13.08.2013 Views

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

Rock Mechanics.pdf - Mining and Blasting

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Figure 13.15 Options in the design<br />

of an extraction layout in a 2.5 m thick<br />

orebody, to achieve a particular factor<br />

of safety for pillars.<br />

PILLAR SUPPORTED MINING METHODS<br />

iteration (Fenner, 1974). The following results are obtained from these calculations:<br />

Option (i): wo = 3.0 m,wp = 5.0 m, h = 2.5 m<br />

Option (ii): wo = 6.0 m,wp = 7.75 m, h = 2.5 m<br />

Option (iii): wo = 6.0 m,wp = 5. m, h = 0.96 m<br />

Each of the mining geometries defined by the dimensions stated above satisfies the<br />

pillar strength criterion. However, the question that remains is – which geometric layout<br />

provides the greatest recovery from the orebody? Clearly, the stoping geometry<br />

which assures the geomechanical security of the layout <strong>and</strong> also yields the greatest<br />

volumetric recovery of mineral from the deposit, represents the preferred mine excavation<br />

design. Option (iii) is immediately unacceptable on the basis of recovery,<br />

because it implies leaving mineral in the roof or floor of the orebody over the complete<br />

mining area, as illustrated in Figure 13.15c. The choice of pursuing options (i)<br />

or (ii), which are both admissible geomechanically, <strong>and</strong> illustrated in Figures 13.15a,<br />

b, can be made on the basis of the volume extraction ratio for the mining reserve.<br />

Of course, where pillars are to be recovered in a subsequent phase of the operation,<br />

<strong>and</strong> questions of primary recovery become less critical, the choice between the two<br />

options may involve other operational <strong>and</strong> planning issues. If pillars are to be only<br />

partly recovered, the effect of stope <strong>and</strong> pillar dimensions on volume extraction ratio<br />

needs to be considered carefully. This issue has been considered in detail by Salamon<br />

(1967), whose analysis is elaborated below. It is particularly apposite in relation to<br />

the yield from thick coal seams, or orebodies where rock mass strength is low relative<br />

to in situ stresses.<br />

The various expressions for pillar strength <strong>and</strong> pillar axial stress, when taken together,<br />

indicate that pillar factor of safety, F, is a function of pillar dimensions, stope<br />

span, <strong>and</strong> pillar height (or orebody stoping width), i.e.<br />

F = f (wp,wo, h)<br />

The objective is to determine the mining dimensions wp,wo, h, such that in any<br />

386

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!