Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

LECTURE 3

PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT

3.1 Lecture Objectives and Expected Outcomes

The objectives of this lecture are:

(i) To discuss the criteria and principles by which the surface facilities of an
underground mine are sited.
(ii) To present the selection and layout design of primary and secondary development
openings of an underground mine.
(iii) To explain the principles for determining shaft pillars.
(iv) To present the principles for determining mine inter-level distance.

At the end of the lecture, the student is expected to:

(i) Be able to select and site surface facilities for an underground mine.
(ii) Be able to work out and design the appropriate layout of primary and secondary
development openings.
(iii) Be able to determine shaft pillars and main inter-level distances.

3.2 Siting of Surface Facilities

Surface facilities normally required by an underground mine include the following:

(i) Shaft station;

(ii) Treatment plant;
(iii) Workshop;
(iv) Mine office;
(v) Power station;
(vi) Tailings dam or dump;
(vii) Residential area;
(viii) Hospital;
(ix) School;
(x) Road network; and
(xi) Recreational area.

When required, other facilities like farms, commercial area and security offices may be part
of the surface facilities of an underground mine.

The sites of surface facilities depend on the location of the orebody, physiographic features
and climate of the mine area. The basic principle is to site the facilities within the boundaries
of the mineral concession to avoid extra cost of land lease and in such a way that they are
easily accessible. The actual locations of the facilities may differ from one engineer to
another, but common sense and certain basic principles must be used as a guide in selecting
the locations or the sites. These principles include the following:

(i) The subsidence area should be avoided.

(ii) Shaft(s) should be sunk in the footwall to ensure stability and longer life.
(iii) Outcast shafts and tailings dumps/dams must be located in such a way that the wind
blows the polluted air from underground away from the mining area.

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 1
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

(iv) Workshops should be located near the intake shaft and the treatment plant to
provide quick access, service and equipment maintenance.
(v) Mine offices may be centrally located for easy and quick access to all departments.
(vi) Hospital may be centrally located for easy and quick access to all departments.
(vii) Road network should be minimum but give maximum access to the surface
facilities.

As an example of siting surface facilities, Fig. 3.1 is a simplified map showing the
physiographic features of a mining concession as well as the projection of the orebody on the
surface and wind direction.

Based on this information, (scanty though) suppose we are required to site the following
surface facilities considered necessary for an underground mine to exploit the deposit:

(i) Downcast shaft;

(ii) Upcast shaft;
(iii) Treatment plant;
(iv) Workshop;
(v) Mine office;
(vi) Residential are;
(vii) Hospital;
(viii) School; and
(ix) Mine farms.

We can apply the common sense principles discussed earlier in this lecture and site the
surface facilities. The result of such an exercise is shown in Fig. 3.2. Some of the principles
and reasons used in siting the surface facilities are the following:

(i) Subsidence area is avoided.

(ii) The shafts are located in the footwall for stability and longer life.
(iii) Upcast shaft is sited so that the wind blows the noxious air from underground away
from the mine facilities.
(iv) Treatment plant is near the upcast shaft.
(v) Workshop location provides quick and easy access from the upcast shaft and
treatment plant.
(vi) Mine office is centrally placed for easy access from all departments.
(vii) Residential area is far from mine activities and near hilly areas for peace.
(viii) Hospital is accessible from all facilities.
(ix) Mine farms are along the rivers where there is fertile land.

Important note:

We may not be lucky always to site all surface facilities within the mine concession
boundaries for a number of reasons including rugged nature of topography and environmental
restrictions. In such situations, some facilities may have to be constructed outside the mine
boundaries. Facilities like workshop or concentrators may be constructed underground.

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 2
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Fig. 3.1 Relief of a Mining Concession (Tarkwa Deposit)

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 3
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Fig 3.2 Sitting of Surface Facilities

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 4
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

3.3 Layout of Primary Development Openings

The objective of primary or capital development openings is to gain access to the orebodies
and to provide ventilation. Primary development openings include the following:

(i) Shafts, adits or ramps;

(ii) Drives;
(iii) Cross-cuts; and
(iv) Raises.

The selection of the type and the design of the layout of primary development openings are
dependent on features such as:

(i) Geological configurations of the deposit, i.e., the orebody model showing its shape,
size, location and grade distribution.
(ii) Geotechnical characteristics of the overburden, orebody and host rock such as
compressive strength and RQD.
(iii) Economic considerations, i.e., cost of construction and distances over which ore and
waste may be hauled.

The primary development opening from surface to underground may be a vertical shaft, an
inclined shaft, an adit or a ramp depending on the geological configuration of the orebody
(see Figs. 3.3a, 3.3b, 3.3c and 3.3d). Let us discuss the conditions under which we would
choose any of the four methods of opening a deposit from the surface and discuss the
advantages and disadvantages of each of the four methods.

Figs. 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 show typical design of the layout of primary development openings.
Let’s discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the designs.

Fig. 3.7 shows the configurations of an orebody in three perspective views. Let’s try out
hands on the design and the layout of the primary development to exploit the deposit.

3.4 Shaft Pillar Determination

The shaft pillar is a rock mass left around the entire length of the shaft to ensure stability of
the shaft and should not be mined so long as the shaft is in use. There are several formulae for
calculating the size of shaft pillar. The following four empirical formulae, summarised by
Young and Stoek (1916) are applicable to flat or bedded deposits including coal seams where
D = depth of shaft, t = thickness of deposit, Rp is the radius of pillar and B is a safety berm,
all in metres (see Fig. 3.8a).

D
Rp   0.6 Dt (3.1)
20
R p  20  0.01 0.3t (3.2)
R p  Dt (3.3)
D
Rp  (3.4)
9

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 5
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Fig 3.3 Opening of Deposit from Surface

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 6
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Fig. 3.4 Layout Design of Primary Development Openings

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 7
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Fig. 3.5 Schematic Layout of an Ideal Underground Mine (after Hamrin – 1982)

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 8
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Fig. 3.6 Layout of Primary Development Openings showing Shaft and Ramp

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 9
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Fig. 3.7 The Tarkus Orebody

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 10
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Fig. 3.8 Shaft Pillar Determination

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 11
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

In inclined deposits, it is suggested to construct a cross-section showing surface object and

underlying orebody (see Fig. 3.8b). From end of each object, draw lines cutting the orebody
towards the rise side and making an angle with the horizontal plane equal to the angle of
fracture. The portion enclosed within these lines is the pillar required. The angle of fracture is
taken as half way between the vertical and normal to the plane of stratification.

In steep deposits, it is suggested to construct a cross-section showing surface object and

underlying orebody (see Fig. 3.8c). From the end of the object, draw a line cutting the
orebody in the footwall and making an angle no larger than 650 with the horizontal. The
resulting frustum-like rock mass forms the pillar of the shaft. In weaker ground, the angle has
to be lower than 650.

Important note:

The design principles given in this section for shaft pillar determinations are only guide lines.
In practice, weaker ground conditions may dictate that bigger shaft pillar should be left to
ensure stability.

3.5 Mine Inter-level Distance Determination

The major factors that could influence the determination of mine-level distance are:

(i) Economics;
(ii) Orebody configuration;
(iii) Ground condition;
(iv) Mining system; and
(v) Mining laws of the host country.

Large inter-level distance means fewer main levels need to be developed to serve the whole
mine and therefore the total cost of developing the deposit will be lower.

On the other hand, the greater the distance between the levels, the longer the vertical distance
through which all the ore being served by a level has to be hoisted to the surface. Ore passes
are also longer and need to be properly supported so that they will not collapse during the life
of the level. The extra cost of hoisting the ore and supporting the ore passes means more cost
to the mine.

It is therefore prudent to determine the inter-level distance that gives the minimum cost,
assuming that the orebody configuration, ground conditions, the mining system and the
mining laws of the host country permit the distance that will be determined. The following
question and solution will illustrate how to determine the minimum cost inter-level distance.

Illustrative question:

A steeply dipping orebody has a width of 50 m, a strike length of 2 000 m and depth 1 000 m.
The average density is 3.5 t/m3. It is proposed to mine this deposit at a rate of 4.0  106 t/yr. It
is estimated that the mining will require a capital investment of $50 million and a variable
operating cost of $25 million per 100 m (50 + 0.25h million dollars where h is the depth of
deposited worked). The interest rate is 15%. If it is expected that there will be 20% ore loss
during mining, recommend the mine inter-level distance. More precisely should the inter-
level distance be 100 m, 150 m or 200 m (see Fig 3.9a).

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 12
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

(b) Annual Capital Cost versus Inter-Level Distance

Fig. 3.9 Determination of Economic Inter-Level Distance

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 13
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

Solution:

Amount of ore per level:

At 100 m: 50 m  2 000 m  100 m  3.5 t/m3 = 35.0 million tonnes

At 150 m: 50 m  2 000 m  150 m  3.5 t/m3 = 52.5 million tonnes
At 200 m: 50 m  2 000 m  200 m  3.5 t/m3 = 70.0 million tonnes

Lifetime of Ore (actual ore is 20% less):

35 .0  10 6  0.8
At 100 m: = 7.0 years
4  10 6 t/a

52 .5  10 6  0.8
At 150 m: = 10.0 years
4  10 6 t/a

70 .0  10 6  0 .8
At 100 m: = 14.0 years
4  10 6 t/a

Required Total Investment (variable is $25106/100 m):

At 100 m : $50 x 106 + 1.0 x $25 x 106 = $75.0 million
At 150 m : $50 x 106 + 1.5 x $25 x 106 = $87.0 million
At 200 m : $50 x 106 + 2.0 x $25 x 106 = $100.0 million

Annual Capital Cost [recovery factor is i(1 + i)n/(1+i) – 1] or (A/P15,n)

At 100 m : $75.0  106  0.240 = $18.0 million
At 150 m : $87.0  106  0.199 = $17.3 million
At 200 m : $100.0  106  0.175 = $17.5 million

On the basis of average capital cost per year, the optimal mine inter-level distance seems to
be about 150 m. The results are illustrated in Fig. 3.9b.

Some of the factors, which could militate against the decision include:

(i) Configuration of the orebody if the remaining orebody is at a distance of 180 m ore
120 m below one level the decision would have to be different.
(ii) Rock conditions: if around 150 m some intrusive weak rock is intercepted the
decision will change.
(iii) Mining system employed: the decision will hold only so long as the mining system
permits the haulage level at the distance.

Economically, it is best to keep 150 m between haulage levels. Rocks conditions around such
intervals should be checked to know if the stability of a haulage level is guaranteed (or
supporting cost can change the decision). The configuration of the orebody must be
established to make sure the last haulage does not leave some ore behind which is too small
for another haulage level or that the haulage level does not lie too far beneath the lower limit
University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah
Lecture 3 Primary Development 14
L3
 Lecture Notes on Underground Mine Design and Planning (UMDP)

of the orebody otherwise extra hoisting facilities could mean great loss of money. The
question of whether the mining system employed will permit such interval should be solved
otherwise a sublevel could be too near or too far from the haulage level; in all cases changes
of (150 ± 25m) would be quite acceptable on economic basis but is better to be safer than to
die with money. The best is to make a compromise where this is possible.

University of Mines and Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana Prof Daniel Mireku-Gyimah

Lecture 3 Primary Development 15
L3