Chapter 1

Keynote

20

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

Geomechanics: The critical

engineering discipline for mass mining
Edwin T. Brown, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre and Golder Associates Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia

Abstract
It is shown that the scale of the worlds largest surface and underground mass mining operations has grown at a
continuing rate over the last 100 years. Indications are that both the rates of production and the depths of open pit
and underground mines will continue to grow into the future. This can be expected to provide significant challenges to
the engineering discipline of geomechanics which is shown to have been a major contributor to the success and growth
of mass mining over the last 40 years. Important challenges for many operations remain in other engineering
disciplines to improve efficiency and achieve cost reduction. Nevertheless, the importance of geomechanics to the
investigation, design, construction and safe operation of profitable large-scale surface and underground mines requires
that it be recognised as the basic engineering discipline for mass mining. It is essential, therefore, that the industry
continues to support research into a range of geomechanics-related issues and the education and training of the future
generation of mining geomechanics specialists.

1 INTRODUCTION
There are apparent trends in the international mining
industry towards the globalisation of company structures and
operations, the mining of larger and often lower grade
orebodies, mining at increasing depths, cost reduction through
the use of mass mining methods, the application of caving
methods of mining to more massive orebodies, and improved
safety and environmental performance. These trends bring
with them a range of management and engineering
challenges, many of which have geomechanics bases. The
purpose of this paper is to offer a wide-ranging exploration of
these issues, in the course of which, it will be argued that
geomechanics is the critical engineering discipline for the safe
and economic use of modern mass mining methods.
Following a discussion of the terminology to be used, the
commonly made assertion that there is an international trend
towards mass mining will be tested through a compilation and
assessment of historical production and mining depth data for
a number of selected open pit and underground mines. The
historical development of mining geomechanics and its
relation to the increased scales of both open pit and
underground mining will be reviewed. The key geomechanics
issues associated with the further evolution of large-scale
open pit mining and of underground mining by caving and
open stoping methods will then be explored and some of the
requirements for research to support these developments
identified. This exploration will draw on part of the work of the
International Caving Study (ICS) being carried out through the
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, Brisbane,
Australia. Finally, the difficult but critically important issue of the
provision of well-educated and trained geomechanics
practitioners to support current and future mass mining
undertakings internationally will be addressed.
2. TERMINOLOGY
At the outset it is necessary to define the term mass mining.
Despite its widespread use, clear definitions of this term are not
readily found. The web site for this conference
(www.massmin2004.cl) indicates that the conference will
address a range of mass mining problems and then says, "in
this category are understood to be caving methods (block,
panel and sublevel caving), large scale stoping methods
Massmin 2004

(sublevel, longhole) and variations of these mentioned." The

statement goes on to say that "MassMin 2004 will include not
only underground mining but also open pit mining." This
definition of mass mining follows that used in the Chairmans
Foreword to the Proceedings of MassMin 2000 in which the
MassMin series of conferences were described as "the
pinnacle international forum for discussing and sharing both
technical and operational issues and experiences associated
with the application of methods such as caving (block, caving
and sublevel) and large-scale stoping (sublevel and longhole),
including their derivatives (underground benching, front cave,
inclined footwall, etc)" (Chitombo 2000). Thus, the two recent
international conferences on mass mining define their subject
only in terms of the mining methods being used and not
through other parameters such as production levels. Because
of the nature of the mining methods identified as constituting
mass mining (including open pit mining), there is an implication
that the mining will be on a large or massive scale in other than
narrow orebodies whose dimensions will be substantial in all
three dimensions. Mass mining will also be taken to be highly
mechanised and non-selective (other than in the broadest
sense).
In his keynote paper to MassMin 2000, Hustrulid (2000)
arbitrarily took large scale undergound mines to have
production rates of at least 5,000 tonnes per day (tpd) or 15
million tonnes per year (tpy) and "involving the use of panel
caving, sublevel caving and sublevel stoping." For present
purposes, Hustrulids limit may be too low and so
underground mass mining will be taken to involve
production rates of more than 10,000 tpd. Although
underground coal mining by longwall methods has most of
the characteristics of mass mining, production rates are
rarely high enough for them to qualify under this criterion,
even when multiple longwall panels are operated at a given
mine. Accordingly, underground coal mining and its needs
will not be considered here. The writer has considered
elsewhere geomechanics practice in the Australian
underground coal mining industry and the industrys needs
for geomechanics research, education and training (Golder
Associates 2001).
Large open pits provide clear examples of mass mining.
For present purposes, examples will be assumed to be
provided by those pits that mine 30,000 or more tonnes of
ore per day (or 100 million tpy). For consistency with the

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

21

definition adopted for underground mines, the removal of

waste rock will not be taken into account. The largest open
pits currently mine in excess of 200,000 tpd (see Figure 2).
The other major term that requires definition in the present
context is geomechanics and, more particularly, that part of the
discipline known as mining geomechanics. The learned society
for geomechanics in Australia, the Australian Geomechanics
Society, defines its subject in the following way:
"Geomechanics is the application of engineering and
geological principles to the behaviour of the ground and ground
water and the use of these principles in civil, mining, offshore
and environmental engineering in the widest sense."
This definition includes the application of geomechanics
to a range of engineering purposes. In this regard, it is
almost synonymous with the term geotechnical engineering
which has been defined as "the application of the sciences
of soil mechanics and rock mechanics, engineering geology
and other related disciplines to civil engineering construction, the extractive industries and the preservation and
enhancement of the environment" (Anon 1999).
A more restrictive view of geomechanics is that it is that
group of "sciences" referred to in this definition of
geotechnical engineering, most notably soil mechanics and
rock mechanics (e.g. Brown 1993). This view derives from
the definition of rock mechanics developed by the US
National Committee on Rock Mechanics in 1966:
"Rock mechanics is the theoretical and applied science of the
mechanical behaviour of rock and rock masses; it is that
branch of mechanics concerned with the response of rock and
rock masses to the force fields of their physical environment."
The Australian Geomechanics Societys broader definition
of geomechanics which includes the applications as well as
the "theoretical and applied sciences" themselves will be
adopted here. As has been noted, this definition is almost
synonymous with that of geotechnical engineering.
Accordingly, on occasion, the adjective "geotechnical" may
be used in accordance with customary usage.
It follows from these definitions that mining geomechanics is
that part of geomechanics that is concerned with the
application of knowledge of the physical and mechanical
behaviour of geological materials (soils, rocks and water) to the
investigation, design and performance of mining structures
including excavations (Brown 1993). Blasting mechanics is
usually considered to be part of mining geomechanics as so
defined. For present purposes, mining geomechanics will be
taken to include the application of geomechanics to mine fill,
waste and tailings disposal and the long-term stability and
performance of mined and rehabilitated land forms on mine
sites. It also includes applications of geomechanics in the
investigation, design, excavation, stability, support and
reinforcement and performance of all infrastructure, service
and productive surface and underground excavations
associated with the mining process. Figure 1 illustrates many of
the components of mining geomechanics so defined.

Figure 1: Components of mining geomechanics (from Little

and Szwedzicki 1992).
22

3. HISTORICAL TRENDS TOWARD MASS MINING

It is instructive to consider the ways in which mass mining
has evolved over time, in terms of mining methods, levels of
production and mining depths. In these considerations, it is
necessary to consider open pit and underground mining
separately.
Figure 2 shows a compilation of historical and projected
daily production rates from the early 20th century for several
of the worlds largest open pits of the day. With the notable
exceptions of Bingham Canyon and Chuquicamata, none of
these pits have operated throughout the full period being
considered. The data plotted in Figure 2 were derived from
a variety of published and unpublished sources. The
available data, sometimes expressed as tonnes per month
and sometimes as tonnes per year, have been converted to
average tonnes per day for use in
Figure 2. Although some local inaccuracies may exist
because of the variety of sources of the data plotted,
the general trends indicated are considered to be
meaningful.
Figure 2 shows clearly that production rates from the
worlds largest open pits have grown progressively over
the last 100 years and that they are projected to continue
to grow over the next decade. This increased production
owes much to increased mechanisation and to increases
in the capacities of equipment such as blast hole drills,
shovels, loaders and trucks (Karzulovic 2004). A similar
and perhaps more significant trend from a geomechanics
perspective is the increase in open pit depths with time
shown in Figure 3. The open pit for which most data are
available, the Chuquicamata mine, Chile, was 280 m
deep in 1970, is about 850 m deep today and is projected
to become 1100 m deep in the next decade (Karzulovic
2004).
Also shown on Figures 2 and 3 are certain milestones in
the development and application of geomechanics to open
pit slope engineering. The increases in production and pit
depths that took place from the 1970s coincide with the
significant attention being paid to slope stability research at
that time, most notably in the project undertaken by
Professor Evert Hoek at Imperial College, London, in the
late 1960s and reported in the seminal book, Rock Slope
Engineering by Hoek and Bray (1974), and the Canadian Pit
Slope Project began in 1972 and reported in the Pit Slope
Manual published in 1976 and 1977.
Figure 4 shows a compilation of daily production rates for
some of the worlds largest underground mines of their day.
The data plotted in Figure 4 were collected in a similar way to
those for open pits plotted in Figure 2 and are subject to similar
qualifications. Figure 2 is dominated by El Teniente, the worlds
largest underground mine now producing around 100,000 tpd
with significant increases in production being planned. It will be
noted that the production from this mine increased steadily over
the first 30 years of production to about 1940 when the rate of
increase declined, possibly as a result of World War II. The rate
of increase jumped sharply from the mid-1960s with the overall
trend being projected to continue into the future.
At several times in the past, El Tenientes production rates
have been matched and occasionally slightly exceeded by
those of other block and panel caving mines such as
Climax, El Salvador, Miami and San Manuel. The largest
production rates achieved by other mining methods have
been those of the Swedish sublevel caving iron ore mines.
The production rates of the largest open stoping mines have
always been below those of the caving mines. The highest
current production rate from an open stoping mine known to
the writer is Olympic Dams approximately 25,000 tpd which
is planned to increase to 34,000 tpd in the near future. As a
general rule, the mining costs of stoping mines may be two
or three times those of caving mines.

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

Figure 2: Evolution of daily production rates of selected large open pits.

Figure 3: Evolution of the depths of selected large open pits.

Figure 5 shows the evolution of maximum mining depth
for selected underground mines that use mass mining
methods. Once again, the most complete set of data
available are for El Teniente. Figure 5 clearly establishes the
fact that mining depths are increasing, if anything at an
increasing rate with time. The depths of mines that use
mass mining methods as defined here are not as great as
those mining tabular orebodies of which the deep level gold
mines of South Africa provide the most notable example.
However, the depths of some of these mines are now
considerable in historical terms. The undercut level of the
Palabora block caving mine is at a depth of 1200 m below
surface (Calder et al 2000) as is the Freeport Deep Ore
Massmin 2004

Zone mine. Other block and panel caving mines in the

feasibility and planning stages (e.g. Bingham Canyon and
Chuquicamata) may well be even deeper. Sublevel caving
at depths of more than 1000 m is being practiced or planned
at Kiruna (Sweden), Perseverance (Western Australia) and
Ridgeway (New South Wales, Australia). The deepest mass
mining open stoping mine known to the writer is the Kidd
Mine in Timmins, Ontario, which is at a depth of about 2000
m and plans to reach 2990 m in about 10 years time.
Another open stoping mine, the Enterprise Mine at Mount
Isa, Australia, is at a depth of 1900 m below surface.
The precursor of the modern block caving method of
mining was developed in the iron ore mines of the

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

23

Menominee Ranges, Michigan, USA, in the late nineteenth

century (Peele 1941). Variations of the original Pewabic
method were soon developed at other iron ore mines in
Michigan and, from the early part of the twentieth century, in
the copper mines in western USA. Before evolving to the
use of full block caving, many mines initially used combined
methods involving, for example, shrinkage stoping and
caving methods for the subsequent mining of the pillars
between the primary stopes (Peele 1941).
By the 1920s and 30s, block caving methods were being
used in a wide range of mines exploiting massive, weak
orebodies. During this period, the method was introduced,
for example, at the King Mine which mined asbestos in

Quebec, Canada, the Climax Mine mining molybdenum in

Colorado, USA, and the copper mines in Chile (Peele
1941). Early block caving methods used hand, grizzlies with
transfer raises, and slusher methods of loading. Under
suitable geotechnical and other conditions, the productivity
of block caving mines was increased significantly by the
progressive introduction of mechanised loading using LHD
vehicles from the late 1960s. Mechanised panel caving was
used when Henderson commenced production in 1976 and
was introduced at El Teniente in 1982.
Peele (1941) notes that sublevel caving (SLC) was
introduced as a logical development of top slicing in the
Lake Superior Iron Ranges in the early part of the

Figure 4: Evolution of daily production rates at selected large underground mines.

Figure 5: Evolution of maximum mining depth for selected mines that use mass mining methods.
24

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

twentieth century. It was also used in a few other parts of

the USA in the same period. Perhaps the first large-scale
use of SLC was that at the Kiruna iron ore mine in
Sweden from 1957 (Gustafsson 1981). This marked the
beginning of the development of modern SLC mining. The
method was introduced into Australia, Canada and China
in the 1960s.
Forms of open stoping and sublevel open stoping have
long been practiced, particularly in narrow and tabular
orebodies. Peele (1941) notes that sublevel stoping
developed in the Michigan iron ore mines in about 1902.
Forms of the method were being used in disseminated
copper orebodies in Canada, the USA, what is now
Zambia, and at Mount Isa, Australia, in the 1930s. The
introduction of LHD vehicles, advances in drilling and
blasting technology and advances in mining
geomechanics, helped bring about changes in mine
design and increases in productivity using sublevel open
stoping and blasthole stoping methods from the late
1960s and the 1970s (e.g. Goddard 1981). In many major
metalliferous mining districts, these developments
brought about a change to these methods from cut-andfill methods under suitable geotechnical conditions (e.g.
Brown 1992, Pariseau et al 1984, Singh and Hedley
1981).
A good example of the evolution of non-caving
underground mass mining methods is provided by the
Mount Isa Mine in northwest Queensland, Australia.
Underground mining of silver-lead-zinc ore began in 1932
and of copper in 1943. Until 1963, open sublevel stoping
accounted for 95% of the underground production. From
1963, two new stoping methods were introduced,
mechanised cut-and-fill in the narrower silver-lead-zinc
Racecourse orebodies and sublevel caving of the southern
section of the 500 copper orebody (Davies 1967). Largescale mechanized sublevel open stoping with delayed filling
was introduced into the wider parts of the silver-lead-zinc
orebodies and the copper orebodies from the late 1960s
(Goddard 1981, Grant and De Kruijff 2000). Bench and fill
methods replaced what was left of cut-and-fill mining of the
silver-lead-zinc (now known more simply as lead) orebodies
from 1991 (Villaescusa 1996). It has been widely reported
and acknowledged that geomechanics input has been
centrally important to the successful development and
implementation of these various mining methods (Brown
1992, Davies 1967, Mathews and Edwards 1969,
Villaescusa 1996).
4. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
OF MINING GEOMECHANICS
4.1 Early mining geomechanics
In contradistinction to many fields of modern engineering
that have been preceded by, or developed in parallel with,
their companion engineering sciences, mining was
practiced for centuries (or even millenia) without the benefit
of any formal knowledge that we would now recognise as
applied mechanics, rock mechanics or geomechanics
(Obert and Duvall 1967). After all, Newtons laws were
discovered only in the second half of the 17th century, and
the bases of modern applied mechanics were developed
mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Based on the practices reported by Agricola (1556),
progressive improvement in the state-of-the-art of mining
was made, particularly in Europe and subsequently North
America. However, it was not until the 19th century that
engineering societies were founded in those continents and
engineers began to report their experiences in technical
publications. In the area that we would now recognise as
mining rock mechanics or geomechanics, the initial
concerns were with the effects of underground mining on
Massmin 2004

the surface (caving and subsidence) and then with the

stability of the excavations themselves (Obert and Duvall
1967, Turchaninov et al 1979). Reports dating from the mid19th century were based mainly on qualitative visual
observations but quite good measurements of surface
subsidence and of roof and floor convergence were made in
the last quarter of that century. At the same time,
mechanisms of caving, arching and the development of
ground pressure and deformations were postulated (e.g.
Fayol 1885). Young and Stoeks (1916) comprehensive
account of mining-related subsidence lists more than 100
papers published in the preceding 60 years dealing mainly
with subsidence in the European coalfields. These studies
of caving and subsidence may be considered to represent
an initial stage in the development of modern mining
geomechanics (Hood and Brown 1999).
4.2 The establishment of rock mechanics
as an engineering discipline
Obert and Duvall (1967) note that in the first two decades
of the 20th century, technical reports began to appear which
treated rock as an engineering material. These papers
addressed issues such as the mechanical properties of
rock, deep mining and rockbursts. Laboratory studies using
both photoelastic and material models of rock were reported
(e.g. Bucky 1934) as well as theoretical and empirical
studies of the states of stress around surface and
underground excavations.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the theories
developed were either empirical or applied the basic
concepts of structural mechanics and the strength of
materials. Subsequently, the theory of linear elasticity was
used to calculate the stresses around excavations of simple
shape (e.g. Terzaghi and Richart 1952, Savin 1961).
Greater insight was developed using elastic-plastic and
ground-support interaction concepts based on an analysis
by Fenner (1938). Much of this work was carried out in
Europe and then in the USA where the US Bureau of Mines
was a leader in theoretical and experimental studies from
the 1930s.
From the 1930s, the production of scientific and
engineering information about rock properties and the
design and stability of structures in rock accelerated
rapidly. The first issue of the first specialist journal
devoted to rock mechanics, Geologie und Bauwesen,
was published in Vienna in 1929. (After several name
changes, the successor to this journal is now known as
Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering.) Annual
colloquia on rock mechanics have been held in Austria
since 1950, and in 1951 the First International Strata
Control Congress was held in Liege, Belgium. In 1956,
the first of what became the annual U S symposia on
rock mechanics was held at the Colorado School of
Mines. For some years, these symposia were sponsored
by the major U S mining schools. In Eastern Europe, an
International Bureau of Rock Mechanics which had a
mining emphasis, was established at the Third
International Strata Control Congress held in Leipzig,
Germany, in 1958. Under the leadership of Leopold
Mller, the International Society for Rock Mechanics
(ISRM) was established in 1962. The ISRM held its First
International Congress in Lisbon, Portugal, in 1964, the
year in which the first volume of the International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences was published.
It may be concluded then, that by the early 1960s, rock
mechanics had become an identifiable engineering
discipline with its specialist journals, books, conferences,
societies, and courses and research programs in
universities. It was from this time that modern rock
mechanics and mining geomechanics underwent
significant development. That development has been

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

25

explored in some detail by Hood and Brown (1999). Only

selected aspects of that history will be outlined here. The
many seminal contributions made in respect of
underground coal mining and the deep level hard rock
mining of tabular orebodies, in particular, will not be
considered. The development of geomechanics studies
for the open pit and underground methods of mining
being considered here will be dealt with separately,
although there are obvious overlaps in areas such as
geotechnical characterisation, rock and rock mass
properties and methods of analysis.
4.3 Modern mining geomechanics
By the mid-1960s, open pit mining was being carried out
on an increasing scale and at increasing depths. As a
consequence, the stability of open pit slopes became of
major concern, not only from the obvious perspective of
safety but also in terms of the overall economics of
operations. By 1970, specialist conferences on open pit
slope stability were being held (e.g. Van Rensberg 1970,
Brawner and Milligan 1971). An example of a major open pit
slope failure occurring in that period was that at the
Chuquicamata mine, Chile, in 1969 (Kennedy and
Niermeyer 1970).
The application of the emerging discipline of rock
mechanics to open pit slope design was undeveloped at
the beginning of this period. Quite often, attempts were
made to apply soil mechanics principles or to treat the
problem as one in elastic stress analysis. In retrospect,
Stacey (1993) noted that "in the early 1970s, a review of
hard rock slopes around the world by height and slope
angle put the majority of slopes less than 500 ft (150 m)
in height, with slope angles for the higher slopes
typically in the 45o range or less. At the time, slope
design technology was still developing and most of the
pits had been designed on the "45 degrees seems
reasonable" philosophy."
An important advance was made when the crucial role
played by discontinuities in controlling the stability of most
open pit slopes became clear. Although it had long been
recognised that these structural features influenced slope
behaviour (Terzaghi 1962, Mller 1964), many workers had
assumed that a jointed rock mass could be regarded as an
equivalent orthotropic medium. Soon, the need to describe
and model the strength and deformation behaviour of key
discontinuities became clear (e.g. John 1962). Pioneering
work presented to the First ISRM Congress by Patton
(1966) had shown that, at low normal stresses, the
roughness of joint surfaces has an important effect on the
shear strength of joints.
In the mid- to late 1960s, research programs on open pit
slope stability were being carried out, or were begun, in
several parts of the world including Canada, South Africa,
the UK, the USA and the USSR. One of the most significant
of these programs was the industrially sponsored project led
by Professor Evert Hoek at the Royal School of Mines,
Imperial College, London. Hoek and other early workers
recognised the value of the structural geologists approach
of using the stereographic projection for analysing structural
data. Hoeks team, and others, developed methods of
collecting and analysing discontinuity data and of using the
stereographic projection to identify likely modes of rock
slope failure. They also developed simple but effective
instruments and procedures for the field and laboratory
measurement of rock properties. From the late 1960s,
significant contributions to these areas of rock mechanics
were also made by several groups of international experts
working as part of the ISRM Commission on Testing
Methods to develop and publish a range of suggested
methods of rock characterisation, testing and monitoring
(Brown 1981).
26

New methods were developed for analysing single

plane sliding and wedge failures, using both analytical
solutions and the stereographic projection. Some of
these methods had been developed initially for civil
engineering applications (e.g. John 1968, Londe 1965).
The influence of blasting practice and drainage on slope
stability was recognised, as was the importance of
monitoring the performance of slopes. A comprehensive
account of this work was published by Hoek and Bray
(1974) in their classic text, Rock Slope Engineering.
Subsequently, revised editions were published in 1977
and 1981. Overviews of this early work were given at the
3rd ISRM Congress in Denver by Hoek and Londe (1974)
and by Goodman (1974).
By the mid- to late 1970s it was recognised that the
solution of some types of slope stability problem required
that approximations be made to the strength and
deformation characteristics of large masses of rock
containing several sets of discontinuities. The HoekBrown empirical rock mass strength criterion, developed
originally as part of an industrially funded project on
underground excavations in rock (Hoek and Brown
1980), was soon used to address this issue in slope
stability analyses (Hoek and Bray 1981). At about the
same time, probabilistic and risk analysis approaches to
slope stability studies were being developed (e.g. Coates
1977, McMahon 1975).
It had been recognised that, in some cases, the rock
mass should be regarded as a discontinuum or an assembly
of interacting blocks each of which may be free to translate
or rotate (e.g. Trollope 1968). It was in studies of the
dynamics of rock slopes in jointed rock that Cundall (1971)
originally developed his distinct element approach to the
numerical modelling of discontinua. It had also been
recognised that, in many cases, intact bridges of rock are
present between discontinuities (Jennings 1970). Although
techniques for dealing with this problem were developed,
they involved a number of assumptions and uncertainties.
As will be discussed in Section 5 below, this remains a
largely unresolved problem today.
So we see that by the early 1980s, most of the basic
geomechanics knowledge, methods of collecting rock mass
characterisation and mechanical property data, and the
techniques and framework for slope stability analyses were
in place. The ability to carry out geomechanics studies of
open pit rock slopes was enhanced by the numerical
analysis methods that had been developed in the preceding
15 years or so and by the ever increasing computing power
that became available to engineers. The use of a
geomechanics based approach to rock slope design in
place of the presumptive approach used previously has
allowed deeper and steeper open pit slopes to be
engineered, optimised and managed with positive results in
terms of productivity and profitability (Karzulovic 2004,
Stacey 1993). More recent developments and the current
geomechanics issues associated with large scale open pit
mining will be discussed in Section 5 below.
From the early to mid-1960s, the emerging engineering
discipline of rock mechanics was applied increasingly to
large-scale underground metalliferous mining in several
parts of the world. In Australia, a number of mining
companies used the expertise built up on the Snowy
Mountains Hydro-electric Scheme in the 1950s and 60s
(May 1980). In 1963, Mount Isa Mines established what was
for some time one of the strongest applied rock mechanics
programs on a particular mine site anywhere in the world
(Mathews and Edwards 1969).
Although open stoping and caving methods of mining
were well established, cut-and-fill mining of metalliferous
orebodies became increasingly important from the mid1960s and the subject of basic and applied research

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

programs in Australia, Canada and Sweden. Importantly,

this work involved government research organisations,
industry groups which often sponsored and managed the
research, university research groups and individual mine
sites which often contributed field test sites as well as
staff expertise. The results of these various studies are
reported in the specialist conference proceedings edited
by Stephansson and Jones (1981). Subsequently,
attention was focussed on the geomechanics problems
associated with open stoping methods of mining, building
on the mining geomechanics knowledge and techniques
developed in the "cut-and-fill era" (Brown 1992). Up to
the 1980s, advances were made in site characterisation
and mine model formulation, in situ stress measurement,
design analysis, numerical modelling, support and
reinforcement systems including cable bolting, fill
technology (hydraulic fill, rock fill and, more recently,
paste fill), mine scheduling and pillar recovery, and
performance monitoring and retrospective analysis
(Hood and Brown 1999).
From 1972 to 1976, Professor Evert Hoek and his team at
the Royal School of Mines, Imperial College, London,
carried out an industrially sponsored research project on the
design of large underground excavations in rock, modelled
on the highly successful rock slope project. The results of
this project were reported by Hoek and Brown (1980). A later
project carried out in Canada with the support of the
Canadian mining industry built on this foundation,
developing a number of new computer-based analytical
tools and advancing the state-of-the-art of rock support and
reinforcement for hard rock applications (Hoek et al 1995).
Significant mining geomechanics research programs,
associated largely with open stoping methods of mining
continue in Canada to the present day.
The importance of geomechanics to underground mass
mining was emphasised by the series of international mass
mining conferences held in Denver (Stewart 1981),
Johannesburg (Glen 1992), Brisbane (Chitombo 2000) and
now Santiago (Karzulovic and Alfaro 2004). In the context of
the theme of this paper, an important development occurred
in 1997 when the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research
Centre, Brisbane, Australia, and the Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc, Minneapolis, USA, began work on the
International Caving Study (ICS) Stage 1 (ICS I). This study
was sponsored by an international consortium on mining
companies engaged in, or planning, caving operations. The
issues addressed by this study and its successor, the
International Caving Study Stage II (ICS II) will be outlined
in Sections 6.1 and 8 below. Suffice to say that, as shown
by Figure 4, the need for these studies arose from the
companies interest in mining larger, better quality and
deeper orebodies by highly productive mass mining
methods.
Despite this apparently positive picture of the continued
development and application of mining geomechanics in
both open pit and underground mass mining since the early
1960s, there have been some disturbing developments (or
absence of them) in the past 10-15 years. There has been
a decline in the numbers of government funded research
organisations working on mining geomechanics, the closure
of a number of University mining programs, and an apparent
drying up in the supply of well educated and trained
geomechanics practitioners available in some parts of the
world. These issues will be discussed in Sections 8 and 9
below.
5. GEOMECHANICS AND
LARGE-SCALE OPEN PIT MINING
The development of mining geomechanics for large-scale
open pit mining was outlined in the preceding section where
Massmin 2004

it was shown that most of the fundamental knowledge and

tools were in place by the early 1980s. Since that time,
geomechanics practice in large open pits has evolved, most
notably in the area of slope management. This overview of
geomechanics and large-scale open pit mining draws
heavily on recent papers by Caldern et al (2003), Flores
and Karzulovoic (2000), Hoek et al (2000a,b) and
Karzulovic (2004).
Hoek et al (2000a,b) emphasise the fundamental
importance of a comprehensive and reliable geological
model to any large open pit slope design. Geological models
are now routinely developed, stored and manipulated using
powerful computer-based modelling tools. The ability to
interface these models with geotechnical data and stability
analyses, including numerical analyses, adds to their utility
in open pit slope engineering. The geotechnical and
hydrogeological characterisation of the rock masses forming
the current and future pit slopes is the next essential step in
the process. Although the techniques for doing this have
been established since the early 1980s, advances in the use
of digital technologies for collecting, storing, processing and
manipulating data have been made in recent years (Brown
2003). The process of collecting and evaluating
geotechnical data in large open pits is never-ending. As with
underground mining where the problem is even more acute,
one of the major difficulties is the fact that it is possible to
sample and characterise only a small proportion of the rock
mass directly in advance of excavation.
Although the emphasis in both geological and
geotechnical data collection and model formulation for open
pit mining is on structural features, the nature and properties
of the rock material should also be considered. The
possibility of failure through the rock material in high slopes,
and the impact of variable rock strengths associated with
weathering and alteration, should not be overlooked. Hoek
et al (2000a,b) discuss the relative impacts of several types
of alteration of the rocks at the Chuquicamata mine, Chile,
for example. It is common practice, and indeed necessary
for practical purposes, to divide the rock mass around the pit
into structural or geotechnical domains within each of which
a constant geotechnical model may be used. As mining
proceeds and more data become available, it may be
necessary to refine the original definition of these
geotechnical domains.
The next step is to carry out a series of slope stability
analyses for the stage in the life of the pit being considered.
Hoek et al (2000a) discuss the approach generally used in
the following way:
"The current state of practice tends to separate slope
designs into two distinct categories. The first of these
categories is for those designs that can be dealt with in terms
of kinematically possible structurally controlled failures. For
example, failures that involve wedges sliding along the line of
intersection of two intersecting faults can be analysed using
limit equilibrium models. This type of failure is commonly seen
in slopes of up to 20 or 30 m high in hard jointed rock masses.
The design of such slopes can sometimes be based upon an
analysis of simple wedge failure.
The second category is that which includes nonstructurally controlled failures in which some or all of the
failure surface passes through a rock mass which has
been weakened by the presence of joints or other
second order structural features. An assumption
commonly made is that these second order structural
features are randomly or chaotically distributed and that
the rock mass strength can be defined by a simple
failure criterion in which smeared or average nondirectional strength properties are assigned to the rock
mass. This approach is frequently used for the analysis
of the overall stability of large slopes where it is
believed that no obvious failure mode presents itself."

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

27

Hoek et al (2000a,b) go on to point out that

experience shows that these two categories alone are
inadequate for open pit slope design. Many or most
large scale slope failures do not appear to follow either
of these relatively simple models. They are generally
more complex that these models assume, often
involving failure on a major structure, rock mass failure
of the type discussed in the preceding paragraph and/or
a step-path failure controlled by joints and intervening
rock bridges as illustrated in Figure 6. In addition, these
complex failures such as that shown in Figure 7 may be
truly three dimensional so that they are not amenable to
representation and analysis in simple two dimensional
form. Clearly, these failure mechanisms are difficult, if
not impossible, to foresee ahead of the event. Even
when examined after the failure, the exact mechanism
and the failure surfaces are not always easy to identify.
The writer has had recent experience of this difficulty in
the cases of two open pit failures that were only in the
order of 40 m high. The development of predictive
techniques for identifying and analysing these large,
complex failures is seen to be perhaps the most
outstanding geomechanics research need for largescale open pit mining. Any successful approach is likely
to involve computer based geological and geotechnical
modelling, advanced numerical analyses, probabilistic
methods and the use of risk analysis techniques. At a
fundamental level, further research is also required to
better define the strength and deformation properties of
discontinuous in situ rock masses.

It is now widely recognised that it is impossible to prevent

some slope failures in large open pits, especially on the
scale of benches. Indeed, it is considered that any pit in
which no failures occur is less than optimally designed for
profitability. Modern practice is to use a risk management
approach in which the risks are identified and managed
(e.g. Cataln and Caldern 2004, Caldern et al 2003, Call
et al 2000, Karzulovic 2004). The monitoring of slope
movements and the establishment of acceptability criteria
are important elements of this approach.
As well as these geomechanics issues, the general issue
of materials handling and the costs involved is probably the
other major challenge faced by large-scale open pit mines
as their depths approach and exceed 1000 m. These issues
are outside the scope of this paper and of the writer's
knowledge and expertise, and so will not be discussed in
any detail here. However, their significance should be
acknowledged. An overall future need will be to limit the
amount of waste and ore hauled from depth to the surface
using conventional methods. A change away from trucks to
in-pit conveyors could enable overall pit slopes to be
steepened as well as saving on the capital, operating and
maintenance costs of vehicles and haul roads. A further
possibility into the future would be to carry out some parts of
the processing cycle in underground chambers excavated
below the pit floor. This concept has a number of
geomechanics implications in terms of stand-off distances
from the pit and the stability of the underground excavations
themselves.
6. GEOMECHANICS AND CAVING
METHODS OF MINING

Figure 6: Candidate failure surface involving a number of

different shear failure mechanisms (Hoek et al 2000a).

Figure 7: A large-scale open pit slope failure (Hoek et al

2000a).
28

6.1 Block caving geomechanics

Current practices and trends in block and panel cave
mining are discussed in the paper by Flores et al (2004a).
Many, if not most, of the major challenges faced in
engineering the modern generation of block and panel
caving mines, and those in the feasibility or planning stages,
involve geomechanics issues. Many of these challenges
arise because of the high rock mass qualities of the
orebodies being mined (in which the critical issues of
cavability and fragmentation are accentuated), the greater
depths at which caving is being initiated, the associated
problems with extraction level stability, and the increasing
heights of caving columns. In some cases, the interaction of
the cave with a pre-existing open pit becomes an additional
consideration (e.g. Glazer and Hepworth 2004).
Table 1 lists the major geomechanics-related issues and
activities involved in the investigation, preliminary study,
planning, design, construction and operating stages of block
and panel caving mines. Even a cursory consideration of
these issues and activities will demonstrate the vitally
important role that geomechanics plays in modern cave
mining, even without considering tailings management,
environmental management and mine closure issues, all of
which can have significant geomechanics components.
Most of the issues and activities listed in Table 1 have been
discussed in detail by Brown (2003) and in a range of papers
presented to this and previous mass mining conferences. In
order to provide some further detail, some of the geomechanics
methods and processes involved in cavability assessment and
in cave inducement are set out in Figure 8 which comes from
the CaveRisk risk assessment methodology developed as part
of ICS I (Brown 2003). Although this and the other issues listed
in Table 1 have received a considerable amount of attention in
recent years by both in-house groups in mining companies and
in research projects such as the ICS, current levels of
understanding of caving mechanics and cave engineering do
not always match industrial requirements, particularly when
major risks are involved in new mining ventures that "break

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

Table 1: Major geomechanics-related issues and activities

associated with modern block and panel caving mines
PRELIMINARY STUDIES

Geotechnical model formulation

Cavability assessment
Fragmentation assessment
Mining method selection
Identification of potential major hazards
Subsidence prediction
Risk analysis

MINE PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Undercut level selection and undercutting strategy

Excavation sequencing
Extraction level design and construction, including support
and reinforcement
Subsidence prediction
Infrastructure location, design and construction

MINING OPERATIONS

Undercutting and caving initiation

Draw management
Monitoring (e.g by seismic monitoring) and managing cave
propagation (e.g. by draw control, rock mass conditioning and
cave inducement)
Monitoring excavation (including extraction level) performance
Management of major operational hazards including
uncontrolled collapses, rockbursts, mud rushes and air blasts
Monitoring the development of surface subsidence

new ground". The need for continuing fundamental

investigation of these issues will be outlined in Section 8 below.
The centrally important issues of caving mechanics
and cave propagation are addressed in the paper by
Flores et al (2004b). In the bench-marking exercise
carried out as part of ICS II (Flores et al 2004a), it was
concluded that there were no geotechnical tools available
with which to define the likelihood of vertical caving
propagating through ore columns of varying heights
(sometimes outside the limits of precedent practice) in
rock masses of varying rock mass qualities and
strengths, and subjected to a range of possible in situ
stress fields. The model used for caving initiation and
propagation by stress caving
is illustrated in Figure 9. Flores et al (2004b) carried out a
series of parametric two dimensional stress analyses to assess
the effects of several aspects of geometry, stress field and rock
mass strength on vertical cave propagation. They defined a
Caving Propagation Factor for use in estimating the likelihood
of vertical cave propagation in the initial engineering stages of
cave mining projects, including those involving a transition from
open pit to underground cave mining.

(a) Initial undercutting defining a flat, tabular cavity where

the stress release caving mechanism predominates.

(b) The upward caving propagation makes the cave back

curve, increasing the importance of the stress caving
mechanism.

(c) Additional upward caving propagation increases the

curvature of the cave back, and makes predominant the
stress caving mechanism.

Figure 8: Cavability logic tree (Brown 2003)

Massmin 2004

Figure 9: Evolution of the cave back and caving

mechanisms through time due to the upward propagation of
caving (Flores et al 2004b).
Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

29

Figure 10 shows a similar diagram to Figure 8 for a

second risk management focus issue, excavation stability.
In order to illustrate the application of geomechanics
knowledge and techniques, and because it is becoming of
increasing concern under the higher stress conditions being
encountered in deeper mines, the general issue of
extraction level excavation stability will be discussed in
more detail in the following sub-section.
6.2 Extraction level excavation stability
Brown (2003) lists and discusses the major factors
influencing extraction level layout and design as being
fragmentation, undercut strategy and design, geotechnical
conditions, operational factors (relating to the efficient
removal of broken ore), major operational hazards and the
stability, reinforcement, wear and repair of drawpoint brows.
The paramount importance of geomechanics issues is
again apparent. The stability, support and reinforcement of
extraction level excavations has long been a source of
difficulty, production delays, cost increases and even the
loss of productive sectors in caving operations. In addition
to geotechnical factors, poor mining practices such as poor
sequencing and poor draw control can cause excavation
instabilities.

Salvador mine, Chile, with emphasis on the use of a flexible

support and reinforcement system and pre-reinforcement.
However, further research is required to develop reliable
numerical methods and rock mass constitutive laws for use
in predictive analyses (e.g. Wattimena 2003).
The case involving brittle fracture or even rockbursts has
been, perhaps, the more difficult of the two general cases to
understand and manage. The writer suggests that advances
can be made by addressing this problem through the
application of concepts and techniques developed in studies
of brittle rock behaviour in other engineering applications.
The ideas considered to be worthy of further exploration in
this context are the influence of stress path on rock mass
behaviour and the adaptation of the Hoek-Brown empirical
failure criterion (Hoek and Brown 1980, 1997) for brittle,
slabbing conditions developed by Martin (1997) and Martin
et al (1999).
In laboratory and field and field studies of the behaviour of
Lac du Bonnet granite, Martin (1997) found that the start of
the fracture or failure process began with the initiation of
damage caused by small cracks growing in the direction of
the maximum applied load. For unconfined Lac du Bonnet
granite, this occurred at an applied stress of 0.3 to 0.4 sc
where sc is the uniaxial compressive strength of the intact
rock material. As the load increased, these stable cracks
continued to accumulate. Eventually, when the sample
contained a sufficient density of these stable cracks, they
started to interact and an unstable cracking process
involving sliding was initiated. The stress level at which this
unstable cracking process is initiated is referred to as the
long term strength of the rock, scd.
As illustrated in Figure 11, Martin (1997) first determined
the laboratory peak, long term and crack initiation strengths
for the Lac du Bonnet granite. He was able to fit Hoek-Brown
failure envelopes to these curves, although the laboratory
crack initiation curve was found to be a straight line on s1
versus s3 axes. Subsequently, in a field experiment carried
out at the Underground Research Laboratory site in
Manitoba, Canada, the initiation of cracks around a tunnel

Figure 10: Excavation stability logic tree (Brown 2003)

Extraction level excavations can be subjected to high
stresses because of the high percentage excavation on this
level, the stress concentrations associated with the
advancing cave front, and the increasing depths at which
extraction levels are being developed. These excavations
are also subjected to complex stress paths and repeated
static and dynamic loading cycles during mine development
and operation. Depending on the relation of the rock mass
quality to the induced stresses, squeezing (or plastic
deformation) or brittle fracturing (including rockburst)
conditions may exist. (There is also an important third case
in which instabilities are associated with structural features
(e.g. Flores et al 2004a). This case will not be considered
here.) The first case can be understood and managed
through the use of ground-support interaction analysis and
the application of the support and reinforcement principles
that are well established in civil engineering tunnelling
(Brown 2003). Leach et al (2000) provide an instructive
example of the calculation of ground reaction curves and
their application in the design of extraction level excavations
in the C-cut area of the Premier Mine, South Africa. Van Sint
Jan et al (1987) provide an excellent example of the
successful application of modern support and reinforcement
principles and practices on the extraction level of the El
30

Figure 11: Hoek-Brown failure envelope for Lac du Bonnet

granite based on laboratory peak strength (Lab Peak), longterm strength (Lab scd) and in situ crack initiation stress
(sci) determined by microseismic monitoring (after Martin
1997).

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

excavated in the Lac du Bonnet granite was recorded using

microseismic emissions. As shown in Figure 11, these data
corresponded well with the laboratory crack initiation data. It
was found that crack initiation at approximately constant
deviatoric stress, (s1 - s3), could be well represented by the
Hoek-Brown criterion with mb = 0 and s = 0.11 (Martin et al
1999), in which case, s1 - s3 = 0.33 sc.
This criterion was used in conjunction with elastic stress
analyses to give good predictions of the geometry of the
spalled zone around the tunnel. It has since been used to
predict brittle spalling or slabbing (as opposed to general
shear failure) conditions in a number of underground
excavations (e.g. Cai et al 2004). The suggestion is that this
criterion could also be used in analyses of the likelihood of
brittle rock fracture around extraction level excavations in
block and panel caving mines. In addition to the uniaxial
compressive strength of the rock material, the state of stress
on the boundary and in the rock around particular
excavations would have to be estimated. This can be done
through a three dimensional elastic stress using the finite
difference code, FLAC3D. Wattemina (2003) used this
approach to show how elevated stresses may be produced
in the extraction level excavations ahead of and near the
cave front, depending on the undercutting strategy used,
how the stresses at a given level in the extraction level
change as the cave front approaches and passes over the
point, and the effect of high horizontal in situ stresses on the
stresses induced in the major and minor apices. Depending
on the geometry of the problem to be investigated, two
dimensional plane strain analyses may be used in some
cases.
It has been found that the loading path taken to the
current state of stress in geological materials can influence
the strength able to be developed by a soil or rock mass.
This is particularly the case when plastic deformation is
involved. However, when deformation is essentially elastic
until "failure" and brittle fracture as opposed to general
plastic deformation occurs, it has been found that the
strength envelopes of "hard" rocks are essentially stress
path independent (Brady and Brown 2004). It is considered
likely, therefore, that as in the cases described by Martin et
al (1999) and Cai et al (2004), elastic stress analyses and
Martins representation of the Hoek-Brown criterion for crack
initiation will suffice for making a first-order estimate of the
occurrence and extent of brittle fracture around extraction
level excavations in strong, massive rock. Clearly, this
postulate will have to be tested by parametric numerical
analyses and by comparison, and possible calibration, with
high quality field data. This is considered to be a fertile topic
for future research. In such studies, the influence of
repeated loading would have to be considered.

and the frequency and orientations of the discontinuities in

the rock mass. Transverse layouts generally have
advantages over longitudinal layouts for orebodies of
sufficient width (Bull and Page 2000) and are used for
modern high production SLC operations such as the Kiruna
Mine, Sweden (Quinterio et al 2001) and the Ridgeway Gold
Mine, New South Wales, Australia (Trout 2002).
In the last decade or so, larger sublevel and production
drift spacings and drift sizes have been introduced in largescale, highly productive SLC operations. For example, the
layouts used at Kiruna have been progressively scaled up
since the mining method was introduced more than 40 years
ago (Hustrulid 2000, Marklund and Hustrulid 1995). A major
effect of the scale-up, even with increased drift sizes to
accommodate larger equipment, has been to reduce the
proportion of ore extracted during development from 15% to
5%. Subsequently, full-scale trials have been conducted
with the sublevel interval increased from 27 m to 32 m, the
drift width increased from 7 m to 11 m, and the burden
increased from 3.0 m to 3.5 m (Quintero et al 2001). The
transverse sublevel caving layout used at the Ridgeway
Gold Mine, New South Wales, Australia, has a sublevel
interval of 25 m, a cross-cut drift spacing of 14 m and a drift
size of 6 m wide by 4 m high (Trout 2002, Power 2004).
Despite the attention that they have received,
fragmentation and the gravity flow of caved ore remain
major issues for SLC operations (e.g. Bull and Page 2000,
Rustan 2000, Power 2004). It appears that some of the
classic concepts introduced by Janelid and Kvapil (1966)
and widely used for many years, may not be applicable to
the coarser fragmentation and flow of stronger orebodies in
which flow may be episodic, chaotic and not interactive
(Power 2004). Modern SLC designs have departed from
those derived from considerations of Janelid and Kvapils
theories. Further investigation is required to develop an
improved understanding of these issues. Advances made
recently suggest that realistic numerical simulations of SLC
flow may soon be achievable (Power 2004).
Draw control and dilution remain major concerns for some
SLC operations. Well-designed and controlled drilling is
required for successful sublevel caving. Blasting under
confined conditions remains an issue requiring further
investigation. Finally, geomechanics problems have arisen
in production headings as a result of the concentration of
field stresses in the lower abutment of the mining zone.
Modern support and reinforcement principles and
techniques derived from civil engineering and other forms of
mining practice can help overcome these problems (e.g.
Struthers et al 2000). However, this and the other issues
identified may become accentuated as SLC is practiced at
increasing depths.

6.3 Sublevel caving geomechanics

Generally, sublevel caving (SLC) is suitable only for
steeply dipping orebodies with reasonably strong orebody
rock enclosed by weaker overlying and wall rocks. The ore
must be of sufficient grade to accept dilution, perhaps
exceeding 20%, arising from the entrainment of barren
country rock in the ore stream. The method produces
significant disturbance of the ground surface, imposing
some possible limitations on its applicability. SLC may have
higher production costs than the other underground mass
mining methods being considered here because of the
relatively high development requirement per tonne
produced and the intensity of the drilling and blasting
required to generate mobile, granular ore within the caving
medium. Reduction of these development costs is one of
the objectives of modern SLC operations.
The choice between longitudinal and transverse layouts
involves consideration of a range of factors such as orebody
dip and plunge, orebody dimensions, the in situ stresses,

7. GEOMECHANICS AND LARGE-SCALE

OPEN STOPING METHODS

Massmin 2004

As outlined in Section 3, large-scale open or sublevel

stoping of massive or steeply dipping stratiform orebodies
has been practiced successfully for more than 30 years.
Since open stoping requires unsupported, free-standing
stope boundary surfaces, the strength of the orebody and
country rock masses must be adequate to provide stable
walls, faces and crowns of excavations. The orebody
boundary must be fairly regular since selective mining is
precluded by the requirement for regular stope outlines
associated with the use of long blast holes. Blast hole
penetration of stope walls due to drilling inaccuracy leads to
dilution (Brady and Brown 2004). Greater control of drilling
accuracy may be obtained with larger diameter blast holes.
Hamrin (2001) refers to 140-165 mm holes being drilled
accurately to depths of 100 m in bighole open stoping.
Pillar recovery or secondary stoping is commonly

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

31

practiced in open stoping. Backfill with a range of properties

may be placed in the primary stope voids and secondary
stoping or pillar mining performed by exploiting the local
ground control potential of the adjacent fill. Alternatively, on
the boundaries of ore blocks, pillars may be blasted into
adjacent stope voids with the possibility of extensive
collapse of the local country rock. Successful ore recovery
would then require draw of fragmented ore from beneath
less mobile, barren country rock with the potential for
dilution (Brady and Brown 2004). Dilution may also occur
from overbreak and the sloughing or failure of fill. On the
other hand, there is also the potential for ore loss arising
from insufficient ore breakage within the stope boundaries
(Villaescusa 2000).
The evidence shows that the development and
successful implementation of these mining methods has
relied heavily on advances in, and the application of,
mining geomechanics knowledge and techniques in areas
such as rock mass characterisation, numerical stress
analysis, mine sequencing analysis, support and
reinforcement including cable bolting and pre-placed
reinforcement, crown pillar stability, fill technology and
drilling and blasting technology (e.g. Alexander and
Fabjanczyk 1981, Brady and Brown 2004, Goddard 1981,
Grant and De Kruijff 2000, Potvin and Hudyma 2000,
Simser and Andrieux 2000). As the depth and scale of
these operations increase, problems of excavation
stability and dilution can be expected to be exacerbated
and the contributions made by geomechanics
accentuated. In some cases, depending on the mining
methods and equipment used, it may become necessary
to reduce some excavation sizes. The role of fill, including
the paste fill now being used increasingly, in ensuring the
stability of local and overall mine structures will become
ever more critical. The timely supply and placement of fill
in stopes, sometimes over long distances, can also be
expected to become a critical factor in some cases.
Increasing productivity by reducing development and
stope cycle times is likely to become an overall objective.
8. RESEARCH
The summary of the development and application of
mining geomechanics to mass mining given above shows
that, since the 1960s, the mining industry has been active in
working with university and government research groups on
research programs that were identified as being relevant to
the industrys needs. Although, by the very nature of
research, not all sponsored research produced significant
results, there can be no doubt that the industry gained much
benefit from its involvement in mining geomechanics
research (e.g. May 1980, Watson 1987). At the time, there
were strong government, industrial and university mining
geomechanics research groups in many countries including,
to the writers personal knowledge, Australia, Canada,
France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, the UK, the
USA and the USSR. Not only were those programs
important in terms of their contributions to knowledge, but
they were also the sources of significant numbers of highly
trained geomechanics specialists for the industry.
A major feature Hood and Browns (1999) interpretation of
the history of mining geomechanics is the great influence
that a number of inspirational leaders had on the rapid
development of the discipline and of the most influential and
highly acclaimed research groups from the 1960s. As would
be expected, several of these "founding fathers" are no
longer living and many of those that are have either retired
from their university or research positions or now work as
consulting engineers. As a result, with a few exceptions, the
strong research groups that they built up have either
disappeared or now operate at much lower levels than they
32

did at their peaks. Furthermore, in a number of countries

(e.g. Germany, UK, USA), government funded mining
research organizations and mining research programs have
either been closed completely or are supported at
significantly reduced levels.
Despite this, some mining geomechanics research is
still being carried out in some of the countries identified in
the opening paragraph of this section, and new programs
have emerged in countries such as Chile and China.
However, to the best of the writers knowledge, no major
research programs on open pit slope stability on the scale
of those carried out in the late 1960s and 1970s, are
currently underway. As indicated in Section 5, there is a
pressing need in this area. It is understood that plans for
an industrially sponsored research project on large-scale
open pit geomechanics are being developed in
association with the mass mining technology initiative to
be outlined below.
Although many of the research programs that previously
supported the development of initially cut-and-fill and then
open stope mining no longer exist, the geomechanics of
caving methods of mining has been studied for the last eight
years by the ICS. The main topics addressed have been:
rock mass characterisation and the simulation of in situ
jointing;
review, development and calibration of methods for
cavability and fragmentation assessment;
undercut and extraction level design;
flow of broken rock using numerical models, a large-scale
physical model and mine scale marker tests;
development of a draw control and scheduling system
using linear programming and mixed integer linear
programming;
pre-conditioning of strong rock masses using hydraulic
fracturing methods;
development of geotechnical guidelines for the transition
from open pit to underground mining by caving methods;
development of a risk assessment methodology for block
and panel caving; and
collation of caving practice and knowledge, and the
results of research, in a readily accessible form.
Some of these topics are also being addressed on mine
sites and by other research groups outside the framework of
the ICS (e.g. pre-conditioning at Codelcos Andina Division).
Although useful advances have been made (e.g. Brown
2003), much remains to be done to develop the
understanding and knowledge required for the engineering
of the next generation of underground mass mining
operations. For some time, the sponsors of the ICS have
been working with the programs Technical Director, Dr
Gideon Chitombo, to establish the successor to the ICS in
the area of mass mining technology. The proposed research
areas and the associated research tasks are listed in Table
2 (Chitombo 2004). Clearly, many of these research tasks
have geomechanics orientations. Research on these topics
is considered to be essential in developing the knowledge
and techniques required to successfully mine in the
underground mass mining environment of the future.
9. EDUCATION AND TRAINING
The importance of the engineering discipline of
geomechanics to mass mining being argued here implies a
requirement for a continuing supply of well-educated and
trained (the writer distinguishes between the two) engineers
to advance and apply the discipline. The requirement is not
only for geomechanics specialists to work on mine sites, in
consultancies, in research organisations and as teachers,
but also for practicing mining engineers who have a good
working knowledge of the discipline and its impact.

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

The shortage of mining geomechanics engineers in many

parts of the world, including those mainly English-speaking
countries with which the writer is most familiar, is part of a
perceived wider shortage of mining engineers and other
professionals for the minerals industry. In some countries,
the closure of mining and minerals engineering courses, of
specialist postgraduate courses, and of mining research
groups, has given cause for concern (Hood and Brown
1999). As a result, in several mining countries, the
professional institutions, industry leaders, those universities
still active in the field and the minerals industry press, have
discussed and sought solutions to what is seen as being a
critical future shortage of minerals industry professionals. In
Australia, for example, a study carried out by a taskforce of
the peak industry body, the Minerals Council of Australia
(Minerals Council of Australia 1998), resulted in the
establishment of the Minerals Tertiary Education Council
(MTEC). MTEC aims "to build a world-class tertiary learning
environment for the education of professional staff for the
Australian minerals industry." The development and delivery
of a flexible-format, web-based rock mechanics education
program for undergraduate mining engineers forms part of
MTECs program (Lilly et al 2003). Thankfully, as university
mining and minerals education has declined in some
countries, it has been maintained or developed in some
others, including Chile.
The problem is many-facetted and almost as old as the
industry itself. Some aspects of the problem are associated
with young peoples interests and aspirations, some may be
attributed to the secondary education systems in some
countries, some are the responsibility of universities and of
university funding systems, while some must be visited on
the mining companies themselves. This is not the place to
explore the reasons for, and advance possible solutions to,

the overall problem. However, some specific comments

about mining geomechanics are warranted.
A research training through post-graduate research
into an industry-related problem, followed (or preceded)
by mine site experience is considered to provide an
especially strong preparation for mining geomechanics
specialists (Golder Associates 2001). The decline of
mining geomechanics research groups in some parts of
the world, and the failure to establish them in others, has
had deleterious effects on the supply of well-trained
specialists for the industry. Nevertheless, it must be
recognised that some strong university mining
geomechanics research groups with interests in mass
mining exist in Canada and Australia, for example. In
addition to contributing to advances in knowledge and
understanding, industry support for projects like the ICS
and the proposed mass mining technology project should
serve the further important purpose of helping train some
of the industrys current and future engineering
specialists to the advanced levels that will be necessary
to develop solutions to the problems likely to be
encountered in future mass mining operations.
The writer has the highest personal regard for many of the
experienced geomechanics specialists working on mine
sites and in consultancies in his home country, Australia,
and in several other parts of the world, including Chile.
These specialists come from a wide range of initial
educational and subsequent training backgrounds. In some
countries, many geomechanics specialists have civil
engineering, geological engineering or engineering geology,
rather than mining, backgrounds. However, the living and
social conditions on many remote mine sites (including the
fly in-fly out system), the lack of opportunities for career
advancement in specialist fields, and some company cost-

Table 2: Proposed mass mining technology research areas and tasks (Chitombo 2004)
Research Area

Research Tasks

Geotechnical Characterisation

Effective use of geophysical methods for assessing fundamental

geological, geomechanical and hydrological rock mass parameters.

Mechanics of Caving

Better prediction of cave initiation and propagation for the "new mining
environments" including surface subsidence prediction.
The mechanics of in situ to primary to secondary fragmentation for
caving operations.
Influence of pre-conditioning on cave initiation and propagation.

Caving Engineering

Mechanism of confined blasting and corresponding drill and blast design

principles and guidelines.
Gravity flow and engineering studies (large-scale physical models and
field studies) and development of mine scale flow rules and design
guidelines.
More effective cave monitoring systems (3D) and design of appropriate
instrumentation geometries including on-line analysis and interpretation.
Risk approaches for major hazard identification including air blast, rock
bursts, major collapses, mud rushes, and subsidence.
The impact of pre-conditioning on rock mass strength reduction and
change of in situ fracturing.

Systems Engineering

Application of more effective cave/draw management strategies.

Process management and effective use of automation.

Enabling Technologies

Rapid horizontal development (safe and quality).

Effective (and continuous) ore handling systems including mechanical
gatherers.
Mechanisation of secondary rock breakage.

Mine Profit Optimization

Mining sequence, scheduling and mining rates.

Massmin 2004

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

33

cutting policies, can make it difficult to attract and retain

geomechanics specialists on mine sites. Indeed, on some
Australian operations, there appears to be an increasing
trend to use consultants rather than company staff for
geomechanics functions (Anon 2004).
As indicated above, this is not the place to explore
possible solutions to this critical problem. The essential
point to be made in the context of this paper is that a
shortage of mining geomechanics specialists could provide
a major impediment to safe and profitable surface and
underground mining in the challenging mass mining
environment of the future.

10. CONCLUSIONS
The scale of the worlds largest surface and underground
mass mining operations has grown at a continuing rate over the
last 100 years. Indications are that both the rates of production
and the depths of open pit and underground mines will continue
to grow into the future. This can be expected to provide
significant challenges to the engineering discipline of
geomechanics which has been shown to have been a major
contributor to the success and growth of mass mining over the
last 40 years. Important challenges for many operations remain
in other engineering disciplines such as project management,
materials handling, environmental engineering, water supply
and management, information and communications
technologies, and management and systems engineering to
improve efficiency and achieve cost reduction. Nevertheless,
the importance of geomechanics to the investigation, design,
construction and safe operation of profitable large-scale
surface and underground mines requires that it be recognised
as the basic engineering discipline for mass mining. It is
essential, therefore, that the industry continues to support
research into a range of geomechanics-related issues and the
education and training of the future generation of mining
geomechanics specialists.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The writer is most grateful to the Organising Committee of
MassMin 2004 for having invited him to prepare this paper
and present the associated keynote lecture. He wishes to
thank the Director and staff of the Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral
Research Centre and the Manager and staff of the Brisbane
office of Golder Associates Pty Ltd for having provided him
with facilities and assistance in the preparation of this paper.
He is particularly grateful to Dr Gideon Chitombo, German
Flores (who also prepared Figures 2-5), Dr Antonio
Karzulovic, Neil Hepworth and Dr Gavin Power for having
provided ideas and material used in the paper.

REFERENCES
Agricola, G, 1556. De Re Metallica, 1st edition. (Trans: H
C Hoover and L H Hoover, 1950). Dover: New York.
Alexander, E G and Fabjanczyk, M W, 1981. Extraction design
using open stopes for pillar recovery in the 1100 orebody at
Mount Isa. Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel
Stoping Mines, (Ed: D R Stewart), 437-458. SME: New York.
Anon, 1999. Definition of geotechnical engineering.
Ground Engineering, 32(11): 39.
Anon, 2004. Miners turn to consultancies. Australias
Mining Monthly, March, 59.
Brady, B H G, and Brown, E T, 2004. Rock Mechanics for
Underground Mining, 3rd edition. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Brawner, C O and Milligan, V (ed), 1971. Stability in Open
Pit Mining, Proceedings 1st International Conference on
34

Stability in Open Pit Mining, Vancouver. AIME: New York.

Brown, E T (ed), 1981. Rock Characterization, Testing
and Monitoring: ISRM Suggested Methods, 211 p.
Pergamon Press: Oxford.
Brown, E T, 1992. Australian mining geomechanics
development, achievements, challenges. Proceedings
Western
Australian
Conference
on
Mining
Geomechanics, Kalgoorlie, 1-13. Western Australian
School of Mines: Kalgoorlie.
Brown, E T, 1993. The nature and fundamentals of rock
engineering. Comprehensive Rock Engineering (Ed: J A
Hudson, E T Brown, C Fairhurst and E Hoek), 1: 1-23.
Pergamon Press: Oxford.
Brown, E T, 2003. Block Caving Geomechanics. JKMRC
Monograph Series on Mining and Mineral Processing 3,
515 p. Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Centre, University of
Queensland: Brisbane.
Bucky, P B, 1934. Effect of approximately vertical cracks
on the behaviour of horizontally lying roof strata. Trans
Am Inst Min Metall Engrs, 109: 212-229.
Bull, G and Page, C H, 2000. Sublevel caving todays
dependable low-cost "ore factory". Proceedings MassMin
2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo), 537-556. Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Cai, M, Kaiser, P K, Uno, H, Tasaka, Y and Minami, M,
2004. Estimation of rock mass deformation modulus and
strength of jointed hard rock masses using the GSI
system. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 41(1): 3-19.
Calder, K, Townsend, P and Russell, F, 2000. The
Palabora Underground Mine Project. Proceedings
MassMin 2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo), 219-225.
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne.
Caldern, A, Cataln, A and Karzulovic, A, 2003.
Management of a 15 x 106 tons slope failure at
Chuquicamata Mine, Chile. Proceedings 12th
Panamerican Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering and 39th U S Symposium on
Rock Mechanics, Cambridge, (Ed: P Culligan, H Einstein
and A Whittle), 2:2419-2426. Verlag Gluckauf: Essen.
Call, R D, Cicchini, P F, Ryan, T M and Barkley, R C,
2000. Managing and analyzing overall pit slopes. Slope
Stability in Surface Mining, (Ed: W A Hustrulid, M K
McCarter and D J A Van Zyl), 39-46. SME: Littleton,
CO.
Cataln, A and Caldern, A, 2004. Geotechnical risk
model for the design of slopes and the analysis of mine
plans at Chuquicamata mine, Chile. Proceedings
MassMin 2004, Santiago, (Ed: A Karzulovic and M Alfaro).
Chitombo, G (ed), 2000. Proceedings MassMin 2000,
Brisbane, 936 p. Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Chitombo, G, 2004. Personal communication.
Coates, D F, 1977. Pit Slope Manual Chapter 5 Design,
126 p. CANMET Report 77-5. Canada Centre for Mineral
and Energy Technology: Ottawa.
Cundall, P A, 1971. A computer model for simulating
progressive, large-scale movements in blocky rock
systems. Rock Fracture, Proceedings International
Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Nancy, Paper II-8.
Davies, E, 1967. Mining practice at Mount Isa Mines
Limited, Australia. Trans Instn Min Metall, Sect A: Min
Industry, 76: A14-40.
Fayol, M, 1885. Sur les movements de terrain provoques
par lexploitation des mines. Bull. Soc. de lindustrie
Minrale, 2nd serie, 14:805-858.
Fenner, R, 1938. Untersuchungen zur erkentnnis des
gebirgsdruckes. Gluckauf, 75: 681-695, 705-715.
Flores, G and Karzulovic, A, 2000. The role of the
geotechnical group in an open pit: Chuquicamata Mine,
Chile. Slope Stability in Surface Mining, (Ed: W A

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004

Hustrulid, M K McCarter and D J A Van Zyl), 141-152.

SME: Littleton, CO.
Flores, G, Karzulovic, A and Brown, E T, 2004a. Current
practices and trends in cave mining. Proceedings
MassMin 2004, Santiago, (Ed: A Karzulovic and M Alfaro).
Flores, G, Karzulovic, A and Brown, E T, 2004b.
Evaluation of the likelihood of cave propagation in mining
engineering practice. Proceedings MassMin 2004,
Santiago, (Ed: A Karzulovic and M Alfaro).
Glazer, S and Hepworth, N, 2004. Seismic monitoring of
block cave crown pillar Palabora Mining Company, RSA.
Proceedings MassMin 2004, Santiago, (Ed: A Karzulovic
and M Alfaro).
Glen, H W (ed), 1992. Proceedings MASSMIN 92,
Johannesburg, 485 p. South African Insititute of Mining
and Metallurgy: Johannesburg.
Goddard, I A, 1981. The development of open stoping in
lead orebodies at Mount Isa Mines Limited. Design and
Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines, (Ed: D
R Stewart), 509-528. SME: New York.
Golder Associates, 2001. Review of ACARPs
Underground Coal Geomechanics Research. Report on
ACARP Project C11001. ACARP: Brisbane.
Goodman, R E, 1974. The mechanical properties of joints.
Proceedings 3rd Congress, International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Denver, 1A: 127-140. National Academy of
Sciences: Washington DC.
Grant, D and De Kruijff, S, 2000. Mount Isa Mines 1100
Orebody, 35 years on. Proceedings MassMin 2000,
Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo), 591-600. Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Gustafsson, H E, 1981. Field test of sublevel shrinkage
caving (MSTM), at LKAB Kiruna. Design and Operation of
Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines, (Ed: D R Stewart),
419-423. SME: New York.
Hamrin, H, 2001. Underground mining methods and
applications.
Underground
Mining
Methods:
Engineering Fundamentals and International Case
Studies, (Ed: W A Hustrulid and R L Bullock), 3-14.
SME: Littleton, CO.
Hoek, E and Bray, J W, 1974. Rock Slope Engineering,
309 p. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy: London.
Hoek, E and Bray, J W, 1981. Rock Slope Engineering,
3rd revised edition, 358 p. Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy: London.
Hoek, E and Brown, E T, 1980. Underground Excavations
in Rock, 527 p. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy:
London.
Hoek, E and Brown, E T, 1997. Practical estimates of rock
mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci, 34(8): 11651186.
Hoek, E, Kaiser, P K and Bawden, W F, 1995. Support of
Underground Excavations in Hard Rock, 215 p. Balkema:
Rotterdam.
Hoek, E and Londe, P, 1974. Surface workings in rock.
Proceedings 3rd Congress, International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Denver, 1A: 613-654. National Academy of
Sciences: Washington DC.
Hoek, E, Read, J, Karzulovic, A and Chen, Z Y, 2000a.
Rock slopes in civil and mining engineering. Proceedings
GeoEng 2000, Melbourne, 1: 643-658. Technomic
Publishing Co: Lancaster, PA.
Hoek, E, Rippere, K H and Stacey, P F, 2000b. Largescale slope designs a review of the state of the art.
Slope Stability in Surface Mining, (Ed: W A Hustrulid, M K
McCarter and D J A Van Zyl), 3-10. SME: Littleton, CO.
Hood, M and Brown, E T, 1999. Mining rock mechanics,
yesterday, today and tomorrow. Proceedings 9th
Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Paris, (Ed: G Vouille and P Berest), 3: 1551-1576.
Balkema: Lisse.

Massmin 2004

Hustrulid, W, 2000. Method selection for large-scale

underground mining. Proceedings MassMin 2000,
Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo), 29-56. Australasian Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Janelid, I and Kvapil, R, 1966. Sublevel caving. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci, 3(2): 129-153.
Jennings, J E, 1970. A mathematical theory for the
calculation of the stability of slopes in open cast mines.
Planning Open Pit Mines, (Ed: P W J Van Rensberg), 87102. Balkema: Cape Town.
John, K W, 1962. An approach to rock mechanics. J Soil
Mech Foundns Div, ASCE, 88(SM4): 1-30.
John, K W, 1968. Graphical stability analysis of slopes in
jointed rock. J Soil Mech Foundns Div, ASCE, 94(SM2):
497-526,
Karzulovic, A, 2004. The importance of rock slope
engineering in open pit mining business optimization.
Proceedings IX Symposium on Landslides, Rio de
Janeiro.
Karzulovic, A and Alfaro, M (ed), 2004. Proceedings
MassMin 2004, Santiago.
Kennedy, B A and Niermeyer, K E, 1970. Slope monitoring
systems used in the prediction of a major slope failure at
the Chuquicamata mine, Chile. Planning Open Pit Mines,
(Ed P W J Van Rensberg), 215-225. Balkema: Cape
Town.
Leach, A R, Naidoo, K and Bartlett, P, 2000. Consideration
of design of production level drawpoint layouts for a deep
block cave. Proceedings MassMin 2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G
Chitombo), 357-366. Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Lilly, P A, Thomas, S J, Hebblewhite, B K and Galvin, J M,
2003. A rock mechanics education program for
undergraduate mining engineers in Australia. Technology
Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, Proceedings 10th
Congress, International Society for Rock Mechanics,
Johannesburg, 2: 779-782. South African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy: Johannesburg.
Little, T N and Szwedzicki, T, 1992. Mining geomechanics
a Western Australian School of Mines perspective.
Proceedings AusIMM Annual Conference, Broken Hill, 5-11.
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Londe, P, 1965. Une mthode danalyse trois
dimensions de la stabilit dune rive rocheuse. Annales
des Ponts et Chausses, No 1, Jan-Feb, 37-60.
McMahon, B K, 1975. Probability of failure and expected
volume of failure in high rock slopes. Proceedings 2nd
Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics,
Brisbane, 308-313. Institution of Engineers, Australia:
Sydney.
Marklund, I and Hustrulid, W, 1995. Large-scale
underground mining, new equipment and a better
underground environment result of research and
development at LKAB, Sweden. Trans Instn Min Metall,
Sect A: Min Industry, 104: A164-168.
Martin, C D, 1997. Seventeenth Canadian Geotechnical
Colloquium: the effect of cohesion loss and stress path on
brittle rock strength. Can Geotech J, 34(5): 698-725.
Martin, C D, Kaiser, P K and McCreath, D R, 1999. HoekBrown parameters for predicting the depth of brittle failure
around tunnels. Can Geotech J, 36(1): 136-151.
Mathews, K E and Edwards, D B, 1969. Rock mechanics
practice at Mount Isa Mines Limited, Australia.
Proceedings 9th Commonwealth Mining and Metallurgical
Congress, London, 1: 321-388. Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy: London.
May, J R, 1980. Industry-sponsored rock mechanics
research in Australia. Proceedings 13th Canadian Rock
Mechanics Symposium, 219-255.
Minerals Council of Australia, 1998. Back from the Brink:
Reshaping Minerals Tertiary Education. Discussion

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

35

Paper, National Tertiary Education Taskforce. Minerals

Council of Australia: Canberra.
Mller, L, 1964. Application of rock mechanics in the
design of rock slopes. State of Stress in the Earths Crust,
(Ed: W R Judd), 575-598. Elsevier: New York.
Obert, L and Duvall, W I, 1967. Rock Mechanics and the
Design of Structures in Rock, 650 p. John Wiley & Sons:
New York.
Pariseau, W G, Fowler, M E and Johnson, J C, 1984.
Geomechanics of the Carr Fork Mine test stope.
Geomechanics Applications in Underground Hardrock
Mining, (Ed: W G Pariseau), 3-38. SME: New York.
Patton, F D, 1966. Multiple modes of shear failure in rock.
Proceedings 1st Congress, International Society for Rock
Mechanics, Lisbon, 1: 509-513.
Peele, R, 1941. Mining Engineers Handbook, 3rd edition.
John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Potvin, Y and Hudyma, M, 2000. Open stoping in Canada.
Proceedings MassMin 2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo),
661-674.
Power, G, 2004. Full scale SLC draw trials at Ridgeway
Gold Mine. Proceedings MassMin 2004, Santiago, (Ed: A
Karzulovic and M Alfaro).
Quintero, C R, Larsson, L and Hustrulid, W A, 2001.
Theory and practice of very-large-scale sublevel
caving. Underground Mining Methods: Engineering
Fundamentals and Engineering Case Studies, (Ed: W
A Hustrulid and R L Bullock), 381-384. SME: Littleton,
CO.
Rustan, A, 2000. Gravity flow of broken rock what is
known and unknown. Proceedings MassMin 2000,
Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo), 557-567. Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Savin, G N, 1961. Stress Concentrations Around Holes.
(Trans: E Gros). Pergamon Press: Oxford.
Simser, B and Andrieux, P, 2002. Open stope mining
strategies at Brunswick Mine. Proceedings MassMin
2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo), 675-683. Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Singh, K H and Hedley, D G F, 1981. Review of fill
mining technology in Canada. Application of Rock
Mechanics to Cut and Fill Mining, (Ed: O Stephansson
and M J Jones), 11-24. Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy: London.
Stacey, P F, 1993. Pit slope designs for the 21st century.
Innovative Mine Design for the 21st Century, (Ed: W F
Bawden and J F Archibald), 3-11. Balkema: Rotterdam.
Stephansson, O and Jones, M J (ed), 1981. Applications
of Rock Mechanics to Cut and Fill Mining, 376 p.
Institution of Mining and Metallurgy: London.
Stewart, D R, (ed) 1981. Design and Operation of Caving
and Sublevel Stoping Mines, 843 p. AIME: New York.

36

Struthers, M A, Turner, M H, McNabb, K and Jenkins, P A,

2000. Rock mechanics design and practice for squeezing
ground and high stress conditions at Perseverance Mine.
Proceedings MassMin 2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo),
755-764. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne.
Terzaghi, K, 1962. Stability of steep slopes on hard
unweathered rock. Gotechnique, 12: 251-270.
Terzaghi, K and Richart, F E, 1952. Stresses in rock about
cavities. Gotechnique, 3:57-90.
Trollope, D H, 1968. The mechanics of discontinua or
clastic mechanics in rock problems. Rock Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, (Ed: K G Stagg and O C
Zienkiewicz), 275-320. John Wiley & Sons: London.
Trout, P, 2002. Production drill and blast practices at
Ridgeway Gold Mine. Growing our Underground
Operations, Proceedings 8th AusIMM Underground
Operators Conference, Townsville, 107-117. Australasian
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne.
Turchaninov, I A, Iofis, M A and Kasparyan, E V, 1979.
Principles of Rock Mechanics. (Trans: A L Peabody).
Terraspace: Rockville MD.
Van Rensberg, P W J (ed), 1970. Planning Open Pit
Mines, Proceedings Symposium on the Theoretical
Background to the Planning of Open Pit Mines with
Special Reference to Slope Stability, Johannesburg.
Balkema: Cape Town.
Van Sint Jan, M L, Valenzuela, L and Morales, R, 1987.
Flexible lining for underground openings in a block caving
mine. Proceedings 6th Congress, International Society for
Rock Mechanics, Montreal, (Ed: G Herget and S
Vongpaisal), 2: 1299-1303. Balkema: Rotterdam.
Villaescusa, E, 1996. Excavation design for bench stoping
at Mount Isa mine, Queensland, Australia. Trans Instn Min
Metall, Sect A: Min Industry, 105:A1-A10.
Villaescusa, E, 2000. A review of sublevel stoping.
Proceedings MassMin 2000, Brisbane, (Ed: G Chitombo),
577-590. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy:
Melbourne.
Watson, B, 1987. The impact of research and
development on productivity in the Australian minerals
industry. Technology and Exports: the Role of the
Technological
Sciences
in
Australias
Export
Performance, Proceedings 11th Invitation Symposium,
97-108. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences
and Engineering: Melbourne.
Wattimena, R, 2003. Designing Undercut and
Production Level Drifts of Block Caving Mines. PhD
thesis (unpublished), University of Queensland,
Brisbane.
Young, L E and Stoek, H H, 1916. Subsidence resulting
from mining. Bull Univ Illinois Engrg Expt Stn, 91.

Santiago Chile, 22-25 August 2004

Massmin 2004