has a low uniaxial
A number of empirical relations for detennining the compressive strength of intact rock and high GS1 or
compressive strength of a rock mass are available in RMR values. For a quartz mica schist having a
the literature. The most widely used relationships uniaxial compressi ve strength of 30MPa and a GS1
are given in Table I. In all but two cases, the (or RMR) of 65, the calculated rock mass
empirical equations incorporate the uniaxial compressive strength using equation 2 is 24.7MPa,
compressive strength of the intact rock coupled with which is much higher than the value (8.2MPa)
a rock mass classification system. Table I also calculated using the Mohr-Coulomb to fit the Hoek-
includes a procedure proposed by Hoek and Brown Brown criterion (Hoek-Brown method).
(1997) to calculate the rock mass compressive Similarly, it can be seen that, in most cases, the
strength by fitting the Mohr-Coulomb failure values of a rock mass compressive strength
criterion envelope to the Hoek-Brown criterion as calculated using equation 3 (Singh, 1993) are higher
shown in Figure I. than the values estimated using the Hoek-Brown
procedure. Again, for the quartz mica schist the
estimated rock mass compressive strength IS
70
.".
0.
39.6MPa, which is higher than the uniaxial
~ 60 compressive strength of the intact rock (30MPa).
,,-
~ 50
In addition, equations 2 and 3 do not explicitly
l' consider both the uniaxial compressive strength of
~m 40 MohFCoulomb
intact rock and a rock mass classification system,
~ criterion (fitted)
·0
.§ 30 and consequently are not considered further in this
~
study. Eqs.1 and 5 are also excluded since these
estimated rock mass compressive strength a·re very
10 low compared with the results obtained using the
l7~
Hoek-Brown method. This leaves Eqs. 4 and 6
10 20 30 coupled with the Hoek-Brown method as the
Minor principal slress OJ(MPe) recommended choices for estimation of a rock mass
Figure I. Hoek-Brown and Mohr-Coulomb criteria and rock
compressive strength using intact rock strength and
mass compressive strength (Hoek and Brown, 1997). rock mass classification systems.
Table l. Emnirical relations for determining comnressive strenQ"th 0 f rock masses.

Emnirical Relations & Procedure Reference Eouation Number
_ (RA1R 1i -IOO}/18.7S
CJcm - (Ice Ramamurthy, 1986 (I)
G"
= = 0.5eO.o<RMRn Trueman, 1988 (2)
,
G",m = 0.7;Q' Singh, 1993 (3)
_ 05 RMR" -15
a cm -. 85 eTc Kalamaras el ai, 1995 (4)
a <m = a
,
e(RMRn,-IOO)/20
Shearey, 1997 (5)
(J" em
= 0 . 022 ace O.0J8GSJ Hoek, 1998 (6)
Mohr-Coulomb to fit Hoek-Brown criterion
Hoek and Brown, 1997
(Hoek-Brown method)
)
Note: r is the bulk unit weight of intact rock (kN/m\ a c is uniaxial compressive strength of intact rock; Q is the
classification index of Barton el at (1974); GSI is Geological Strength Index (Hoek el ai, 1995) and RMR" and
RMR" are Rock Mass Rating of Bieniawski in 1976 and 1989.
.. I re Ia t"IOns.
T a bl e 2 R ock mass compressive strenl(rthdetermmedbDyempmca
GSlor
(I, (I~ (MPa)
Rock mass description
MPa) RMR§ Hoek & Brown (t997)# Eq.l Eq.2 Eq.3* EqA Eq.5 Eq.6
VIg Quality hard rock mass ISO 75 64.8 39.5 45.0 57.4 57.4 43.0 57.0
A verage Quality rock mass 80 50 13.0 5.6 10.0 22.7 18.8 6.6 11.8
Vip Quality rock mass 20 30 1.7 0.5 3.0 10.8 2.4 0.6 1.4
Massive gneiss 110 75 43.0 29.0 45.0 57.4 42.1 31.5 41.8
Quartz mica schist 30 65 8.2 4.6 24.7 39.6 9.7 5.2 7.8
Graphitic phvllite 15 24 1.0 0.3 2.1 8.7 1.2 OJ 0.8
.. The bulk density of all rock types is assumed as 26kN/mJ, and Q-index in Eq.5.12 is calculated by using
RMR =9lnQ+44 (Bieniawski,1984).
# Compressive strength of rock mass was calculated using the Hoek-Brown method (Mohr-Coulomb to fit Hoek-Brown
criterion).
§ In Eqs.l, 2 and 5; RMR 76 = OSl and in Eq.4; RMR89 = OSl + 5.
VIg is very good and Vip stands for very poor.
by the extensive literature review of Heuze (1980),

3.2 Estimation ofrock mass deformation modulus
which showed that the deformation modulus of a
The most widely used empirical relations for rock mass is about 20 to 60% of the intact rock
determining the deformation modulus of rock Young's modulus. When RMR ~ 57, the ratio of
masses are given in Table 3. Eqs. 7 and 8 are only defonnation modulus of rock masses to Young's
valid when RMR>50 and Q> I, respectively. It is modulus of intact rocks using Equation 10 is greater
noted that in cases when the RMR ranges from 50 than 0.6.
to 55 or Q is less than 2, the deformation modulus Furthermore, Hoek and Brown (1997)
values estimated using these equations appear to be recommended to use Eq.9 to estimate the rock mass
too low, (see Figure 2). In addition, both equations deformation modulus, and modified it into Eq. II in
may not provide a reasonable fit for the field order to consider the intact rock strength. Hoek and
measured data, since they are not applicable for a Brown (1997) indicated that the deformation of
wide range of RMR values. better quality rock masses is controlled by the
geological discontinuities; while for poorer quality
100 .---.-~-.-~--~~--~---, rock masses the deformation of the intact rock
, ,
E = lQlRMR-IO)f40 pieces contributes to the overall deformation
m
process. Consequently, only Eqs.9 and II are
+ Bieniawski (1978)
• Serafim and Pereira
i\ recommended to estimate the rock mass deformation
modulus.
Li (2004) has estimated the rock mass
(1983)
,, compressive strength using the Hoek-Brown method
,
(Mohr-Coulomb to fit Hoek-Brown criterion) and
-~~---:_.-Em =2.RMR-lOO .:_+. the rock mass deformation modulus using Eqs. 9 and
, I
, I
__
,
~
,
'
"
L __ ~
I
_ 11. The results for a number of mine sites are listed
,,
,
,
I
,
,,
" I
in Table 4 indicate the rock mass parameters to be a
- - .. - - -,- _. ~ - -..., - - - - proportion of the intact rock parameters. Figure 3
shows the calculated ranges for ( I ) (I ~, which
appear to be log normally distributed. The results
show that on average (I,m is approximately'/., of (I,.
o ~~:i:!:=:::::::::::::.LL~':""-~~ Figure 4 shows the calculated ranges for E/Em ,
o 20 40 60 80 10D which appear to be negative exponentially
Rock mass rating, RMR 76
distributed. The results show that on average Em is
Figure 2. Defonnation modulus of rock mass versus rock mass approximately 1/3 of E .
rating (Hoek and Brown, 1988).
Equation 10 appears to overestimate the rock

mass deformation modulus. This can be explained
Tahi e 3 EmPinca
.. I re Ianons
. fior detenmmng roc k mass de fiormation mod u Ius.
Empirical relationships Reference EQuation Number
Em = 2RMR" -100 (RMR >50) (GPa) Bieniawski, 1978 7
Em = 2510gQ (Q > I) (GPa) Barlon et ai, 1980 8
E = IO IRMR,,-lOj!40 (GPa) Serafim and Pereira, 1983 9
m
E
-"'- = 0.5[1- cos(tr * RMR.. /100)] Milri ef ai, 1994 10
E
E = ~ a c IOIGs/-lOl/40 (a c < 100 MPa) Hoek and Brown, 1997 II
m 100
Note: Em is the deformation modulus cfrock mass and E is Young's modulus of intact rock.
T ahi e 4 Intact roc k and roc k mass c aSSl lcatlOn data With estunated rock mass parameters.
s a ac E a cm Em O'c / Gem E/E
Mine Site Rock Type RMR" m. (GPa)
I (MPa) MPa (GPa)
Host rock 70 5.82 0.0357 0.5 185 100 60.3 31.6 3.07 3.16
Ora Banda
are body 55 3.41 0.0067 0.5 145 55 30.8 13.3 4.71 4.14
Quartz 56 5.19 0.0075 0.5 116 83 29.6 14.1 3.92 5.89
Porphyry 57 3.66 0.0084 0.5 76 ----- 17.1 13.0 4.52 -_.-
Harlequin Gahhro (dolerite) 66 8.02 0.0229 0.5 165 66 56.2 25.1 3.17 2.63
Basalt 62 4.37 0.0147 0.5 86 61 22.1 185 3.94 3.30
Granodiorite 59 6.94 0.0105 0.5 228 ----- 67.5 168 3.79 -----
Quartz 59 5.32 0.0105 0.5 106 ----- 28.2 16.8 3.80 -----
Porphyry 61 4.22 0.0131 0.5 221 .---- 55.2 18.8 4.28 -----
Bullen
Gahhro 67 8.31 0.0256 0.5 281 ----- 98.4 26.6 3.01 -----
Basalt 70 5.42 0.0286 0.5 246 ----- 75.4 28.2 3.19 -----
Basalt (Tramways Dome) 78 7.75 0.0868 0.5 180 78 76.9 50.1 2.34 1.56
Basalt (Kamhalda Dome) 78 7.75 0.0868 0.5 228 80 97.4 50.1 2.35 1.60
Basalt (Widgiemooltha Dome) 78 7.75 0.0868 0.5 130 79 55.5 50.1 2.32 1.58
Kambalda Intermediate Porphyry 68 5.42 0.0286 0.5 110 87 33.7 28.2 3.24 3.09
Nickel Felsic Porphyry 79 8.03 0.0970 0.5 219 62 97.0 53.1 2.26 1.17
Mines Ultramafic (Talc chlorite) 66 6.53 0.0229 0.5 59 80 27.0 23.2 2.19 3.45
Ultramafic (Talc magnesite) 66 6.53 0.0229 0.5 30 33 10.0 13.8 3.00 2.39
Ultramafic (Antigorite) 73 8.39 0.0498 0.5 226 70 88.0 37.6 2.57 1.86
Ultramafic (Lizardite) 62 5.66 0.0147 0.5 109 37 31.0 20.0 3.52 1.85
Mt Charlotte Dolerite (Unit 8) 75 7.78 0.0622 0.5 177 70 70.3 42.2 2.52 1.66
Mt Isa Pb Mine Shales 75 9.01 0.0622 0.5 185 80 76.8 42.2 2.41 1.90
New Ultramafic 51 3.95 0.0043 0.5 40 25 7.7 7.0 8.42 3.57
Celebration Gabbro 72 9.94 0.0399 0.5 208 81 82.6 33.5 2.47 2.28
Mt Marion Ultramafic 60 7.91 0.0117 0.5 103 67 32.5 17.8 3.17 3.76
Volcanite 76 5.7 0.0695 0.5 222 70 83 46.7 2.67 1.50
Outkumpu
Pyrite 84 9.2 0.1690 0.5 105 122 55.7 70.8 1.89 1.72
Felsic 69 6.94 0.0319 0.5 220 75 75 29.9 2.93 2.51
Granitoid 64 8.29 0.0183 0.5 210 81 71 22.4 2.96 3.62
Centenary Magnetic Dolerite 69 6.28 0.0319 0.5 231 91 76 29.9 3.04 3.05
Magnetic Quartz Dolerite 69 6.28 0.0319 0.5 242 89 79 29.9 3.06 2.97
LamDroDhvre 58 4.24 0.0094 0.5 123 70 30 15.8 4.08 4.40
Basalt 55 3.41 0.0067 0.5 153 91 33 13.3 4.63 6.80
Felsic 69 6.94 0.0319 0.5 167 ----- 57 29.9 2.93 -----
Granitoid 64 8.29 0.0183 0.5 130 --.-- 44 22.4 2.96 ----
Darlol Magnetic Dolerite 69 6.28 0.0319 0.5 235 99 77 29.9 3.05 3.30
Magnetic Quartz Dolerite 69 6.28 0.0319 0.5 240 87 79 29.9 3.03 2.91
Tuff 64 4.15 0.0183 0.5 126 ----- 33 22.4 3.80 --_ ..
LamDroDhvre 58 4.24 0.0094 0.5 131 81 32 15.8 4.08 5.14
Grit 82 1157 0.1353 0.5 140 70 738 63.1 1.90 1.11
Kanowna
Porphyry 68 7.97 00286 0.5 110 65 38.5 28.2 2.86 2.31 )
Belle
Conglomerate 82 1157 0.1353 0.5 140 70 73.8 63.1 1.90 1.11
Table 4. Intact rock and rock mass classification data with estimated rock mass arameters (Cont'd).
(5, E (5= Em
Mine Site Rock Type RMR" m. s a O'c1uClrl E/Em
(GPa) iMPa) iMPa) I iGPa)
Ultramafic 63 5.60 0.0164 0.5 150 61 43 21.1 3.49 2.89
Yilgarn SlaJ
Ore 47 3.77 0.0028 0.5 40 27 8 5.3 5.00 5.09
Dolerite 75 11.06 0.0622 0.5 335 92.6 148 42.2 2.26 2.19
Junction
All ore 68 4.78 0.0286 0.5 141 74.7 42 28.2 3.36 2.65
Malu Quartzite 78 10.94 0.0868 0.5 250 80 117.5 50.1 2.18 1.60
Telfer Gold Outer siltstone 47 1.36 0.0028 0.5 30 20 4.0 4.6 7.32 4.35
Footwall sandstone 58 4.23 00094 0.5 150 60 36.3 15.8 4.13 3.80
Massive strong rock mass 75 7.25 0.062 0.5 110 _._-- 43 42 2.56 -----
Average quality rock mass 65 4.5 0.02 0.5 30 ----- 8.2 13 3.66 -----
Hoek and
Poor quality rock mass 24 0.66 0 0.53 15 ----- 0.34 0.87 44.12 -----
Brown
Massive weak rock 80 16.3 0.1084 0.5 51 ----- 28.3 40.2 1.80 ----
(1997),
Massive strong rock mass 80 7.25 0.1084 0.5 110 ----- 48.9 56.2 2.25 -----
Hoek (1998
Average quality rock mass 70 4.5 0.0357 0.5 30 ----- 9.05 17.3 3.31 -----
Poor Quality at shallow depth 20 0.55 0 0.55 7.5 ---- 0.52 0.5 14.42 -----
25 parameters, which are then used as input to

numerical modelling. The input parameters are
20 Average: 4.35 usually adjusted and finetuned with information
from underground observations, and geotechnical
'"u
0
~
15
instrumentation. Table 5 shows a number of input
~
0'
u
~
10 data that were used by mine site based practitioners
u.. during their numerical modelling of mining
5 sequences. In most cases, they concluded that the
stress outputs and the related excavation stability
o assessments from numerical modelling were
o <2 2·) )·4 4·5 5·6 ;>I;
acceptable and used during actual orebody
Range of fr c lITem
sequencing. Figure 5 shows the calculated ranges for
Figure 3. Histogram of (T c / a 0I'l - Rock mass classifications. (5)(5=, which also appear to be log normally
distributed. The results show that on average (5,m is
14
approximately lI5 of (5,. Figure 6 shows the
12
10
Average: 2.90
calculated ranges for EI
Em , which also appear to be
'" negative exponentially distributed. The results show
~ 8
u
~
that on average Em is approximately 1/2 of E.
0' 6
u
~
u..
4 12,--------------,
2 Average: 5.11
10
o ~ 8
o <2 2·) )·4 4·5 5·6 ;>I; ~
g. 6
RangeofE/Em ~
u.. 4
Figure 4. Histogram of E/ Em - Rock mass classifications.
2
o
o <2 2·) )·4 4·5 5·6 ><i
4. Numerical modelling practice in
Range of a c / a cm
underground
, mining
Figure 5. Histogram of C7 c /o- cm - Nwnerical modelling
[n underground minmg practice, geotechnical experience.
engineers estimate the rock mass compressIve
strength and deformation modulus by either using
the Hoek-Brown criterion (1988) or by simply
downgrading some of the intact rock strength
T abl e 5 E stunate
. d roc k mass parameters fr om numenca mode II'mgex~ enence.
Mine Site Rock Type U, (MPa) E (GPa) u= (MPa) Em (GPa) at; / a cm E/E m
Host rock 185 100 95 40 1.95 2.50
Ora Banda
are body 145 55 70 16 2.07 3.44 )
Quartz 116 83 18 15 6.44 5.53
Porphyry 76 ----- 10 12 7.60 -----
Harlequin Gabbro (dolerite) 165 66 38 32 4.34 2.06
Basalt 86 61 14 19 6.14 3.21
Granodiorite 228 ---- 31 9 7.35 -----
Quartz 106 --- 16 15 6.63 -----
Bullen
Porphyry 221 --- 28 12 7.89 -----
Gabbro 281 -._-- 73 38 3.85 -----
Basalt 246 ----- 56 32 4.39 -----
Mt Charlotte Dolerite run it 8) 177 70 100 65 1.77 1.08
Mt Isa Pb Mine Shales 185 80 94 60 1.96 1.33
New Ultramafic 40 25 ----- II ----- 2.27
Gabbro 208 81 ---- 32 ._--- 2.53
Celebration
Basalt (Tramways Dome) 180 78 90 50 2.00 1.56
Basalt (Kambalda Dome) 228 80 114 50 2.00 1.60
Basalt (Widgiemooltha Dome) 130 79 65 50 2.00 1.58
Kambalda Intermediate Porphyry 110 87 55 30 2.00 2.90
Nickel Felsic Porphyry 219 62 109 50 2.01 1.24
Mines Ultramafic (Talc chlorite) 59 80 30 20 1.97 4.00
Ultramafic (Talc magnesite) 30 33 15 10 2.00 3.30
Ultramafic (Antigorite) 226 70 113 55 2.00 1.27
Ultramafic (Lizardite) 109 37 55 30 1.98 1.23
Mt Marion Ultramafic 103 67 33 18 3.17 3.76
Volcanite 222 70 45 59 4.93 1.19
Outkumpu
Pyrite 105 122 71 43 1.48 2.84
Grit 140 70 73.8 63 1.90 1.11
Kanowna
Porphyry 110 65 38.5 28 2.86 2.31
Belle
Con~lomerate 140 70 73.8 63 1.90 1.11
Ultramafic 150 61 13.1 12 11.45 5.08
Yilgarn Star are 40 27 13.1 12 3.05 2.25
Dolerite 335 93 200 90 1.68 1.03
Junction All ore 141 75 108 78 1.31 1.00
Malu Quartzite 250 80 75 58 3.33 1.38
Telfer Outer siltstone 30 20 2 8 15.00 2.50
Footwall sandstone 150 60 15 17 10.00 3.53
Massive strong rock mass 110 ----- 43 42 2.56 -._--
Average quality rock mass 30 ----- 8.2 13 3.66 -----
Hoek and
Brown Poor quality rock mass 15 ---- 0.34 0.87 44.12 -----
Massive weak rock 51 ----- 28.3 40.2 1.80 -----
(1997),
Massive strong rock mass 110 ---- 48.9 56.2 2.25 -----
Hoek (1998)
A verage quality rock mass 30 ----- 9.05 17.3 3.31 .-.--
Poor quality at shallow depth 7.5 .--.- 0.52 0.5 14.42 -----
t6,---------------,
t4 Comparisons of the estimated parameters using
t2 Average: 2.31 rock mass classification and those used in numerical
i:f 10 modelling are shown in Figures 7 and 8. The two
g8
a"
methods appear to estimate different rock mass
~ 6
u. compressive strengths for the same rock mass
4.
environments.. However, the defonnation moduli
2
estimated using both methods are similar.
o
o <2 2-J J·4 4·5 5-6 >6
Range ofE/Em
Figure 6. Histogram of E/ Em - Numerical modelling

experience.
25,--------------, The conceptual average axial stress versus axial
• Rock mass strain plot for the intact rock and rock mass are
20 classifications
shown in Figure 9.
iii Numerical modelling
experience
(J'~ -------,._ --
5 E/" I Intact rock

behaviour
o
I
,,
:
o <2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 >6

,,
Range of 0" c / a em ,,
: Frictional
: sliding
Figure 7. Histogram of ac/ CY em . ... .. 1 I
./ I t Rock mass
/'" E.
, ,::, behaviour
16,----------------,
14 • Rock mass
..'" c Axial strain, £:
"Cri' CriI
12 classifications
~ 10 II Nwnerical modelling Figure 9. Comparison of intact rock and rock mass behaviour
c
u 8 experience
[ 6 Eq.12 can be used to estimate the rock mass
... 4
compressive strength as follows (Li, 2004)
2
o
o <2 2·) 3-4 4-5 5-6 >6
RangeofE/Em Table 6 shows a comparison of rock mass
compressive strength values using Eq.15 and those
Figure 8. Histogram of E/Em . calculated using the Hoek-Brown method (Mohr-
Coulomb to fit Hoek-Brown criterion) and the rock
mass deformation modulus using Eqs.9 and II. The
5. Rock mass strength from critical strain results suggest that, in most cases, similar rock mass
strength is estimated using both methods.
The comparisons of the rock mass compressive
Recent work at the Western Australian School of strengths calculated using the Hoek-Brown method
Mines (Li, 2004) established a correlation between and Eq.15 are also shown in Figure 10.
critical strain for intact rock and rock masses using
81 data points collected from Western Australian
160
underground mining operations. From this study a 0
140
linear relationship between the critical strain for
rock masses and intact rock can be approximately '2' 120 o 0
0
"-
expressed as follows 6- 100
~
00
0 y =1.0082x
a-
0 R' =0.7939
&~rit ;::; O.79£Crit (12) Ul
0
0
60
""
c
.;;; Q>o
where &Cr" and &;ri' are the critical strain of intact ~ 40
rock and rock masses expressed in % units 20

respectively. The critical strain for intact rock is 0.f"'...-~--~-~----1
defined as follows (Sakurai, 1982, Li, 2004), o 50 100 150 200
Rock rmss strength estirmted using
ek-Brown ""thod (MPa)
(13)
Figure 10. Comparison of rock mass compressive strength
The critical strain for rock masses is defmed as estimated using Hoek-Brown method and Eq.15.
follows (Li, 2004),
m
GCril =e- O'cm
m
(14)
T abl e 6 Rock mass compressive streng!th ca cu ate d usmg HoekB- rownmeth0 d andEoq. 15
(7, E c,m Em (7cm (MPa)
Mine Site Rock Type RMR"
(MPa) (GPa) (%) (GPa) H-B method Eq. 15
Ora Host rock 70 185 100 0.185 31.6 60.3 46.2
Banda Ore body 55 145 55 0.264 13.3 30.8 27.7
Quartz 56 116 83 0.140 14.1 29.6 15.6

Porphyry 57 76 ----- ----- 13 17.1 ----
Gabbro (dolerite) 66 165 66 0.250 25.1 56.2 49.9
Harlequin
Basalt 62 86 61 0.141 18.5 22.1 20.6
Granodiorite 59 228 ----- .-.-. 16.8 67.5 -----
Basalt (Tramways Dome) 78 180 78 0.231 50.1 76.9 91.3

Basalt (Karnbalda Dome) 78 228 80 0.285 50.1 97.4 112.8
Basalt (Widgiemooltha Dome) 78 130 79 0.165 50.1 55.5 65.1
Intenned. Porphyry 68 110 87 0.126 28.2 33.7 28.2
Kambalda
Felsic Porphyry 79 219 62 0.353 53.1 97 148.2
Nickel
Ultramafic (Talc chlorite) 66 59 80 0074 232 27 13.5
Mines
Ultramafic (Talc magnesite) 66 30 33 0.091 13.8 10 9.9
Ultramafic (Antigorite) 73 226 70 0.323 37.6 88 95.9
Ultramafic (Lizardite) 62 109 37 0.295 20 31 46.5
Mt Charlotte Dolerite (Unit 8) 75 177 70 0.253 42.2 70.3 84.3
Mtlsa Pb Mine Shales 75 185 80 0.231 42.2 76.8 77.1
New Ultramafic 51 40 25 0.160 7 7.7 8.8

Celebration Gabbro 72 208 81 0.257 33.5 82.6 68.0
Mt Marion Ultramafic 65 114 78 0.146 17.8 46.0 36.3
Volcanite 76 222 70 0.317 46.7 83.0 117.0

Outkumpu Pyrite 84 105 122 0.086 70.8 55.7 48.1
FELSIC 69 220 75 0.293 29.9 75 69.3

Granitoid 64 210 81 0.259 22.4 71 45.9
Magnetic Dolerite 69 231 91 0.254 29.9 76 60.0
Centenary
Magnetic Quartz Dolerite 69 242 89 0.272 29.9 79 64.2
Lamprophyre 58 123 70 0.176 15.8 30 21.9
Basalt 55 153 91 0.168 13.3 33 17.7

FELSIC 69 167 ----- ----- 29.9 57 ----
Granitoid 64 130 ----- ----- 22.4 44 ----
Magnetic Dolerite 69 235 99 0.237 29.9 77 56.1
Daclot
Magnetic Quartz Dolerite 69 240 87 0.276 29.9 79 65.2
Tuff 64 126 .-._- ----- 22.4 33 -----
Lamprophyre 58 131 81 0.162 15.8 32 20.2
Grit 82 140 70 0.200 63.1 73.8 99.7

Kanowna Porphyry 68 110 65 0.169 28.2 38.5 37.7
Belle Conglomerate 82 140 70 0.200 63.1 73.8 99.7
Ultramafic 63 150 61 0.246 21.1 43 41.0

Yilgam
Ore 47 40 27 0.148 5.3 8 6.2
Star
• Dolerite 75 335 92.6 0.362 42.2 148 120.6

Junction All ore 68 141 74.7 0.189 28.2 42 42.1
Malu Quartzite 78 250 80 0.313 50.1 117.5 123.7

Outer siltstone 47 30 20 0.150 4.6 4 5.5 )
Telfer
Footwall sandstone 58 150 60 0.250 15.8 36.3 31.2
Australian Centre for Geomechanics Dilution Con/rol in Underground Mines
Emesto Yillaescusa Australian Case Studies
SEMINAR ENTITLED
DILUTION CONTROL IN
UNDERGROUND MINES
SECTION 9
)
AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDIES
PRESENTED By
ERNESTO VILLAESCUSA
WA SCHOOL OF MINES
Section 9
.~
-== ...... •
~ *.m.
~f
--
".
--
-- .~
~' J
cURbn
----
_...........
-~
tl1i
@~'"'-~~.~~Q ©Ernesto Villaescusa
Dilution control
In
Underground mines
Australian Case Studies

April 2004
Ernesto Villaescusa
CURbn
Cavity Monitoring Systems Data
.---- .-_ ..... -
Rotation
Index Error
Azimuth
Error
(
-y
R
=-~ ·~ u
~
-- ...........
~......--
~';:!'" ~~
u
cURbn
~~ .. @,r~>d@
(Gilbertson, 1995)
---
~="
C;URbn
"':.~
~
@···tQ
A eMS wireframe filled with a.25m x a.25m x a.25m blocks.
L
·' ~..."';

m
'"
'"
rr- -- X I \ \\ I
Y n L-. II I I ~ __ II
1100H
1IDOH
/ I I'" - - ' ~_ :::--+=l_

I' 1 I'. -l.-f-V
A~J_ . \
lDOOH
- i I.
. . ' I::
Main and Minor Faulls
~ 5;.;
~
~
;;;
.
m
~
;;;
'" Seal .. I. 1000 PI,," No. o.le, 1&-Jen-01
-
1
cUAbn

O.5m 1.0m
CJURbn
~~~
•~
@..."...~-Ej
'--'
CMS block model Design block model
Combination of the two block models

ambn
~~
Overbreak shape and

volume minus stope
design
/
cUflbn
l"'Q.."=,,
• HW .. FW • Total
40
35 •
30
Z • •
0 25
~
~
•
~ 20
=:3
~
~
15
Q
10
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hydraulic Radius
=."=
=
....... :.:==:
~--
~.~
----
~
'~
,..,.
......
---kL
~,i."·.!
ill...
CUBbn
@'''~~'l;@
Ore Loss is not a function of HR
20
18
•
16
14
C'-l 12
-
C'-l
0
Q,) 10
~
0 8
~
= 6
4
2
0
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hydraulic Radius
c
-
"
-.- m
==
=-~
-:e~-
r
CURtin
-.I.L
~ ~
W
'--' , /
,
~:"":k t;].....~«'~@

A definite trend as HR increases so does depth of failure
• HW ... FW • Total
8
I
• I
.-S
7
I ,
. './
-1'
'-' 6
....,
Q,l
• I ~
/ •
:= 5 •
~
~
....
0 4
• I• "•
/.
•
.c:
....
Q.
• .;
/
••
3 .......
••
Q,l
~
• • ...
2 •
•
•
•
• ill
... . •
• •~
• •.
• ...
·1
I
...
...
••
... ..
...
•
...
t
1
... ... . ". A
I
0 I , , I
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hydraulic Radius
•
_-.'.--
-
=
.
=~
~;::r
cURbn
'-;;;
........
!!!
~~
As Ore Loss increases, dilution decreases
• HW A FW • Total
I
40
35
I •
30
Z
0
~
25
I .+. •
~
~ 20
~
~
15
~
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 I 10 12 14 16 18
% Ore Loss
I
-
I .'
l ,)
--- It!..
~f ~
-=o..~_
~:::
'~~'
~ "'
,,-.
~:="' tt{l)-
£iU~
~biIlM
@t,.r~.."Q
Stope Performance Review
Depth of Failure vs RMR - Hangingwall
as
SJ
19
;;;..
','
If:; f': ,. . .
'~~""";:;'
-"
.........,....,.' I' \ ~ H - - 1
'._ " "'~d2;
'''''-16 \- ., ,!'
y'''' " .1 : - - - " , .. T·r II' :..,;' __ 6.5
_--
_ .. ~
-13 I';f'), "', rt·I~~]~'····'~r·~\~4'~~

' ~. . ... ll,1 ..... '" . ..., ( . ~ '.., .. , '. ~9" ~,,-.<.;""'!-;
." ~. J _H_ H
.s
I'D • .",,~ ; c::QIO!'L i u a nOli i i :::i::+:=¥-'.'- LS4i I '1~' I __ ;',~_
".r\:'d
-10 ~/ ,-.. ,., !
'fi"J!o'il
4.5
-61 I'"~"
. '-':'_ 'f"
I' ~
~. I~ 'L~"·!~ .V· JF~1 !~.@\6 ,VI '.~!,.D·:'l
~ a:' ~!;.
' -4
3.5
..
64
61 i.ti I \.'
-.
<1.,"
, ~
.s.. it #.
t,~.
J.
.'~O1~ .
t'
J-lo.
'I
i
:2.5
__ 2
_ _ 1.5
3
59 II .' I~
_ '"- ,<I .~~.~ _~. ',~ r~
11
'.i !..~~
· · . v~'-....'
.. - '~.". ...:;r~~!S._.~:::.~(-';~f, .~ I' '\' 1" '; ..-
.•
__ 1
_ _ 0.5
55 1·',,1 J '-I', ~';i't:~~.: .. ~'l;;\.~.~ ,,1:' ··wj.~;;.·)!.....·.~·"l-j -r...
.. Ht\t":'{ .r·"T·;\~:-~:::;·-l,'h It,',,.~ ...~<.. depth (m)
. . . -=-
-=.........
~ .=: .-b..-
--
R.!
~ .. ~
--
--
~=:::=-
cURtin
~
~
Stope.Performance Review
Depth of Failure vs N' - Hangingwall
20
18
16
14
6
12
5.5
5
4.5
>. ·i....
4
,-3
.3.5
!;:;Y;6 3
",.. 4
o
N depth (m)
,..--
c-
;;;.I --.i:L
- -
~
~:.:-- ''.-
"'='=""
cURtm
--
.....:..,,",_1 t@""7''''5a'~i,Q
N' vs HR showing Depth of Failure (m)

Hangingwall
30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,
,, " I " ,
,
I I
,, ,,
I
,
!
, ,
, 0,6 , ,
25
_______________1 _ - - -1-
,
... _ _ •
- - - - - -+- - - - - - -, - - - - - - - --- _ _ l- __
------- ... --------------------1
,
, , o ,
,
,,
+ ,,
,
, ________ L
,
J
,
I
20 -------------------~----------~---------~-----------------~--- ,
Z , ,
,
2.3
:;; , 5.5 + , ,
,
, ,
.0
+
-------------------~----------~---------i,---------
E ,
~ 15
~
:Eco
,
,,
..
'
'
---------------------~---------~--------------------
1
+ +
6
o~
2.6 : 2.2 4.2
_________________ -'f \ 3l__;
Cii
10
,
,
_-2.5
.- -
.:
- - - r - -
,
"
.. • I
,,
•
-&3- - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I
,
,,
I
, ,
____ ' 2.6 : ,
,2~- - - - -:- - -~ - ;
,
5 - - - - - - - - - - - -: - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------1-- - --- ---- --------1

, ,,
-1_ - - - - - - - - - __
,
,, ,
,
,
,
,
, , ,
,
,
o
2,00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 '.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00
Hydraulic Radius
( + 0-1 m +1-2m + 2-3m + 304m + ~-5m + 5-6m I

=.= *m
-=-.;...=-
_.
~:::'""
cURtin
......:-.
~~
ID .
m
t:t·~"'W·JZj

Footwall
30 - -- - -- - - -,., - - - - - - - - -,-
,
, - - - - -- -------------: --------- ------i-- ---------- .• ,- • - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - • ., - - - - - - - - - -,
,,
I I I I
, ,
,, ,
I I I I
,
, ,
- - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - -2-1· - - - - - - - - - t---.Q----------~ --- ----- -: --------- ~ ----------:
, I I I I
25 ---------.,----- ,
, I
I
I
I •
.
: I
I
I I I I
I , I I
J ' I I I
~ 20 ---- ~ --------- ~ --- ----------------- ~ ---------------i --------------~ --------- ~ --------- ~ ----------:

~ I I I , ,
~
: :I : 19 : : :
"E
.c I
I
I .
'0.
I I
',1J3
I
- - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f 7 - ;.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .,. f :- - - - - - - - - - f - - - - - -1 '5 -.. ---------:

_________ i_
::l
Z 15 ,, I . • I I • I I
~ , I
I
• I
I 03
• I I
I
• I
I
I
I
:;; OG 0 I .' 17 I I I I
- - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - -~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -;- - - - - - - ~ - : - - +- --- --: ----- - -- --

.5 • • : • I 18 I 2.6 I I
CIl 10
: I 2.9 : : 1.2 I I
I I • I J • I 1
"
I
, I '
I
,
I
,I
I I I I I I ,
5 ---------+---------~--------------------~------------------------------~---------~---------~-----
I I I I ! I
• I , I I ,
I I 1 ' I t
I : I . .
,
I , , 1 •
oI , ,
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00
Hydraulic Radius
1.0-1m .1-2m .2-3m I
~
L -..J
-.-
== ,..
_. •
::'1
~ =-- ',-
f?~
~~
cUAbn
----
---.-~

All Data
30
,
0,6
25 ~
d
o 2~ ~
, :
, •
-
Z
20 --------~--------------------~--------------------~---------~----------------------------------------~
~
I ! I ; ' "
2~
.2:
: 5,5 :1,9 :
"
.a
£
E
15
_________ .1.____ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:-
I
, • •1,7
0.:.
- - - - - -r.7 - • - - - - - - - - ..L
'
:,
...j _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1,1
_ _ _ _ _ _ 1 . 3 :I
- ------------1-5--·----------
' '
? , 0,3
,
'0 0,3' • 6 '
:0
-1~ ~ ! 3:~t !:!~6 j_ 1,7 4~
iii'" 10
5
_________ ;
. '
2.
I.
:
'26
:
,,,
21 "
:
::
"
"
I
I .
: 2,-5-*-------3-3-1..8.-----+2.£;
'-&
2J
--- -- - -- ----- - ~
.1 •
::
.
f
"
, "
, "
oI •
I
i
I
I
I
I
I i
2,00 '
7,00 , '
3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00 8,00 9,00 10,00 11,00 12,00
Hydraulic Radius
1.0-1m .1-2m .2-3m .3-4m .4-Sm .S-6m I

--- m
~
.......
Si
~'.~
~~
----
.:=
-
..
........ 1"!!'!!!'!Il"
OUlAbn
.
JL.
~~ @'''~~A'';[@

All Data
100
-. -I _ _ __ I
- - - - - ._l.'M M
! Stable Zone'
Nickson, 1992
~~6
HR= 10(O.573+0.338LogN')
•
-::-
--...
Z 1Z ~.51.9
Q)
.0
E
0.3
0 3$ : ~O.P
••
1.703
z
::J 10 ~~
>-
:!::
."., . •9 I
2.6"~' ...
...
.0
1tI
en
"".1'" ....
Unstable Zone
1 o
I I i
Y i • i I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
.Hydraulic Radius
- .0-1 m (). 1-2m .2-3m .. 3-4m .4-5m .5-6m I

L~'
-....)
N'vs HRshowing Depth of Failure (m)
All Data
100 .------~------,---___r------..,______,~-r_----_____:;..."..--____,
, Transition
. / . / (PoMn, 1988)
./
Stable Zone
'E"
.Q
:l 10 +-----,----,--------;---:·~~____rq_-=---"---j.o...,~n/. .- . - - - + _ - - _ + _ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ 4
Z
~ '. / +
.Q Nickson, 1992
U5'" HR= 1O(O,573+0,338LogN')
__ ... 1._
I
Unstable Zone
/
'1 +-__~...L/_!_-,~,.--i....//_'- --+----+---'--'~---j------1f----~--~--___1
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Hydraulic Radius
+O-1m +1-2m +2-3m 3-4m +4-5m +5-6m I

=53
--
•===- .--=:::
-=~::'"
CURtin
..
--------_._._~---':~ ~--------
60
• Stope depth offailure (m)
100 ~------------------;
50
Depth
.,~
,-.. 80 L-------~-------_j of
5 ------------------------------
failure
,
l:
'"
I:l.
C/}
60 L---!--'~h.--------------; ·O-Im
~
I:l.
• -I-2m
A2-3m
40 L---~-~-~---__::---_j =-__.- _
-
I:l. -I-- A
~ .~ 20 +3-4m
->4m
20 L----~~>dh-=::'----------____j
10 -1---------------------1
o L--~--~--~--~--
o 20 40 60 80 100
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Strike Span (m) Strike Span (m)
(a) (b)
-t
..,
oURtrn
6
••!
I 5
~
'E. 4
~ 3
~ 2
~ 1
~
-- • ~
• •
o
o 10 20 30 40 50
Critical Span (m)
Dilution Control Plan
Each operation must set the objectives based

on the reality of its own particular mining system and its economics.
The Dilution Control Action plan must include:
• Definition and identification of dilution sources

• Measurements and implementation of corrective actions
• Setting of realistic targets for reduction over both the

short and long term
• Regular communication of the planned targets and

economical importance to all mining personnel
• Gain feedback and ideas from the workforce

..,

Main Objective:
To develop, maintain and implement dilution monitoring programs,
including recording and feedback systems to reduce dilution.
Control Elements:
Measured against achievement of plans including:
• Relevance, quality and timing ofdata collected
• Quality dilution information feedback
• Workforce awareness of dilution effects
• Availability of dilution information

Technical Activities
• Collect, interpret and communicate high quality data to Operations,

Geology and Engineering personnel.
• Document results of dilution reduction programs and recommend

the required changes.
• Introduce regular progress report of dilution control projects/programs.
• Perform the stope performance reviews

'-
Dilution Control Plan - Example
Results to be achieved
Stope Development
• Monitor and feedback quality of sill development.
• Ensure geotechnical data is collected and communicated

to relevant personnel.
• Establish a link between magnitude of development overbreak

and any subsequent stope dilution or ore losses.
Drilling & blasting
• Establish the geological back mark-ups on breakthrough sill horizons.
• Monitor, identify causes and report on drillhole deviation.

Dilution Control Plan - Example
Results to be achieved
Production Stages
• Perform regular drawpoint and overbreak inspections in all active stopes.
• Cavity monitoring to reconcile volumes, tonnes and grade for all

critical blast and following completion of a stope.
• Ensure dilution feedback is recorded on a database
-
(
.~
Dilution Control Plan - Example 2
Project Definition and Objectives

• Definitions of dilution and ore losses
• Estimates of current dilution and ore loss levels
• Estimates of dilution and ore loss costs
• The costs of the project and the benefits of the project outcomes
Key objective:
• Improve the current geotechnical, geological, mine design and operational practices
to reduce dilution and ore losses.
Project Stages
Preliminary practice reviews:

• Orebody delineation
• Oredrive location
• Stope design in terms of spans and pillars
• Drilling and blasting design and operational practices
• CMS survey and processing (stope reconciliation)
Audit and performance monitoring:

• Detailed design, procedures and practices relevant to dilution
Trials of alternative designs and practices:

• Data collation and analysis
• Documentation
Project completion:
• Conclusions and recommendations
• Resources
• Responsability for implementing the recommendations
• Undertaken during and following the completion of

production blasting
• Geology, mine planning and operations personnel must be
involved
Strike length
• Carried out to improve performance 44m 37m 33m 26m
•
• To determine what lesson
can be learnt
• To determine what improvements
can be made
• To undertake final economic
•
, lalysis
r---
~---- :~'I.
~
~,_---J
, I
• Visual inspections (rock falls, noise, damage, etc), or
• Comparing a CMS-surveyed void with a planned void
• Differences can be due to blasting overbreak, stope wall

failures, pillar failures, insufficient breakage, etc.
1000,----------,
• Variations from the planned ;;;

6000 . . . • . . . • • • . . . __ . . . . . . • • • . ;--. ~
e 5000 ...••••.••..•....•.•. ,_._-.- .....

volumes used to determine ;;
:EE 4000 _ .. - ••., ..•.. - - . - . l.......-nred
actual tonnage and extraction ~ 3000 . - - - .. - _ __ . . . . '-mucked
E
grade for each stope ~
'0
>
2000 . • • • . - . - . . . • . . • . - . . • • • . __ . . . • . . • •
1000' -. - . • •• • •• - • - • . . • • • • • • • • . • • • . • • • •
o......._A---- - _ _--1
6-Nov 11·Nov 16·Ney 21·No'J 26·NQV l-Dec a·Dec 11·Dec
D;lte
-.-
- ,-
e
--
-==
~.';"=
E
~;:::-r
CURtin Stope Performance Review

Stope performance assessment summary
STOPE PERFORMAN CE REVIEW
Stope name: By: Date:
Material Designed Actual Tonnes mucked
Ore (t)
Grade (%)
Internal dilution (%) •
External d ilu tion (%)
Underbreak (%) -
Fill dilution (%) • -
Geology:
The effects of major geological structures, rock types and properties
Reasons for any difference between design and actual grade and tonnes
Development:
Problems and concerns regarding ground conditions
Performance of ground support
Drilling:
Whether any holes or ring section could not be drilled as planned, set-up or
deviation problems. Reasons for variation from design.
Blasting:
Any problems encountered with charging, firing or design sequence.
The results of the blast, ego Fragmentation, misfires, freezing of holes, induced failures
Production mucking:
Ventilation problems or otherwise with chosen circuit. Drawpoint and orepass
conditions. Broken ore left in base of stope?
Backfill:
Condition of fill passes, filling times and cement ratios used, any problems
encountered.
Rock mechanics:
Stope and adjacent development stability. Timing of failures, and features that
contributed to dilution, effects of blasting, structure and stress.
Exposure and stability of adjacent fill masses.
Planning and design:
General comments on original vs. actual extraction. Recommended changes to design
procedure. Financial analysis ofstope extra-.
- y)
Quantifying open stope performance
E. Villaescusa
r, Professor of Geomechanics, Western Australian School ofMines, PMB 22 Kalgoorlie 6430 Australia
Abstract
Stope performance is reviewed with respect to the overall stope design process. Global and detailed design issues
are identified along the way, and the stope design note is described in detail. Stope performance is quantified
based on depth offailure measurements, which are calculated using block models of Cavity Monitoring System
wireframes and tested against the stope design boundaries. Finally a stope performance assessment summary data
sheet is also provided.
,
1 INTRODUCTION 2 STOPE DESIGN PROCESS
The sublevel open stoping method (SLOS) are Stope design for dilution control requires
used to extract large massive or tabular, steeply- interactions among geology, mine planning, rock
dipping competent orebodies surrounded by mechanics and operating personnel (Villaescusa,
competent host rocks which in general have few 1998). The overall rational methodology for the
constraints regarding the shape, size and stope design process is shown in Figure l. Six key
continuity of the mineralization. In general, open stages (and key personnel) are identified, with the
stopes are relatively large excavations in wbich orebody delineation and rock mass
ring drilling is the main method of rock breakage
characterization stages as the basic input. The
(Villaescusa, 2000).
tasks consists of an early detennination of
The SLOS method offers several advantages
) including, low cost and efficient non-entry rockmass properties on a block scale, followed by
production operations, utilization of highly an estimate of the likely loading conditions from
mechanized, mobile drilling and loading the mining sequences. The process requires a
production equipment, high production rates with global and a detailed design stage, where global
a minimum level of personnel. Furthermore, design issues are relevant and applicable within
production operations are concentrated into few entire areas of a mine, such as an extension of an
locations such as ring drilling, blasting and existing orebody, while detailed design issues are
drawpoint mucking. The disadvantages include a applicable to the extraction of individual stopes.
requirement for a significant level of development Finally, a monitoring and back analysis strategy is
infrastructure before production starts, thus required to allow a documented closure of the
incurring a high initial capital investment. mine design loop.
However, most of the development occurs within
the orebody. In addition, the stopes must be 3 GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL
designed with regular boundaries and internal CHARACTERIZATION
waste pockets can not be separated within the
broken ore. Similarly, delineated ore can not be The stope design process starts with an initial
recovered beyond a designed stope boundary. orebody delineation process to provide an
Consequently, ore dilution, consisting of low- interpolated outline of the grade contours. This
grade, waste rock or minefill materials, may occur information is critical and is initially used to
at the stope boundaries. Furthermore, ore loss due locate the required drilling and mucking drives
to insufficient breakage can also occur within the
along the orebody in question. The accuracy of the
stope boundaries.
The stope performance is measured by the delineated grade boundaries is a function' of the
ability to achieve maximum extraction with nature of the orebody, the amount of drilling
minimal dilution. Hence, the success of the information and the mining access through the
.. method relies on the stability of large (mainly un- orebody. For narrow orebodies, development is
reinforced) stope walls and crowns as well as the carried out under strict geological control, a
stability of any fill masses exposed process that requires geological mapping of drives
and crosscuts through the orebodies (and well as to perform an economic evaluation to
sometimes additional in-fill drilling) in order to determine whether a particular block should be
define the stope ore-waste contacts. mined. This type of information requires that the .)
sampling process extend beyond the orebody \.'
Orebody delineation boundaries in order to determine the likelihood of
, failure from orebody hangingwalls, footwalls or
stope crowns.
Experience has shown that the interpolated
grade may define the economics of a stope, but
the geological structures and the location (and
Rock mechanics alignment) of the drives up-dip may define the
final shape. Lithology and the presence of major
faults and joints relative to the stope wall
orientations need to be anticipated in order to
control dilution (See Figure 2). A need exists for
routine geological mapping and timely
interpretations to keep the geology current and to
determine areas of low rock mass strength,
associated with clay fracture filling and moderate
to complete wall alteration. Interpreted geology
!nfill delineation
, drilling I~ Geology I maps across all stope levels, on a stope composite
basis, are essential tools for evaluating the likely
Mine planning
influence of rock type and major geological
discontinuities on the actual stope performance.
Rock mechanics
Mine planning
'Operations,
mine planning,
geology,
lrock mechanics
I
Figure 1. A formalized stope design methodology

from data collection to stope reconciliation.
The suggested approach is to obtain Figure 2: Massive stope hangingwall failure

representative (mine-wide) rock mass properties controlled by large scale faults.
required during the global excavation design and
stability analysis stages. In most cases, this 4 GLOBAL DESIGN
information is obtained from diamond drill holes
Global design issues are related to the design and
(core logging of non-oriented holes, as well as
stability of large sections of a mine, such as a new
geotechnical holes) and direct mapping of orebody extension at depth or at the abutment for
underground openings. Geophysical tools can also an existing deposit. Global design issues are
used f9r orebody delineation and rock mass schematically represented on Figure I, and listed
characterization. The confidence in the geological in detail in Table I. The issues involved include
information must be sufficient to establish the global orebody delineation, design of mine access
nature and irregularities of the orebody, the nature and infrastructure, dimensions of sublevel
and location of major controlling geological intervals, backfill requirements and infrastructure,
structures, the general rock mass characteristics as equipment and ventilation considerations, etc.
• Stress analysis of the global production schedules access for drilling, blasting and mucking.
is critical to determine the loading conditions Development size is a function of the stoping
(stress and displacement) likely to result from a method and the equipment utilised. Knowledge of
• proposed mine-wide stoping sequence. the nature and stability of the adjacent backfill
masses is needed to design cleaner rings or to
.1.Ul,/l ..... I.. "J1VV ..... V1VVn..J U.v~11::.1J. J. ....., ........ ..:I • avoid toeing of bIastholes into the backfill.
Exploration drilling requirements for Structural geology considerations such as the
orebody delineation for the designed area presence of major geological discontinuities often
Area wide rock mass characterization influence the blasting sequences. Other factors
from boreho Ie data and direct access considered are the stress re-distributions within
Overall mining method selection and around a stope and likely to control fall-off
Quantity and grade of ore required behaviour on the exposed walls. In addition, the
with reSDect to scheduled metal largets retreat direction of the blasthole rings must take
Access and infrastructure development requirements into account the stope ventilation network, with a
ore handling svstems, workshoDs, etc. retreat direction into fresh air.
Production scheduling, details and timing
Induced stresses from scheduled sequences, 6 STOPE DESIGN NOTE
including extraction directions
Primary and secondary stope dimensions A stope design note covers many aspects
(including regional access Dillars) involved in the development and production of a
stope (See Table 2). Technical presentations are
Backfill svstem requirements
required to encourage technical input from all the
Equipment requirements
members of the design team (geology, rock
Ventilation
Global economic assessment - mechanics, planning, operations and
management). They usually occur twice within the
design process: at the conceptual design stages
and prior to the issue of the final drill and blast
5 DETAILED DESIGN design. Feedback from both meetings should be
incorporated into the final stope design.
Detailed design is related to the extraction of
individual stopes within a global area and it
.1. aut ..... ~ . ...,~v ..... u .... ,jl~U lJl ......,.....ul.auVlJ. 1~.:> ......... .:>
represents the process of establishing an optimum
Geolo"ical structures
extraction method for an individual stope, subject
Stone access and development requirements
to a number of variables and constraints. Blasthole
geometry, firing sequence, ground support, Ore nasses, loading bavs, etc.
ventilation and economics are some of the key Stone cut-off location
variables considered. The constraints include the Production blast directions
orebody boundaries, the geological structures, any Stability issues, ground support requirements
existing development, and in some cases, any Stress re-distributions assessment
adjacent backfill masses (See Figure 3). Backfill or nennanent Dillar demands
Detailed design is achieved by means of a stope Production schedule
design note issued to the planning and operating Ventilation reouirements
personnel. Such a document includes detail on the Detailed economic analysis
overall extraction philosophy, plans of sublevel
development, sections showing blasthole design Once a final stope design status has been
concepts and drilling and blasting parameters, achieved, the blasthole design is undertaken by
ventilation, geology, rock mechanics and overall considering the production rigs that will be used,
firing sequence. the ore limits, the survey pick-up of the access
All the topics included on a stope design development, the extent and sublevels of the
document are inter-related. The extraction stope, as well as the ring burden and toe spacing
philosophy provides a general overview of the (See Figure 4). The ore limits are usually updated
design, safety and production issues for a in accordance with the completed stope
particular section of an orebody. Properly
development.
reinforced stope development is required to allow
,,. ". o
) I
'" '~}::t~~::;/ I
'" ~
Di"CIluqm ......
~
'" M.in rings

rinp : \u
'''' tl
,0<
"'.
Tro,.~tttttttj
20E 0 'c... _,,_us:::El--
=::,
undercuts,
'" ,~
Figure 3. Multiple lift stope showing main ri~g and diaphragm ring details .
•
~~
A~1o
~'Il. ~
(~/~ji
'.~
'.~
'fl,24A ~0
i1~O~.,---" d 1/.. . .\ .·
~ II
2200 RL
iO~"::::::::' !
\~i
!I/-~!
I~OI~I'!
'!--- ': 25A
. .......-=_ I
I
i......-/'j i 21S0 RL .~"
:\0/
~
,roo \ \/,1
~d'
26iff 0
Figure 4. Cross section view showing drilling details in multiple lift open stoping.
A scaled floor plan showing details of the stope design philosophy, and becomes a useful
latest survey information including any vertical tool during drilling and blasting of the stope.
openings and status of surrounding stopes will be
provided to assist the drillers. Locations of 7 STOPE EXTRACTION
hangingwall, footwall, cut-off detail and location
of the I main rings are also included. A long The actual firing sequence used to' extract
section that includes a schematic view of the individual stopes is likely to influence stress re-
stope cut-off raise, the cut-off,. the production distribution as well as blast induced damage
rings and the trough undercuts, is also within a stope. Stress and blast induced fall-off
completed. This section helps to explain the within a stope boundary may lead to poor
mucking performance during extraction.
Although fall-off resulting from stope firing is progressive stress relief of the shear stresses (See
not the only source of poor fragmentation, it can Figure 6b).
be minimized by avoiding exceSSive
I undercutting of the stope walls (See Figure 5).
~ 0', ~ 0',
F~/tzo
~~ne
Cut-off slOI
11
1.(;',
Oe
\
I I!I'~
II I Drill & blast

acr
Stope
undo n:u'
ss
to', to,
(.J (b)
W
~
Figure 6. Exposure oflarge geological features
during stoping operations.
Broken
o'e
'\UCking
8 STOPE PERFORMANCE
A stope performance review is undertaken as a

technical audit of a stope design process. The
' ' ' ' ' Muolng /
review is performed during the stope extraction
(after each firing) to monitor the conditions at
the exposed stope walls, including backbreak,
) Figure 5. Stope wall undercutting within a stope underbreak and broken ore fragmentation. The
firing sequence. purpose of the review is to determine any
variations from a planned stope design extraction
A number of design options can be used to strategy. To achieve this, a series of stope
reduce stope', undercut; including for example, surveys can be carried out after each significant
firing the cut-off slot to the full height of the firing, and also following the completion of all
stope before blasting of the main rings firings (See Figure 7).
commences. This can be followed by the
sequential blasting of the main rings to the full
stope height (Villaescusa, 2000). The objective is
to reduce the number of stope faces exposed,
thereby reducing the potential for time related
structurally controlled fall-off. Undercut of the
main rings can be avoided by designing the
troughs to be blasted with coinciding faces.
A stope firing sequence also determines the
rate of exposure of the main geological
discontinuities intersecting a stope (See Figure
6). A rapid exposure of a large fault may occur
after mass blasting or after progressive firing to a
fault (See Figure 6a). Such exposures may not
allow sufficient time for a gradual stress relief. If
the orientation of the stress field is unfavorab Ie,
large shear stresses may result and induce local
and regional fault movements leading to stope Figure 7. Longitudinal section view of a large
fall-off. In order to optimize stability, stope scale bench stope showing consecutive surveys
firings should proceed across a structure to allow indicating minimal backbreak.
The perfonnance review provides a mechanism adjacent stopes are likely to influence stope
to record the observations from operators and stability over a period of time. Blast damage and
technical personnel in order to indicate problems the effects of water from backfill can be
and successes during stope extraction. A database transmitted along common fault structures \
that highlights lessons to be learnt and intersecting a number of stopes. Instability may
improvements to be made can be adopted for each create difficult remote mucking conditions due to
stope. Table 3 shows some of the typical problems large material falling off into the stope. These
and possible solutions (by no means exhaustive) delays (stope production tails) actually extend the
encountered in open stoping. In addition to those stope life, which in turn may contribute to more
problems, stopes left open over long periods of overbreak and more mucking delays.
time may be influenced by time-dependent
regional fault behaviour. Stress re-distribution,
production blasting and backfill drainage from
. I d sol .
- ---- _. _._---- -- --f --------- bl
-~------- ---- -~----~--- - .. - _.. --~ ..
~
ODen StoDe Activity Potential Problem Potential Solution

Design may not be stable Back analyze
previous extracted stapes
Different domain for design Geological engineering judgement
Rock mass characterization Within stope boundaries
Insufficient information More geological mapping
Major discontinuities Consider firing sequences and
intersect stove walls cablebolt reinforcement
Design by default Better preparation job - use
- - ~
- databases of stone-oerformanc.
Tonnag. and grade do not match the Better geological interpretation
design needed
Stope access is not in the appropriate Better planning
location
Slope design Orebody delineation do not match the More definition drilling, use
2eoiOlzicai internretation geoohvsical techniques
Excessive develooment in waste Ootimize the block design
Not following the design Spot check and quality control.
better communication with
oroduction
Excessive hole deviation Down hole surveys, better
onerator skills laser alignment
Not following design Efficient suoervision
Not drilling to reouired deoth Efficient suoervision
Poor workmanship due to bonus driven There may not be a short tenn
Drilling and blasting solution
Explosive malfunctioning Review pattern
Area of low or high powder factor Use modelling blasting software
Fall-off Less a2l!ressive desil!n?
Inability to establish failure triggering Use information from seismic
mechanism system
Orepass hang-up Limit intake size (use screen)
Large fragmentation/faIl-otT Optimize drilling and blasting
Long trammin~ distances Improve block design
Mucking Poor ventilation Review ventilation svstem
Poor reporting practices More Dersonnel trainine:
, Poor drawooint condition SUODort and reinforcement
Continuous fall-olf inside the staDe Exclusion oeriods
Ability to survey as stope is extracted Communication with survey
departmenl
Limited access Establish stope access doors
Stope survey Poor ventilation, laser beam can not shoot Improve ventilation j
through
Fall-otT may damage equipment Wait until ground stabilizes
the blocks is perpendicular to the hangingwall, the
Production profiles are usually shown as X direction parallel to the strike and Z direction
histograms of mucked volume on a daily basis. parallel to the dip of the stopes as shown in Figure
The data in Figure 8 show that long-hole winzing 10.
.
, ~:.
(or any re-slotting) actually slow down ~-
~~" \ -, ~,':
'.
~ _:
\.
~~ . ~-- -\'
productivity. Since dilution is defined as any
material that is extracted beyond the boundaries of
~_'\ '~- - ~\ ,~-\~-
'A~-- \
-
a designed orebody outline, a comparison of
mucked versus designed volume can be used to
-- '~~-- --,
. . - -\c;---_- •.
. ~,~----------~~\..:.-_.-:t~,.\\_~...-
estimate dilution as shown in Figure 9.
~- '--',.1:-
~. ~f-.- \~ _--'----10,
-'\~:
.~. '-". ....~. ..._
' .~;~ -·~~~t,-,·.,..
1200 ... - ...- ••• • .
~ 1000
'
~
•
~
• ""
"~ "" Figure 10. A CMS wireframe filled with 0.25m x
•
~ 0.25m x 0.25m blocks.
"'"
~• 200
~
~
....
0
,,-- ,._ 21-N0y ..- ,.Do< .Do<
The block model can then be interrogated using
the lode hangingwall and footwall and the CMS
Date
wireframes. The blocks inside the CMS
wireframe, yet outside the lode hangingwall
boundaries (depth of failure) need to be
Figure 8. Production profile from a high lift bench determined. Once the thickness for each column
stope of blocks in the Y direction is calculated, the
information can then be contoured using 0.5 metre
i intervals as shown in Figure II.
...
l'QOO. I
O.5tYl 1.0nl
'r
i-...
~
[-
/-"'d
, .......
§
11
>
..
1000 ,.
,
,1".4 I
__ 11_ I_V ,._ ""M... l-o.c f.Ooc ,t.u.c
O.t.
Figure 9. Cumulative plot of time vs volume for

fired and mucked volumes,
With the advent of the Cavity Monitoring 0,,,"
System (CMS) stope survey technique (Miller et

al., 1992), information about the actual variations
from a designed stope shape can be routinely
obtained and used analytically to calculate
dilution, depth of failure and to determine Figure II. Longitudinal view of hangingwall
structural control by large faults at the stope depth of failure contours showing structurally
boundaries. Contours of depth of failure can be controlled failure
determined by filling the CMS wireframes with
blocks and using the stope orientation information Information from failure depths can be used to
to orient the block model such that Y direction of compare stope performance between double and
single lift stopes for a similar range of strike geometrical control on the behaviour was r
lengths and rock mass conditions (See Figure 12). experienced within the large stopes, where a range
Back analysis of eMS data can be used as a of failure depths can be established for stopes
diagnostic tool to identify stopes where blast having a similar strike length. The depth of failure
damage may be causing early failures as shown in within the short stopes was contro lied by factors .i r
Figure 12(a). The stope highlighted by a large other then geometry, such as blast damage or time
circle shows a depth of failure that is not in dependency. The depth of failure increases
accordance with the other stopes of similar size sharply when the hydraulic radius exceeds 8 as
and shape at this particular mining operation. shown in Figure 13. The depth of failure in the
The data in Figure 12(b) show that for this site stope footwalls is not controlled by stope
similar depths of failure were experienced within . geometry.
the short stopes (25m high down dip) compared
with the large stopes (50m down dip). A stronger
::--------.:;~.~- ----I
• Stope depth o((ailure (m)
100 r-
Deplh
~ " " !: .. - - - - - - - - ---1 of
~.
failure
I
~ I ~.O-lm
j. "I
•
;§"40
Q
(.3h..
I
\
JI
\\ " ...". . . ':I"

I
~
Q
•
:; 30 _..
~
. ... ..-....
. .
-.-
.
-1·2m
"2-3m
·3-4m
->4m
" •
" I < I .....
-¥' ~ J 10 I I
-----l
• t-'-
• " ..
Strike Span (m)
" " 10. 10
" Strike"Span (m) . H
"
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Depth offailure for different hangingwall stope geometries.
• HW .. FW • TouJ
8
·
:[
7
·" -· -
" ·
6
••
;": s
"
·
.
~
· " . .. ·
•
..
0
,fl
4
•
•• . . . · . '.. · .
3 + _--L.
J!i
2
. ·• •• • ·• · . I.•
· ,.•
1
0
. · I
3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hydraulic Radius
Figure 13. Depth of failure for different hydraulic radius

n The stope perfonnance can also be quantified by stope completion. The infonnation contained
J
plotting depth of failure versus critical span as varies depending upon the stoping practices at a
shown in Figure 14. The economical impact of particular mine site. The following issues may be
dilution can readily be linked to depth of failure. included:
r~ The larger the critical span for this particular
operation, the larger the failure depth. A reduction • Geology
on the critical spans may require additional pillars Geological orebody model and interpretations,
geological structural and rock mass properties.
(hence ore loss). The balance between additional
pillars versus the detrimental effects of failures
• Stope design
(See Figure 15) can only be established using an Initial stope design geometry, documentation
economic model of dilution. of changes to design parameters, the reason
and the results.
6 --"---_.. --_ •. __ . -~- -_._~---~ ..----'. • Stope extraction

Drilling and blasting practice, in-the-hole
I5
;; 4
..--- survey data and comparison to design,
~
• 3 ~ • fragmentation assessment.
Q
~
• ~
.. ,
!
-"
~
2 • Stope perfonnance
Maximum spans achieved, stope survey
0
0 20 30 40 50
(eMS) data, back analysis of failures,
'0
Critic.! Span (m) geotechnical infonnation that contributed to
understanding the failures, ground support
perfonnance.
Figure 14. Depth of failure for different spans
within a shallow dipping tabular open stope • Stope summary
operation. A one page stope perfonnance review for easy
reference (See Table 4).
~
Figure 15. The detrimental effects of stope back

failure following stope blasting leading to ore
contamination and ore loss"
l In order to ensure that the actual stope

perfonnance infonnation is used to the best
advantage, and to improve future designs, the
details of stope design and its underlying
assumptions can be documented in a Stope Atlas,
where the history of the stope performance is
recorded from the initial firing through to fmal
r
.........n"'"""T • ......... J=.,F. ... ~~ ... u o;>LVV'" ...... ~ ..V .. ~U .............. Q...>..> .....>..>.. U ........... ..> ...... ~UUQ..L y
STOPE PERFORMANCE REVIEW ") I

Stope name; Bv;Date;
Material Designed Actual
Tonnes mucked
"J r
Ore (t) I
Grade (%)
Internal dilution (%) r
External dilution (%)
Underbreak (%) -
Fill dilution (%) - r
Geology;
I
The effects of major geological structures, rock types and properties
Reasons for any difference between design and actual grade and tonnes
Development;
Problems and concerns regarding ground conditions
Performance of ground support
Drilling;
Whether any holes or ring section could not be drilled as planned, set-up or deviation problems.
Reasons for variation from design.
Blasting;
Any problems encountered with charging, firing or design sequence.
The results of the blast, ego Fragmentation, misfires, freezing of holes, induced failures
Production mucking;
Ventilation problems or otherwise with chosen circuit. Drawpoint and orepass conditions. Broken ore
left in base of stope?
Backfill;
Condition offlll passes, filling times and cement ratios used anv problems encountered.
Rock mechanics;
Stope and adjacent development stability. Timing of failures, and features that contributed to dilution,
effects of blasting, structure and stress.
Exposure and stabilitv of adiacent fill masses.
Planning and design;
General comments on original vs. actual extraction. Recommended changes to design procedure.
Financial analvsis of stope extraction.
9 CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES
The Stope perfonnance is measured by the ability Miller, F., Jacob, D. and Y. Potvin, 1992. Cavity
to achieve maximum extraction with minimal Monitoring System; Update and applications. 94"
dilution. The key variable used to compare Annual General Meeting. Canadian Institute of
perfonnance is depth of failure, which is Mining and Metallurgy, Montreal.
calculated using eMS wireframes and the Villaescusa, E., 1998. Geotechnical design for dilution
designed stope boundaries. The data show that control in underground mining. Mine Planning and
depth of failure can be used to identify blast Equipment Selection. Singhal R. (edl, Balkema,
damage and other factors controlling stability such Rotterdam, 141-149.
as time dependency. Depth of failure increases
significantly when the stope size exceeds a critical Villaescusa, E. 2000. A review of sublevel stoping.
value 'and can be readily used to develop MassMin2000, Chitombo G. (edl, The AusIMM;
economic models of dilution. Melbourne, 577-590.

Dilution Control in Underground Mines PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dilution Control in Underground Mines PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dilution Control in Underground Mines PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Australian Centre for Geomechanics Dilution Control in Underground Mines

Ernesto VilIaescusa Introduction

Australian Centre for Geomechanics

Dilution, recovery and ore loss

(Andersen and Grebenc, 1995)

• Low-grade material contained within the boundaries of an

minimum width of extraction

• Low grade material from stope wall overbreak

• Contamination from backfill

• Mucking of waste from stope

• Waste rock or ore-losses incurred during the exploration and

Economic impact ofdilution

Ore drilled, blasted, but lost

(Elbrond,1994) (Ashcroft, 1991)

Economic impact ofdilution

(Andersen and Grebenc, 1995)

(Lappalainen and Pitkajarvi, 1995)

• Design and Sequencing

• Lack of proper stope sequencing

•Mining not following

•Inappropriate Section 10300

(Andersen and Grebenc, 1995)

Parameters Influencing Dilution

Undercut does not always

Parameters Influencing Dilution

• Drilling and Blasting

backfill Filling from second access

(tipped into the ore stream) Filled on previous

Parameters Influencing Dilution

Variables influencing mine dilution

Input Process variables Process Dilution

GEOTECHNICAL DATA COLLECTION

Stope Design Process

Australian Centre for Geomechanics

Mine Planning Process

• Provides the means for a safe, efficient, continuous and

• Helps to maintain a long term security of production

• It ensures satisfactory economical returns

• Approach suggested: divide the process into 6 key stages

Roekmass c,baractei:iiiltiim I Geology & rock

A.ccess & infrastructure,<l ~ ~I Mine planning I G

I I 1-1 Mine planning I

Rock Mass Characterization - Key Assumptions

Key Geotechnical Parameters

• Large geological discontinuities

• Joint set characteristics "

• Representative intact rock

Rock Mass Characterization - Key Assumptions

-Regions with similar engineering behaviour can be

-Similar joint set characteristics - orientation, frequency,

Rock Mass Characterization

• Presence of major geological features, changes of lithology

• Achieved by logging of drill cores,

Core Logging Methods

• Provides estimates of:

Core Logging Methods

Core Logging Methods

Discontinuity linear frequency

discontinuities Good 4-7