Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum

MASSMIN 2012, Mass Mining. June 11-14, 2012, Sudbury, Ontario, CANADA

Mass Caving Maximum Production Capacity

Alfonso W. Ovalle
Amec International; University of Chile
Abstract
This paper complements the paper Production Capacity of a Mass Caving (Ovalle
& Pesce, 2004) presented at the MassMin Conference in Santiago. A general formula
for maximum production capacity for mass caving is presented and the novelty is
that the same formula is valid for block and panel caving and also for sublevel
caving.
The formula is very useful for scoping and conceptual studies.
Terms of the formulation are mine preparation rate, column height or ore width, and
ore density. An additional reality factor is incorporated, which is operational
recovery. Mine preparation rate is discussed for the cases of block and panel caving
and also for sublevel caving. The geometric parameter is also discussed: height of
draw for block or panel caving and width of extraction for sublevel caving. The
operational recovery factor is also discussed for the three types of mass caving.
Example calculations of maximum production capacities for SLC and for Panel
Caving are presented.
The calculated maximum production capacity is used to define production profiles in
a mass caving example.
Biography
The author has over 40 years of mining experience, having specialized in
underground mining and is an expert in mass caving.
He worked for 25 years with Codelco, mainly in the El Teniente mine where he was
involved in the growth and evolution of the mine from a secondary rock production
of 32 kt/d, to primary ore production of over 100 kt/d. He started his career in El
Teniente as a trainee in the mine department when it was owned and operated by

Kennecott Copper and advanced through the positions of Chief Mine Engineer, Mine
Production Superintendent, Mine Strategic Planner and New Mine Level (NML)
Project Manager (180 kt/d). In the Andina Mine, he was the Development
Superintendent where he led the PFS mine expansion from 45 to 67 kt/d. At the
El Salvador mine, he was part of the team for strategic planning of the mine.
For the last 18 years he has been involved in mine consulting with engineering
companies, namely Fluor Daniel, Metlica Consultores and at present Amec
International where he leads the underground group in the Santiago office.
The author teaches the Mine Project Workshop at the Mining Engineering School
the University of Chile. He holds the degree of Civil Mining Engineer, University
Chile, and has M.S. studies in Mineral Economics from the Henry Krumb School
Mines, Columbia University, New York. His native language is Spanish and he
fluent in English.

1.

of
of
of
is

INTRODUCTION

After all my years in dealing with block and panel caving operations (Ovalle &
Codoceo, 1977; Ovalle, 1976; 1981; Ovalle & Albornoz, 1981; Chacn et al, 2004)
and also having completed some conceptual engineering on sublevel cavings
(Crdova et al, 2008), I realized that the long term maximum production capacity of
block and panel caving and also of sublevel caving mines can be expressed with
one single and simple formulation.

2.

MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY

The proposed formula for maximum production capacity for all types of mass caving
is the following:

MPC = (W or H) * Vp * * RO
(Formula 1)
Where:
MPC (t/a)
W (m)
H (m)

=
=
=

Maximum production capacity

Width of ore body in case of SLC
Height of ore body in case of BC or Panel Caving

Vp (m2/a)
Side in SLC

RO

(t/m3)
=
(fraction of 1)

Preparation rate. Preparation of Base in BC and Preparation of

In-situ density of material
=
Operational recovery

The following dimensional analysis of formula 1 shows that the units t/a for MPC
are correct:
MPC [t/a] = (W or H) [m] * Vp [m2/a] * [t/m3] * RO
Inspecting formula 1, it can be seen that all but one of the parameters are fixed
after the collection drive wall is set for SLC, or the production level is defined in
panel or block caving. Effectively, W or H cannot be changed unless the cut-off
grades are changed, cannot be changed, RO is not prudent to change in the
planning stage because enough experience or benchmarking work must have been
used to consider a reasonable factor. Therefore, the only parameter that can be
changed once the operation starts, is V p. If the maximum Vp was chosen, this
parameter can only go down, and the MPC cannot be surpassed.
The usual thinking of operators is that the MPC can be easily increased by
increasing the extraction rate. In reality this is only true in the short term, and if no
production slump is wanted in the long run, an increase in the preparation rate must
accompany the extraction rate increase (Diering, 2008; Ovalle & Pesce 2004).

3.

DISCUSSING PARAMETERS THAT FIX MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY

3.1

Geometric Parameter, W or H

W for SLC can be the width or the length of the ore body. If a longitudinal SLC is
applied, the parameter will be the length of the ore body, and if a transverse SLC is
applied, the parameter will be the width of the ore body. The widths vary from 8 to
35 m as were the cases of Chupa, Tinyag and Rosita mines in Per, to an average of
80 meters in the case of Kiruna in Sweden. Longitudinal SLC can have a longer
geometric parameter.
H for BC or panel caving is the height of draw or column height which can vary
from around 50 m to the highest reported columns of 600 m, and there are even
ongoing projects with 1,000 m columns.

3.2

Preparation Rate, Vp

Mine preparation rate for panel or block caving is commonly expressed as the
number of draw bells or draw points undercut per month or per year. The general
expression is m2/a of undercutting area at the base of the caving footprint.
Preparation rates per face of advance varies from zero to roughly 36,000 m2/a, and
it depends on the face length and the cave back angle that the operation can safely
maintain. In practice the face can advance between 70 to 100 m/a, so for a 300 m
long face of advance, the undercutting rate could vary between 21,000 to 30,000
m2/a. With two faces advancing in opposite directions, the mine preparation rate
can double.
In the case of sublevel caving, the same panel caving MPC formula applies because
exploiting a sub level caving is analogous to exploiting a panel caving. By
conceptually tilting the BC exploitation by 90, the height of a BC exploitation
becomes the width of the SLC ore body, and the base preparation of the BC
becomes the side preparation of SLC. A parallelogram can be tilted 90 in two ways,
along the long side, converting the SLC into a longitudinal SLC or along its short side
converting the SLC into a tranverse SLC.
The mine preparation rate for sub level caving can be expressed as production
drives developed per year, which can also be measured in m 2/a of side preparation
along the plane containing the main collecting drives. Preparation rates per face of
advance varies from zero to roughly 4,000 to 30,000 m2/a, depending on the length
of the deposit and on how many levels can be prepared at the same time. An
example of preparation rate for a transversal SLC with a 16 m x 28 m spacing
(distance between production drives x distance between sublevels) is shown in
Table 1, for an ore body 155 wide, 1,000 m long and more than 140 m high.
Table 1. SLC design parameters and calculation of preparation rate
N

Element

1
2
3

Production drive spacing

Production sublevel spacing
Area of one production unit [one production drive] (1 * 2)

4
5
6
7
8
9

11

Advance per jumbo, multiple faces

Operating efficiency factor for jumbo
Effective advance per jumbo (4 * 5)
Width of ore body (length of production drive in ore)
Safety distance from ore limit to collection drift
Slot drift length per production unit
Development required to put one production drive
operation (1+7+8+9)
Production drives per month per jumbo (10 / 6)

12

Area prepared per month (3 * 11)

10

Value
16
28
448
210
0.92
193
155
30
16
into

Unit
m
m
m2/unit
m/mo

0.89

m/mo
m
m
m
m/prod.driv
e
units/mo

397

m2/mo

217

N
13
14

Element
Months per year
Area prepared per year per jumbo (13 * 12)

15
16
17
18

Area of influence of one level

Length of collection drift (length of orebody)
Possible levels at same time (16 / 15)
Number of jumbos operating

19

Preparation rate (14 * 17)

Value
12
4,769
200
1,000
5
5
23,84
5

Unit
mo/a
m2/a
m
m
levels
units
m2/a

Maximum preparation rate for this SLC example is then 23,800 m 2/a.

3.3

Density,

The density to use is in-situ density and depending on the mineralization, it may
vary from 2.4 t/m3 for metallic mines to 4.5 t/m3 for iron ore.

3.4

Operational Recovery, RO

BC and panel caving are thought of as methods with almost 100 % recovery, but
this is not realistic in many cases. Depending on ground conditions, quality of
design, and quality of mining (especially quality of undercutting) recovery can be
lower. Main problems are collapses, early dilution entrance and mud inflows. It is the
authors experience that 85 % operational recovery for BC and panel caving is a
prudent planning practice.
SLC also suffers operational recovery mainly from loss of undercutting heights and
from dilution. A factor of 85% is also deemed practical.

3.5

Cases of MPC calculations for BC and SLC

Examples of maximum production capacity calculations for SLC and Panel Caving
mines are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Examples of MPC Calculations for SLC, Panel Caving and Block
Caving Mines
Paramet
er

Uni
t

Example
SLC Table

Kiruna
Mine

Oyu Tolgoi
Project

El Teniente
NML Project

PANEL CAVING

PANEL CAVING

Chuquicama
ta

SLC

155

80

UG Project
Min. H

Max. H

MACRO-BLOCK
CAVING

230
125,00
0

350

217

82,000

103,000

W
H

m
m

Vp

m2/
a

23,800

78,400

40,000

Density

m3/
t

2.7

4.5

2.65

2.7

2.7

2.7

RO

4.

340

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

MPC

Mt/
a

8.5

24.0

30.6

65.7

65.7

51.1

MPC

t/d

23,200

66,000

84,000

180,00
0

180,00
0

140,000

USING MAXIMUM PRODUCTION CAPACITY FOR PRODUCTION PROFILES

Once an MPC has been calculated, the questions are: How fast can you get there?;
Can you get there? and Do you wish to get there?
In the example of Figure 1, a theoretical ore body of 1,070 Mt of ore to be mined by
panel caving has an MPC of 67 Mt/a, calculated using formula 1 with the following
parameters: H = 500 m; Vp = 58,000 m2/a; = 2.72 t/m3; and RO = 0.85. If the
production capacity could be attained instantaneously, the life of mine would be 16
years as seen in the production profile shown in Figure 1.
Even though Figure 1 is an unreal situation, it is useful to call attention to the hinge
point, which is invariant for all practical production profiles, once the ramp up and
the ramp down are incorporated. For explanation purposes, it has been assumed
that the ramp up period is the same as the ramp down period. For one single lift this
is not very true, but for two lifts it is, because to maintain full mine capacity with
two lifts, the ramp up of the new lift dictates the ramp down of the old lift. Figure 2
shows more realistic production profiles including the ramp up and ramp down
periods for a slow and a faster ramp up situation.

Figure 1:
Theoretical Production Profile for Mass Caving with
Instantaneous Ramp up

Figure 2: Practical Production Profiles for Mass Caving with Ramp ups
and Ramp downs

The slowest ramp up that can attain MPC is the line connecting zero production at
the start with the hinge point, as can be seen in Figure 3. This is a limit situation,
because as soon as MPC is reached, production starts decreasing as there are no
more columns left to be undercut. If the ramp up rate is lower, MPC calculated with
Formula 1 cannot be reached.

Figure 3:

Production Profile for BC with Slowest Ramp up to reach MPC

From an economical point of view, the higher the ramp up rate, the better. The
production profile of Figure 3 is uneconomical because the capital expenditure must
be sized for the MPC, which can only be sustained for a very short time. Therefore,
an initial rule of thumb of good harmony is proposed where the steady state
period of the mass caving should be greater or equal to the combined ramp up and
ramp down periods (Pinochet & Ovalle, 2007). The basic reason for this condition is
reasonable use of capital expenditure for one lift preparation.
Figure 4 shows formula 2 derived from the good harmony condition:
x = A/3

(Formula 2)

Where:
x
A (a)

Figure 4:

(a)
=

=
Duration of ramp up
Shortest duration of mine at MPC with instantaneous ramp up

Formulation of Good Harmony Condition for Production

Profile

Good Harmony condition:

For our example, this means that the longest desirable ramp up period should be
one third of the shortest life of the sector, in this case 5.3 years. It is also assumed
that the duration of the ramp down period equals that of the ramp up, therefore
duration of ramp up plus duration of ramp down is 10.6 years. Duration of steady
state production period is 10.7 years. Thus, total duration of the sector is 21.3
years.
If the ramp up rate cannot be faster, and if x > A/3, then it is suggested that MPC
be lowered to meet the good harmony condition.
The methodology shown here is applicable to mass caving, including BC, panel
caving and SLC.

5.

CONCLUSIONS

The formula proposed to calculate the Maximum Production Capacity (MPC) for
mass caving is valid for panel caving, block caving and also for sublevel caving. This
simple formula is very useful for scoping and conceptual planning.
MPC is directly proportional to a geometric parameter which is the width of the ore
body in SLC and the height of the ore body in BC and panel caving, to the
preparation rate, to the in-situ density of the ore and to the operational recovery of
reserves.
The MPC and the invariant hinge point allow calculating the production profile and
the duration of the mine, depending upon the ramp up and ramp down periods.

If the steady state at MPC is less than the total duration of the ramp up and ramp
down periods, it is suggested to calculate a new production profile where the sum of
the ramp up and ramp down periods does not exceed the duration of the steady
state period, on the basis of reasonable utilization of capital.

6.

REFERENCES

Chacn, J., Gpfert, H., & Ovalle, A. (2004). Thirty years evolution of block caving in Chile,
MassMin 2004, Santiago, pp. 751-760.
Crdova, D., Cuadros, J., & Alejano, L.R., (2008). Practical considerations and models of the
sublevel caving exploitation Tynyag in Per, MassMin 2008, Lule, pp. 387-392.
Diering, T. (2008). Block cave scheduling with a piece of paper, MassMin 2008, Lule, pp.
304-312.
Ovalle, A. (1976). Curvas tonelaje ley para la programacin de la produccin en El
Teniente, Revista Minerales, Chile.
(1981). Analysis and considerations for mining the El Teniente ore body, Stewart
D, ed, Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines, SME/AIME,
Denver, pp. 195-208.
Ovalle, A., & Albornoz, H. (1981). Block caving with LHD equipment at El Teniente, Stewart
D, ed, Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines, SME/AIME,
Denver, pp. 355-361.
Ovalle, A., & Codoceo, J. (1977). Factores que inciden en la productividad de un bloque,
IIMCh, La Serena, Chile.
Ovalle, A., & Pesce, J. (2004). Production capacity of a mass caving, MassMin 2004,
Santiago, pp. 75-78.
Pinochet, A., & Ovalle, A. (2007). Model for the optimal reserve definition of a caving
exploitation, Apcom 2007, Santiago.