Mixing model of secondary

fragmentation in block/panel
caving
Nicols Montecino Bastas

Table of Contents
Motivation

Target
Background
Methodology
Fragmentation Model
Mixing Model Of Secondary Fragmentation

Conclusion

Motivation
Parameters influenced by fragmentation (Laubscher, 1994)

Size and Draw Point Spacing

Equipment selection

Draw rates

Hang-ups and secondary breakage.

Dilution entry.

Comminution processes

Motivation
Are fully known all process related with variation of fragmentation
in caving mines?

Is known evolution of block fragmentation in a operative mine?

Are known origin of fragments that appears on draw points?
How relevant are measurement campaings in a operative mine?

Target
The main goal of this research is determinate a
methodology of fragmentation prediction in
caving, based on fragmentation measures of
operative mines and gravity flow models

Background
Fragmentation Types (Eadie, 2003)

In-situ Fragmentation: blocks that exist

within the rock mass prior to any movement
that may occur through the stress
redistribution imposed by excavation. Blocks
are
defined
by
the
pre-existing
discontinuities within the rock mass.

Prediction

Validation

Primary Fragmentation : blocks

that
separates in the vecinity of the cave back
Secondary Fragmentation : Occurs as the
blocks continue to move down through the
draw column

Measurement
Duplancic & Brady, 1999

Predictive Fragmentation methods

Size
El Teniente
Chart Laubscher
Block Caving Fragmentation
JKFrag

(Merino, 1986)
(Blondel & Soffia, 1990)
(Laubscher, 1994)
(Esterhuizen, 1999)
(Eadie, 2003)

Measurement fragmentation methods

Some Researchs in Divisin El Teniente

Superintendencia
Geologa, Divisin El
Teniente, 2008

Fragmentation
measures from
draw points
Sampling of
fragmentation

Model of
lithologies

Methodology
Fragmentation
Model
Fragmentation zones
of mixed ore

Mixing model of
secondary
fragmentation
Historic ore
extraction

Mixing Model

Gravity Flow
Software
(REBOP)

Origin of fragments

Inputs

Fragmentation
Model
Data Base
Data Base

Data Base

Data Base

II

III

IV

Organization

CODELCO Divisin El
Teniente

CODELCO Divisin El
Teniente

CODELCO Divisin El
Teniente

CODELCO Divisin El
Teniente

Origin

GRMD Control
Produccin

GRMD Control
Produccin

GRMD Control
Produccin

IM2

Mines

NN DR ES

NN DR ES

NN DR ES

NN DR

Length of measurement campaign

Number of draw points measured

Average of measures per draw point

Average ton between measures per point

Continuity of measures

Inputs

Fragmentation Model
Fragmentation Change?

Rango [t]
N Obs
0 25,000 704
25,000 50,000 533
50,000 75,000 328
75,000 100,000 193
100,000 125,000 99
125,000 150,000 53
150,000 175,000 16
175,000
+
10

Methodology of
Fragmentation
Zones

Methodology of
Fragmentation
Zones

Fragmentation Model
Fragmentation Zones
Tonnage Ranges
Mine

Zones

Percentage range
respect insitu
column

Min
Tonnage

Max
Tonnage

Zone # 1

1,170

26,169

1%

14%

Zone # 2

26,170

56,169

14%

Zone # 3

56,170

131,762

Reservas Norte
Zona 1

Zone # 1

4,492

Zone # 2

Reservas Norte
Zona 2

Diablo Regimiento

Min
%

Max
%

Mean Characteristic Sizes

(m)
d80
mean

Standard Deviation
Characteristic Size (m)

d50
mean

d25
mean

d80
Std dv

d50
Std dv

d25
Std dv

1.2

0.6

0.4

0.7

0.4

0.2

29%

1.0

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.2

29%

68%

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.5

0.2

0.1

34,491

3%

23%

1.0

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.2

34,492

210,618

23%

138%

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.1

Zone # 1

4,180

69,179

2%

36%

1.0

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.2

Zone # 2

69,180

159,205

36%

82%

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.5

0.2

0.1

Mixing Model

Draw Points Simulated (Rebop)

Mixing Model

Draw Points Simulated (Rebop)

Mixing Model

Composition of each Slice [%]

Mixing Model of Secondary Fragmentation - Example

Percentage of in-situ draw column [%]

Mixing Model of Secondary Fragmentation

Reservas Norte (Granular Flow)
Mixing Model Reservas Norte Zone1 DP 12 22F

Composition of each Slice [%]

Composition of each Slice [%]

Mixing Model Reservas Norte Zone1 DP 11 25F

Percentage of in-situ draw column [%]

Percentage of in-situ draw column [%]

Mixing Model of Secondary Fragmentation

Diablo Regimiento (Flow with Cave Propagation)
Mixing Model Diablo Regimiento DP 21 29F

Composition of each Slice [%]

Composition of each Slice [%]

Mixing Model Diablo Regimiento DP 23 30H

Percentage of in-situ draw column [%]

Percentage of in-situ draw column [%]

Mixing Model
Diablo Regimiento

Point of Dilution Entry

Draw Points
Draw Points with out PDB
Draw Points with PDB

Points with
PDB
Diablo Regimiento
(Rebop)
#

Average PDB
(Rebop)

Points with
PDB
(Markers)

Average
Relative
Error

Average PDB
(Markers)
t

RMSE

Simulation w/o Caving

29

127,014 12,928

10

100,309 21,861 36%

34%

38,602

Simulation with Caving

58

65,236 33,927

10

100,309 21,861 -3%

33%

28,084

Conclusion
A new predictive model of secondary fragmentation based on measures from
operative mines is proposed. This model distinguishes fragmentation zones in
primary rock of DET
Exists a decreasing of size fragment during extraction. This variation are similar in
Diablo Regimiento and Reservas Norte
It is accepted
that with arrival
of Regimiento
broken ore exists a correlation
with fragmentation
Diablo
Reservas Norte
Characteristic
decrease Size
when extraction
increased.
Because
a limit
of fragmentation
Mean d80 isMean
d50 Mean
d25 Mean
d80 Mean
d50 Mean d25 zone in
DR is 29%
material0.6
appears at
Maxand broken1.2
0.434%. 1.0
0.5
0.3
Min

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.9

0.4

0.2

The inclusion of the evolution of caving in gravity flow models, helps to improve
forecasts of point of dilution entry (65 kt vs 100 kt)

Thanks

Mixing model of secondary

fragmentation in block/panel
caving
Nicols Montecino Bastas