Introduction

The Block 5 conceptual study was started in

1991 with a high-level study and concluded
that a block cave mining method would suit
the orebody. This study was resumed in 2000
with a confirmation study, and in 2002 a full
conceptual team was established. The results
of this study indicated that a block cave design
should be taken into the pre-feasibility study
as the preferred mining method based on net
present value (NPV) pending the results of the
proposed geotechnical and geological drilling
programme.
This proposal was taken to the Finsch
Underground Geotechnical Study (FUGS) team,
a panel of cave mining experts comprising:
Dr. Alan Guest (Lead)
Dr. Dennis Laubscher
Dr. Loren Lorig
Jarec Jakubec.
The proposed mining method was
dismissed as being impractical as a result of
geotechnical and brow wear concerns, and it
was suggested that an incline cave mining
concept be investigated. This method has not
previously been implemented, and the concept
was based on the practices at King Section at
Gaths Mine in Zimbabwe and Cassiar Mine in
Canada, which used a false footwall mining
method with some degree of success.
The incline cave mining method for use at
Finsch Diamond Mine was first documented by
Paucar and Mthombeni (2004) in a paper
presented at MassMinn 2004. This paper aims
to discuss the incline cave mining method as
proposed for Finsch Block 5 by detailing the
findings of modelling and design work.
Finsch Mine was purchased in 2011 by
Petra Diamonds, who are currently
undertaking further study work.
History of Finsch Diamond Mine
Finsch Diamond Mine is located 160 km west
of Kimberley in the Northern Cape Province of
South Africa, and first started mining
kimberlite in 1964 after the discovery of the
pipe in 1960. Mining was started using
opencast methods until an elevation of 430 m
below surface was reached in September 1990,
after which modified blast-hole open stoping
(BHOS) was used to mine Blocks 1, 2, and 3
Incline caving as a massive mining method
by D.D. Munro*
Synopsis
Finsch Mine is a kimberlite diamond mine located at Lime Acres in
the Northern Cape Province of South Africa. The mine was founded in
1961 and started surface mining in 1964. Underground production
commenced in 1990 using a modified blast-hole open stoping method
for the mining of Blocks 1, 2 and 3. Block 4 is currently being mined
as a block cave.
The process of identifying and optimizing a method to mine the
Block 5 orebody started in 1991, and in 2006 incline caving was
identified as being technically feasible. This paper aims to document
the process employed in developing this method by the Block 5 pre-
feasibility team as well as discuss the technical challenges
encountered during this process.
The paper commences with a history of Finsch Mine and
highlights the complex geology and threat of sidewall failure that
prompted the decision to use block caving as the mining method for
Block 4. A literature study of mines that implemented mining
methods upon which the incline cave was conceptualized is then
presented. These practices were then used to form the basis for the
designs on which the initial geotechnical modelling was done and
built upon through an iterative process of modelling and design
changes. The ventilation of the mining area, initial productivity
simulation results, and the applicability of automation and
comminution processes in the incline cave are also presented.
The paper concludes with an investigation into some of the
challenges of the mining method, and shows that that incline caving
is a technical option available for further investigation in determining
the optimal mining method to be employed at Block 5, Finsch
Diamond Mine.
Keywords
massive mining, incline caving, geotechnical modelling.
* WorleyParsonsTWP.
The Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 2013. ISSN 2225-6253. This paper
was first presented at the, DiamondsSource to
Use 2013 Conference, 1213 March 2013, Misty
Hills Country Hotel and Conference Centre, Cradle
of Humankind, Muldersdrift, South Africa.
555 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 113 JULY 2013
Incline caving as a massive mining method
(Preece, 1998). Two shafts were sunk, namely Main Shaft, a
9 m diameter circular shaft which is used for men, material,
and ore handling, and Waste Shaft, which initially was used
as a ventilation intake for hoisting, but has since been
decommissioned and is now used as a ventilation exhaust
shaft.
Block caving was selected as the mining method for
Finsch Block 4, with the main driver being the risk of
sidewall failure in the pit if the BHOS method had been
continued, which would have diluted the ore being mined.
Block caving has been used in De Beers mines for a number
of years at the Kimberly Mines and Cullinan Mine (previously
Premier Mine), and has gained favour because of the
relatively low operating cost, albeit with a high capital cost
associated with the mining method.
Geology
The Finsch kimberlite pipe is located in a host rock of
dolomites and limestone overlain with banded ironstone. The
kimberlite has been classified into a series of eight different
kimberlites, nominated F1 to F8 as depicted in Figure 2.
The rock mass ratings (RMRs) of these kimberlites peak
in the F8 kimberlites, these being the strongest, and are
weakest in the F1 kimberlites. The following two broad zones
can be distinguished and are depicted in Figure 3.
1) Southern half of the pipe predominately F8 Fair
RMR (41 60, in brown in Figure 3)
2) Northern half of the pipe predominately F1 Poor
RMR (21 40, in yellow in Figure 3).
The host rock consists mainly of a series of horizontal
layered dolomites and limestones overlain by a banded
ironstone formation. From geotechnical drilling the ratings
have been calculated as shown in Table I.
Block 4
The development of the infrastructure for the Block 4 block
cave commenced before 1997, with slot cutting in 2005.
Although the tunnel spacing of 30 m on the production level
and 15 m on the undercut was slightly greater than has been
the case at some of the other mines in the group, a more
stringent support regime has been created where high-
density roof bolting and cable bolting is the norm. This is
complemented by shotcrete, straps, and wire mesh.
Drawpoints are laid out in a single-sided herringbone or
Henderson layout with semi-autonomous load haul dump
machines (LHDs) planned to load directly into autonomous
50 t dump trucks. These trucks then transport the ore to the
gyratory crusher, from where it is transported to the shaft by
conveyor and hoisted to surface. These layouts can be seen in
Figure 4.
Block 5 conceptual study (Murray et al., 2003)
The Block 5 conceptual study was started in 1991 focusing
on the use of a block cave mining method. This study was
reinitiated in 2000 by a confirmation study and in 2002 a full
conceptual team was established and the study reinitiated
(Murray et al., 2003).
The conceptual study team investigated the following
three mining methods to determine which was the most
applicable to the Finsch Block 5 orebody:

556 JULY 2013 VOLUME 113 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Figure 1Cross-section of the Finsch Diamond Mine (Murray et al., 2003)
Figure 2Top section of the Finsch pipe showing internal facies and
intrusions (Ekkerd, 2005)
Sublevel caving (SLC)
Block caving (BC)
Front caving (FC).
As part of this study, Mr Robin Kear was requested to
conduct an economic desktop study and it was from his
report that the mining block height and peak production rates
were determined (Murray et al., 2003). The main conclusions
were as follows:
The cave should have at least 250 m block height if the
precursor were excluded and not mined
Mining should start in the high-grade portion of the
orebody and move to the lower grade portion so as to
take maximum advantage of the early revenue and
bolster NPV
Mining the orebody at rates higher than 5.8 Mt/a
showed little advantage and so a cap of 5.8 Mt/a
should be in place in future studies.
It was, however, soon realized that the 10 m thick zone
containing intensely bedded secondary cryptalgal dolomite
with shale layers intersected the country rock just above
880 m level, very close to the minimum level recommended
by Mr Kear. This zone was found, through drilling, to be
significantly weaker than the rest of the country rock mass
and any infrastructure placed in this region would require
major support installations.
Above this zone, a previous exploratory drilling
programme in the kimberlite had drilled clusters of large-
diameter drill-holes (LDD holes). These holes were in the
order of 300 mm in diameter and once completed were never
backfilled or grouted as a result of the poor ground
conditions experienced. Over time these holes have filled with
water which has spread to the surrounding kimberlite,
resulting in large zones of weathered material. These LDD
holes are known to have been stopped around the same
elevation at which the shale layer occurs, since this was felt
to be the most likely level for the construction of a block
cave.
The combination of these two factors has ensured that
any cave mining operations have to be conducted below the
level of the shale, and therefore no shallower than 888 m
Level.
Based on these results, the three proposed mining options
were traded off against each other.
The pre-feasibility block cave
Subsequent to the October 2004 FUGS meeting the pre-
feasibility study team initiated the design of an incline cave
based on the recommendations of the above meeting (Lorig,
Incline caving as a massive mining method
557 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 113 JULY 2013
Figure 3Data from preliminary GEMCOM RMR model with RMR rating 2140 (brown), 41-60 (yellow), and 6180 (green) (Legast, 2006)
Table I
Average strength for the main kimberlite types F1 and F8 and dolomite (Lorig, 2005)
Rock type UCS MPa Min. UCS MPa Max. UCS MPa Elastic modulus GPa Tensile strength MPa Shear strength MPa Poissons ratio
F1 kimberlite 54 20 88 20 4 9 0.199
F8 kimberlite 72 40 178 23 7 8 0.223
Dolomite (all types) 276 108 419 89 12 34 0.278
Figure 4Block 4 undercut level and production level layout (Jarvis,
2002)
Incline caving as a massive mining method
2004). Soon after, however, the scope of the project was set
such that the project team did not abandon the block cave
mining method and an instruction was given that two
variations of the block cave concept were to be designed in
parallel with that of the incline cave.
Geotechnical investigations
The number of levels in an incline cave is in direct proportion
to the interactive draw zone (IDZ), tunnel spacing, and
footprint area of the orebody to be mined. This is best
explained as follows:
Each drawpoint can be assigned a tributary area
dependent on the IDZ of the orebody
Pillar widths are determined based on rock strength
and the stress they are expected to be subjected to
The greater the pillar width, the greater the distance
between drawpoints
The vertical spacing is determined as a function of the
strength of the rock mass and height of draw
According to the IDZ theory at the time, the draw cones of
adjacent drawpoints should be positioned such that they
interact so as to promote interactive draw, with the spacing of
these drawpoints being determined by two dimensions,
namely tunnel spacing and level spacing.
Tunnel and level spacing
Two different layouts can be created for the same orebody,
namely a physically strong layout, which relies on
geotechnical considerations, and secondly a layout that
focuses on the ideal spacing of drawpoints so as to achieve
interactive draw. As can be expected these two objectives are
not complementary, and layouts are designed with a lower
overall strength so as to obtain better draw or vice versa. It is
seldom possible to create a balance between the two.
In the Finsch Block 5 design it was realized at an early
stage in the project that the orebody being considered for
Block 5 would be subjected to larger stresses than had been
experienced in Block 4, mainly because of the depth of
mining. Itasca had therefore been commissioned to perform
modelling throughout the pre-feasibility stage of the project
using both FLAC
3D
and FLAC
2D
.
The block model was created from drilling data in
GEMCOM and included the mined-out pit and all subsequent
mining including Blocks 1, 2, 3, and 4, resulting in the mine
scale model shown in Figure 5..
ITASCA modelling (Lorig, 2005)
The first modelling was aimed at determining the need for an
overcut in the incline cave layout. Two models were run with
results indicating that although only a small benefit was
achieved, an overcut did reduce the stress on subsequent
levels and that an undercut would be essential to ensure
caving until at least four levels were in production.
ITASCA modelling (Lorig, 2006a)
The February 2006 modelling aimed to investigate the effects
of mining activities on the mining block and determine which
of the two proposed layouts, namely the block cave and the
incline cave, presented the more competent layout. To do this
both the incline cave and block mining layouts were modelled
in increments of 6 months, showing the progression of the
development and then the undercutting of the orebody. The
GEMCOM block model was again used but enhanced to show
the facies differences. From these results of the rock mass
strength/stress analysis the following was concluded:
Abutment stresses resulted in a strength to stress ratio
of 0.05 to 0.15 in F1 kimberlite on 888 Level
In the block cave, strength/stress ratios of 0.15 to 0.25
are anticipated just behind the undercut on 888 Level
In the incline cave, strength/stress ratios in the order of
0.2 to 0.25 in F1 kimberlite are anticipated ahead of the
advancing undercut

558 JULY 2013 VOLUME 113 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Figure 5Mine scale model view looking north (Lorig, 2005)
Both options suggested that serious instabilities were
possible and careful design of support systems would
be required.
Overall, although the differences were small, the inclined
layout showed an advantage over the block cave.
Uncaved remnants
A further concern was that remnants remaining unbroken in
the incline cave would form arches across the orebody. This
was also modelled and found to not be a risk, as shown in
Figure 6.
The comparison of the two mining methods showed little
evidence that one method was superior to the other, yet the
differences did favour the incline cave layout, with serious
instabilities being identified in the contact zone around the
pipe and in areas of lower RMR (RMR<40) and uniaxial
compressive strength (UCS55), where careful support
designs would be needed (Lorig, 2006a).
Conclusions of the February 2006 report
From the information provided it was recommended that the
following be considered to increase the strength of the incline
cave layout:
Increase in the size of the pillars between tunnels
Since the tunnels were orientated perpendicular to the
principle horizontal stress, rotating them would reduce
the amount of damage anticipated. This would be
impracticable due to the geometry of the pipe and the
increase in tramming distances.
Reducing the tunnel size in the blue
Use of a more circular tunnel geometry than is
currently the practice
Adjusting undercut lead/lags
General layouts
In the Finsch Block 5 incline cave layouts, the orebody would
be exploited from below the shale layer with the first full
level being located on 888 Level. From this point initial
designs have levels spaced at 18 m intervals. Unlike other
mining methods where the number of levels is predetermined
based on production requirements, the incline cave relies on
the spacing of tunnels and orientation of the tunnels on
different levels relative to each other to determine the number
of levels. These principles would now be discussed.
Vertical alignment
It was decided early on in the project that tunnels on
successive levels should be stacked as opposed to being
arranged in a staggered layout, so that a stronger layout
would be formed with a single, continuous pillar being
formed between the columns of successive tunnels. Had the
tunnels been staggered, as is the practice on modern SLCs
(Bull and Page, 2000) and the Koffiefontein Front Cave
(Rabe and Hannweg, 2003), the constraining forces would
have been less. The support required to ensure the stability of
the brow would also have been increased.
Tunnel orientation
The Finsch pipe has been found to be slightly elliptical
(Legast, 2006) with the long axis lying on an east to west
plane as can be seen in Figure 7, with a precursor of
hypabyssal kimberlitic material that is more competent than
the rest of the orebody extending to the south. This precursor
is not planned to be mined as part of the Block 5 incline cave
and it was preferred to locate all infrastructure and as many
tunnels as possible out of this zone.
The resulting decision was that tunnel orientation would
be north/south orientation and would ensure that the
distance that an LHD would need to travel within the pipe
would be minimized. Most of the internal dykes would also
be intersected perpendicularly, reducing the risk of tunnel
collapse in these areas.
Incline caving as a massive mining method
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 113 JULY 2013 559
Figure 6Vertical section indicating that complete failure will occur around the undercut (Lorig, 2006a)
Incline caving as a massive mining method
Tunnel dimensions and spacings
RMR does not account for the effects of blast-induced
damage, while MRMR does through the application of an
appropriate factor that varies between 80% for poor blasting
to 100% for boring operations. In the application by ITASCA,
the 0.5 m zone immediately surrounding the tunnel was
reduced by 50%, far more than the MRMR factor, while the
subsequent 0.5 m zone was reduced by 25% of the original
RMR.
Support
The primary support in kimberlite tunnels would begin with
the controlled blasting of the rock to minimize overbreak.
Thereafter a layer sealant would be applied to reduce the
effects of weathering as the virgin ground is subjected to
atmospheric conditions. Shotcrete would be applied through
which grouted roofbolts of 3.0 m length would be installed at
0.7 m spacing. In the ITASCA modelling of June 2006 (Lorig,
2006c) it had been found that roofbolts would also be
required in some areas in the footwall to minimize footwall
heave.
The primary support is then followed by cable anchors
(which are intended to stitch the pillars together), wire mesh
and vibro mesh as an aerial support medium, and tendon
cable straps. A final layer of shotcrete would then be applied
over this installation At drawpoints and dolomite/kimberlite
contacts it is anticipated that stiffer support in the form of
steel arches would be required. This methodology has been
used at Finsch and Cullinan in the past with good success
rates.
Production layouts
The diagrams in Figure 9 represent plan views of all levels
from 870 Level to 960 Level. As can be seen, an undercut
level has been designed on 888 Level with the aim of
reducing stress for all subsequent production levels. On 924
Level another undercut is done, the mid-cut, which is used to
de-stress the levels below these. The method to be employed
and scheduling of the undercut is discussed under the
following paragraphs.
The design of the above layouts was achieved by
commencing the design on the bottom-most level, situating
drawpoints in the middle of the orebody. The troughs on
subsequent levels were then placed so that they interacted
with the lower drawpoints, ensuring an equal coverage of the
entire orebody. Once the uppermost levels were reached, any
remaining footprint that had not been assigned coverage had
a drawpoint associated.
Undercutting methodology
The need for an undercut(s)
The effects of the inclusion of an undercut were modelled in
terms of rock mass strength/stress diagrams (Lorig, 2005).
The large zones of reduced stress indicate that less intensive
support systems would be required up to the fourth
production level, after which the benefit gained is no longer
significant and a second undercut or mid-cut would need to
be included in the design (Lorig, 2005).

560 JULY 2013 VOLUME 113 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Figure 7Top section of the Finsch pipe showing internal facies and
intrusions (Ekkerd, 2005)
Figure 8Assumed distribution of reduced RMR around mined tunnel (3.5 m 3.5 m) (Lorig, 2006c)
5.000
3.000
1.000
-1.000
-3000
-5000
-0.100 0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.500
Direction of undercut
Block 4 would be undermined through the undercutting of
Block 5 and as such mining in the same direction would be
adventitious and allow the lag between the two blocks to be
unconstrained.
Shape of the undercut
A flat undercut design, moving from F8 to F1, was
considered more practical for the following reasons:
The undercut approaches the opposite contact at a more
perpendicular angle
In the F1 to F8 design, a long thin pillar would be
created as the face approaches the contact, whereas the
F8 to F1 design ends in a more rounded pillar,
exposing less of the contact to the abutment stress
Moving the face from the south to the north would
result in both options approaching the contact parallel,
throwing too much stress onto it.
When considering the chevron undercut the following can
be seen:
The tonnage profile is enhanced since tons can be
loaded from both retreating faces as more tunnels are
available
In moving from F1 to F8 the undercut face would
advance parallel to the opposite contacts, inducing
stress along the entire face
In moving from F8 to F1 the undercut approaches the
contact at an acceptable angle which can be modified
by changing the central point of the orebody.
Infrastructure
Development
Finsch mine is currently exploiting the Block 4 orebody,
which is located above Block 5 with production at the time
expected to start decreasing in 2011 (Finsch Mine, 2006).
With only one hoisting facility currently installed on the
mine, Waste Shaft was earmarked to be re-equipped to serve
as a primary waste handling facility for Block 5. Waste Shaft
was originally installed to handle waste from underground
operations, and was decommissioned and is currently used as
only a return airway. The new loading station would be
constructed on 888 Level with tips into which 20 t dump
trucks can discharge development waste rock.
Main Shaft would be deepened and the hoisting speed
increased to allow it to hoist 5.4 Mt/a. During the deepening,
a spare compartment in the shaft would be equipped with a
7 t skip and winding arrangements, which would allow waste
from shaft deepening and development to be hoisted to
surface. During shaft deepening a sub-shaft assembly would
be installed that would hoist waste from the lowest level of
the mine on 1020 Level using a kibble on a multi-drum
winder to the existing 65 Level.. This would then empty the
ore into a 70, 5 m diameter pass that would feed into a
loading flask and ultimately the 7 t skip. On completion of
Main Shaft deepening and equipping this 7 t skip could be
decommissioned, although the availability might prove useful
in later expansion projects.
Steady state
In the Finsch Block 5 pre-feasibility incline cave layout, diesel
LHDs would tip into tips that would be equipped with a rock
breaker and link into a 6 m diameter orepass located on
either side of the pipe. These would each be equipped with a
hydrostroke feeder on the haulage level and would feed into
50 t dump trucks. The ore would then be transported to the
tip in one of the two tramming loops. The simultaneous
tipping of three trucks would be incorporated into the design
of the tip before the ore is fed into the crushing assembly.
The choice of comminution method would be decided in
the feasibility study phase of the project, with the following
three options in contention:
Mineral sizer
Gyratory crusher
Jaw crusher.
From the crusher the -300 mm ore would be transported
on a conveyor belt to the Main Shaft loading box and hoisted
to surface.
Ventilation
All tunnels in the incline cave layout would form dead ends
on all levels at some stage in their lives, with the top and
mid-cuts starting off as holed tunnels before they are
undercut and ending up as dead ends. These would need to
be ventilated with an exhaust system using ventilation
ducting, with two tunnels being serviced by a single raise-
bored ventilation hole leading to the ventilation and water
handling level. Such a system would be expensive in terms of
capital and operating costs.
The capital costs are affected mainly by the cost of
purchasing all the required ventilation ducting and fans, with
the running costs being driven mainly by the cost of running
fans in every tunnel. Two possibilities exist to control this
cost, the first being to reduce the number of fans by placing
Incline caving as a massive mining method
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 113 JULY 2013 561
Figure 9Incline cave layouts (not to scale) (Herselman, 2006)
Area Undercut
Incline caving as a massive mining method
larger fans after the point where the two ventilation ducts
join, and secondly using a ventilation on demand (VoD)
system to control the amount of time the fans stay on.
At its most complex this system would sense the presence
of an employee or machine and turn on the fan, turning off
when the person or machine exits the area.
Communition and secondary breaking
In the incline cave layout, primary fragmentation would occur
as a result of longhole drill and blasting at the troughs and
undercut. This would, as discussed earlier, be initiated by
creating the free-breaking face by raise-boring a hole beyond
the top of the undercut into which subsequent rings would be
blasted. The swell would be loaded off between these blasts
with an LHD. Little oversize material is expected from this as
rings would be designed in such a manner that rocks larger
than can be handled by an LHD would not be produced.
Secondary breaking is required for rocks larger than can be
safely loaded by an LHD from a drawpoint and transported to
the tip.
Areas of concern
Air blast potential
Following the experiences at North Parkes (Hebblewhite,
2002), a lot of emphasis has been placed on the possibility of
air blasts in new cave designs. In the incline cave the same
concerns over air blasts would be valid as with conventional
block caves, with the same principles being used to address
the concerns, namely the cushion of ore left in the
drawpoints, adequate monitoring of the cave back, and
proper draw control.
As with any caving operation there is the possibility of
mud pushes and mud rushes occurring. Where the incline
cave is more beneficial over methods such as SLCs and front
caves is that because of the number of levels and footprint
over which these occur, the ingress of water can be diverted
between a number of drawpoints, in much the same way that
water is handled in block caves through preferential draw of
selected drawpoints (Laubscher, 2000).
Conclusions
Incline caving, although as yet not proven through implemen-
tation, has been found in this pre-feasibility study to be
technically feasible as a mining method that can be employed
in the mining of Block 5 at Finsch Mine. This was done
through the appropriate use of technology, in the form of
geotechnical modelling and the involvement of industry
experts in the form of the FUGS team.
This paper has detailed the major advantages that the
incline cave has as a mining method in kimberlite orebodies,
these being:
Ability to increase brow wear by retreating drawpoints
where necessary
Layout can be tailored to suit the ground conditions to
ensure pillar strength and tunnel stability
Drainage of groundwater is simpler than in block caves,
since water can be drawn over a number of levels
Rehabilitation and secondary breakage have fewer
adverse effects on production than in other mining
methods due to the layout
The development and construction schedule is felt to be
manageable and achievable
The risk of boundary wedge failure is reduced because
of the placement of drawpoints on the contacts
Higher production capability is achievable as a larger
number of tunnels are available than in a SLC layout of
the same size, making for better utilization.
There are a number of factors which need further investi-
gation in a subsequent phase of the project. These include
optimizing tunnel dimensions and the resulting support
regimes, and modelling the stresses induced on the orebody
through various orientations of the undercut. The results of
these studies would conclude the technical feasibility study
into the use of the incline cave mining method for use at
Block 5, Finsch Mine.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the management and staff at
De Beers Consolidated Mines for permission to present this
paper, which was written while in their employ. In particular
the work of the Geotechnical Department, including Dr. Alan
Guest, Dave Wilson, and Pierre Legast at DBCM, in
developing the concept with the Block 5 team needs to be
acknowledged, as well as the assistance of the team in
compiling this paper. In addition, the management of Petra
Diamonds are thanked for their permission to publish this

562 JULY 2013 VOLUME 113 The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
Figure 10Graphical representation of the Block 5 incline cave design (Herselman, 2006a)
paper after their acquisition of the Finsch Diamond Mine.
This paper was originally presented to the University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg as part of the Masters in
Engineering programme under the mentorship of Professor
Dick Stacey, and he is thanked for his assistance.
References
ANONYMOUS. 2003. Koffiefontein rock mass failure, geotechnical update presen-
tation. De Beers Consolidated Mines Koffiefontein Mine.
BROWN, E.T. 2003. Block Cave Geomechanics. JKMRC Monograph Series In
Mining And Mineral Processing, Queensland, Australia.
BIENIAWSKI, Z.T. 1973. Engineering classification of jointed rock masses.
Transactions of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, vol. 15,
no. 12. pp. 353343.
BULL, G. and PAGE, C.H. 2000. Sub level caving, todays dependable low cost
ore factory. Massmin 2000, Brisbane, Queensland, 29 October2
November 2000. pp. 537556.
CAREW, T.J. 1992. Footwall-drawpoint caving At Cassiar Mine. Massmin 92,
Johannesburg. Glen, H.W. (ed.). South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy. pp. 295301.
DE KOCK, H. 1992. Gaths Asbestos Mine. Chamber of Mines Journal, June
1992. pp. 1521.
EKKERD, J. 2005. Note for the record: the geology of Block 5. De Beers Finsch
Mine.
FINSCH MINE. 2006. Finsch Mine strategic business plan. Finsch Diamond Mine.
HERSELMAN, H. 2006a. Presentation: Steercom Presentation 16.
Herselman, H. 2006b. Presentation: Undercut Philosophies.
HEBBLEWHITE, B.K. 2002. Final report on DMR investigation for coronial inquest
North Parkes Mine collapse. Volume 1. Unisearch Ltd, Sydney, New South
Wales. J055066.
HESLOP T.G. 1973. Internal company report.
HULL, R. 2006. Presentation: PCBC Modelling results.
JAKUBEC, J., LORIG, L., ATKINSONE, L., and LAUBSCHER, D. 2004. Memorandum: site
visit notes Finsch Block 5 Project.
JARVIS, M. 2002. Presentation: Finsch Mine block cave project 7 June 2002.
LAUBSCHER, D. 1975. Class distinction in rock masses. Coal, Gold, and Base
Minerals of South Africa, 23 Aug. 1975 (as cited in Laubscher, 2000).
LAUBSCHER, D.A. 1990. Geomechanics classification system for the rating of
rock mass in mine design. Journal of the South African Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy, vol. 90, no 10. October 1990. pp 257273 (as cited in
Laubscher, 2000).
LAUBSCHER, D.A. 2000. A Practical Guide Manual on Block Caving, International
Caving Study (1997-2000).
LAUBSCHER, D.A. 2003. Cave Mining Handbook. De Beers, Johannesburg.
LAUBSCHER, D.A. and TAYLOR, H.W. 1976. The importance of geomechanics
classification of jointed rock masses in mining operations. Proceedings of
the Symposium on Exploration for Rock Engineering, Johannesburg,
November 1976 (as cited in Laubscher, 2000).
LEGAST, P. 2006. Finsch Block 5 pre-feasibility geotechnical investigation.
Johannesburg, South Africa.
LORIG, L. 2005. Geotechnical modelling for Block 5 at Finsch Mine, April 2005.
LORIG, L. 2006a. Geotechnical modelling for Block 5 at Finsch Mine, February
2006.
LORIG, L. 2006b. Calibration of stress and rock mass conditions at AUC
(Cullinan Mine) and Block 4 (Finsch Mine), May 2006.
LORIG, L. Memorandum: preliminary evaluation of Finsch Block 5 undercut
level tunnel design.
LORIG, L. 2006c. Geotechnical modelling for Block 5 at Finsch Mine, June 2006.
MARSDEN, H. 2004. Presentation: AUC Project, Quarterly Project Review,
September 2004. Wits Block Cave School 2004. University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
MORRELL, W. 2004. Presentation: Cullinan Diamond Mine overview.
MURRAY, J. RICHTER, B., MTHOMBENI, C., and KPEKPENA, P. 2003. Finsch Block 5
pre-feasibility study update report. De Beers, Johannesburg.
MTHOMBENI, C. and PAUCAR, C. 2004. Incline cave: a technical alternative to
method to mine kimberlite deposits at depth. Massmin 2004, Santiago,
Chile, March 2004. pp 9195.
PANAOU, C. 2006. Simulation of the incline cave mining method report, version
4. Anglo Technical Division, Johannesburg.
PREECE, C. 1998. Finsch Mine: open pit to open stoping to block caving.
Underground Mining Methods. SME, 2001. pp. 439453.
PRIEST, M. and HAWLEY, D. Undated. Front caving, A solution to waste dilution
at Koffiefontein Mine for the extraction of the 370 m to 490 m ore reserve.
RABE, J. and HANNWEG, L. 2003. Presentation: Koffiefontein Mine rockmass
failure, geotechnical update.
Seopa, H. 2006. Note for the record: flat cave pre feasibility document. De
Beers Group Services, Johannesburg.
VAN HOUT, G., ALLEN, S., BREED, M., and SINGELTON, M. Status of draw control
practice and waste management at Cullinan Diamond Mine. Massmin
2004. Santiago, Chile. pp. 491497.
WILSON, A.D. and TALU, M.S. 2004. A review of the support systems being
applied to the Block 4 cave project of De Beers Finsch Mine, South Africa.
Massmin 2004, Santiago, Chile.
TALU, M.S. and WILSON, A.D. 2004. Innovative mining method and related
support systems and quality assurance for a large underground crusher
excavation. Massmin 2004, Santiago, Chile.
WILSON, A.D., TALU, M.S., and HENSHALL, R.B.H. 2005. Presentation: Finsch
Mine tunnel profiler; Block 4 - block cave project. Best Practices in Rock
Engineering. 3rd Southern African Rock Engineering Symposium,
Randburg, South Africa.
MORTON, K.L., PREECE, C.A., BEATON, R., TWIGGS, C.J., and WILSON, A.D. 2007.
Block cave dewatering: a case history from De Beers Finsch Diamond
Mine, Northern Cape, South Africa. 1st International Symposium on Block
and Sub-Level Caving, Cave Mining, Cape Town, South Africa. Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg. pp. 239-264.
WILSON, A.D. 2008. Effectiveness of support system employed in the Finsch
Mine Block 4 cave. 6th International Symposium on Ground Support in
Mining and Civil Engineering Construction, Cape Town, South Africa.
Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg.
pp. 489-502
WHEWELL, B.W. and PAUTZ, P.N. 1986. False footwall drawpoint system as
adopted by King Section, Gaths Mine. Chamber of Mines Journal.
pp. 2128.
WILSON, A.D. 2008. Presentation: Managing changes to support systems during
project implementation. Mining Review Africa; Safety in Deep Mining.
Johannesburg, South Africa, July 2008.
Incline caving as a massive mining method
The Journal of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy VOLUME 113 JULY 2013 563