Caving 2014, Santiago, Chile

Caving experiences in Esmeralda Sector, El Teniente

Mine
M Orellana Codelco, Chile
C Cifuentes Codelco, Chile
J Díaz Codelco, Chile

Abstract
Collapse processes occurred in the Esmeralda sector, particularly those located ahead of the undercutting
front during years 2009-2010, did not allowed the mining advance. A new exploitation strategy was created,
and two new sector Block 1 and Block 2 were developed as virgin caving. Mining method was defined as
conventional Panel caving with hydro-fracturing preconditioning.

To deal with the collapse and rockburst risk due to the stress redistribution during the connection stage, a
new operational strategy was designed. New rates for drawbell opening, a new extraction policy and the
undercut front advanced taking into account the geological features were established.

Currently, Block 1 is in permanent caving regime and Block 2 is in the connection process. From these
two experiences, it is possible to highlight some results related to the mining management under different
geological settings. The seismic response and the duration of the connection processes have been modified
by the different mining strategies. For instance, a distinct result is the different seismic response in both
blocks due to the differences in geological setting and stress field.

1 Introduction
The Esmeralda Mine currently extracts a total of 25,000 tpd from the exploitation of three main areas:
Block 1, Block 2 and Panel 1. Blocks 1 and 2 were started as part of a new exploitation strategy designed for
Esmeralda after the most recent collapses in 2010, and Panel 1 is being worked to recover the reserves from
the central collapse area. Blocks 1 and 2 are independent sectors designed to start new caving processes
away from the old Esmeralda cavity (Figure 1). The exploitation sequence starts with Block 1, which covers
roughly 43,000 m2, and then continues with Block 2, with an area of 41,000 m2.

78
 Case Studies

Figure 1 Historic collapses in Esmeralda Mine. Block 1 and 2 locations

Conventional panel caving is the exploitation method used in both areas, with preconditioning of the first
100 m of rock above the Undercut Level. The method first completely develops production and undercut
levels, followed by the firing of drawbells and, finally, advancing by blasting at the undercut level (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Conventional Panel Caving sequence

Exploitation of Block 1 began in June of 2011 with the first drawbell blasting. Caving started approximately
one year later after connection was made with the upper level of Teniente 4. Exploitation of Block 2 started
in July of 2012, and its connection process is currently being completed. The two blocks, being of different
geological and structural conditions and with different stress fields, produce different seismic responses at
each stage of the connection process. These responses will be explained in this paper.

79
Caving 2014, Santiago, Chile

2 Geology and Geotechnical Conditions

The column height in the sector where Blocks 1 and 2 are located varies from 650 m at the west end to
1,000 m at the east end. This column height has first 160 meters of in situ column, and the rest is broken
material up to the surface.

The lithology of Block 1 is primarily competent rock mass made up principally of the El Teniente Mafico
Complex (CMET) and diorite porphyry. The main structures of this Block 1 face NE and NNW; these
structures are Fault P and Faults H and J, respectively. The quality of this rock mass is Regular-Good on
the IRMR scale.

Block 2, which consists mainly of a Brechas unit and CMET, has smaller structures. The Lamprofido dike
crosses it and it faces NE. The geotechnical quality of the CMET portion of the rock is Regular, and the
Brechas Complex portion is classified as Good.

Table 1 shows the average value of the sector’s stress fields the major stress in pre-mining condition and
rock mass characterization.

Table 1 Geology and geotechnical conditions, Block 1 and Block 2 (Quiroz et al. 2010)

Parameter Block 1 Block 2

CMET-Teniente Mafic Complex CMET-Teniente Mafic Complex (55%)

Lithology (60%) Breccia complex (40%)
Diorite Porhyry (40%) Tonalite (5%)

UCS [Mpa] 130 145

Major geological
P Fault, J Fault, H Fault Lamprofid Dike
structures
Structure frecuency 0.37 in CMET
0.28-0.29
(ff/m) 0.26-0.31 in Breccia
Geotechnical quality 3 CMET (Regular)
1-3 (Good-Regular)
(IRMR) 2 Breccia (Buena)
Column height 650-750 800-1000
S1/S2/S3 40/36/21 43/34/20
Dip/dip direction S1 353/30 202/20

3 Block cave parameters

3.1 Mine design

The two blocks are very similar in terms of design. The draw layout is 15x20 m throughout Block 1, while
the north half of Block 2 has a 15x20 m and that of the south half is 15x24 m. The reason for this difference
in design is to increase the safety factor and strength of the pillars. Both blocks have a similar footprint:
280x200 m in Block 1 and 240x200 m in Block 2.

The undercut level is 14 m above the extraction level. The exploitation method used with the blocks,
conventional panel caving, uses high 16 m undercutting and a 2 m burden. The drawbells are opened in two
stages, and the undercutting blasts are done three rings at a time.

80
 Case Studies

The preconditioning design uses ascending hydraulic fracturing on each block’s entire footprint to mitigate
seismic risk and to promote caving propagation; the perforations are made in a 40x35 m mesh. Downward
preconditioning is also being done on an experimental basis, with 70 m holes drilled from the production
level downwards in order to diminish the seismic response during the caving process.

3.2 Mining sequence and extraction strategies

In Block Caving in primary rock, the initial exploitation phase is one of the most important in the project
since it influences the macro sequence of the exploitation of the area, caving propagation, and the time
needed to connect to upper levels. Exploitation of both blocks began at the NE end and progresses toward
the NW so that the undercut front advances perpendicular to the structures and major faults (Fault P in
Block 1 and the Lamprofido Dike in Block 2).

As mining progresses, the strategy is to open 4x5 drawbells over an area of approximately 12,000 m2 that
is open and available for extraction to begin of caving propagation.

When Block 1 exploitation began, the average monthly advance rate was 1,800 m2/month, as shown in
Figure 3. In June 2012, this rate dropped to the current average advance rate of 1,000 m2/month in order
to minimize the seismic risk generated by the increase in seismic frequency and the high-magnitude, high-
energy events that occurred at the beginning of the caving process. In Block 2, in contrast, areas were first
opened at advance rates of roughly 700 m2/month since it was expected that greater stress fields would be
produced in the area due to the higher column and the presence of lithological contacts. Since little seismic
activity was recorded in the area, this advance rate was increased to 1,200 m2/month in April 2013.

Different extraction strategies were established for the two blocks based on the caving stages: prior to
reaching the critical area to start caving, and once the critical area has been reached. The drawbells are
incorporated into production at a extraction rate of 0.1 or 0.2 tons per m2 per day. Once the critical area
to start caving has been reached, the rate increases based on the height at which extraction is taking place.
Daily extraction from both blocks increases as the amount of productive area available increases. Block 1
currently has a daily extraction rate of 16,000 tons, with an open area of some 40,000 m2 available, while
Block 2 extracts 3,000 tpd with an open area of 10,000 m2 available.

3.3 Cave initiation

There are various theories as to how the different configurations of stress magnitude and direction cause
caving (caving mechanisms). Coates (1981) suggests that there are two different mechanisms that, acting
independently or together, cause caving to start: horizontal stress traction in the center of the undercut,
and high subvertical compression stress at the corners of the undercut. Caving begins when these stresses
exceed the rock’s resistance. Heslop and Laubscher (1981), on the other hand, propose that there are two
fault mechanisms present in caving propagation. The first is known as “stress caving,” which involves the
combination of flat dipping discontinuities that cave due to shearing in high compression stress fields. In
the second mechanism, called “subsidence caving,” a solid rock mass quickly caves in due to shear stress
near the vertical edges of the block. This occurs because the normal stress acting on the edges of the block
is lower than the slide resistance created along the length of these edges and is not high enough to support
the block.

These phenomena are seen indirectly in seismic activity, as seismic events involve the breakage of rock
masses due to concentration of stress. For example, when mining on these blocks began, intense seismic
activity was seen near the production level and around the undercut front as stress accumulated at the base
of the blocks when a small, unstable, dome-shaped cavity was formed.

81
Caving 2014, Santiago, Chile

Case Studies

Figure 3 Cumulative area, monthly area and extraction per day, Block 1 and Block 2

Then, when high-level caving propagation began, the connection process was accompanied by an increase
in seismic activity in the pillar, whose thickness decreased as the cavity grew. Stress was redistributed over
the bases of the cavity as a result of the connection, making it impossible for the stress to continue to be
transmitted through the rock mass.

3.4 Seismicity induced by the caving process

The stages of a caving process may be identified from the frequency of seismic activity, the location of the
seismic events, and the characteristics of relevant events. The following topics detail the behavior of each
of these parameters for the different stages of caving.

3.4.1 Seismic frecuency

There was relatively little seismic activity when mining began at Block 1, averaging 10 events per day from
August 2011 to February 2012, as shown in Figure 4. The activity was located chiefly near the production
level and around the undercut front as a result of abutment stress. As little seismic activity was recorded
at high altitude, an extraction test was done once an area of 4,700 m2 had been opened up. Extraction rate
was first increased to 0.4 m2/day and was later halted to avoid the risk of air blast since the slight seismic
activity recorded, even with increased extraction, indicated that there was not yet enough open area to cause
caving.

82
 Case Studies

A seismic activation process began in April 2012, with frequency increasing to an average of 20 events
per day and peaking at 30 to 40 seismic events per day. This activation was associated with an increase in
the caved area and, therefore, to an increase in the destabilized area. During this pre-caving stage, which
occurred from April to June 2012, the seismic activity was located at the cave front and, particularly, clusters
began to appear in the western sector of Block 1, specifically between faults J and H, which manifested in
high-altitude seismic events.

The first overall peak of seismic frequency of 200 events per day was observed at the end of July 2012, with
an extraction area of 13,500 m2 and a caved area of 16,000 m2. It was at this time that the first evidence
of breakthrough with the upper level of Teniente 5 was observed, 90 m above the production level at
Esmeralda.

Seismic activity remained high after the block’s first breakthrough with Teniente 5, with some 100 events
occurring per day. The second overall peak of 350 events/day was reached in October 2012 when the
connection was made between Block 1 and the Teniente 4 level located 160 m above the Esmeralda
production level. At that time, the seismic activity was occurring chiefly between the Teniente 5 and
Teniente 4 levels. Block 1 was declared connected with a total of almost 24,000 m2 caved and an estimated
connection time of 15 months.

After the connection with Teniente 4 was made, seismic activity began to decline considerably, down to an
average of 40 events/day during December 2012.

Figure 4 Total seismic frequency, seismic frequency above UCL and seismic frequency below UCL in Block 1
and Block 2

83
Caving 2014, Santiago, Chile

Mining at Block 2 began in July 2012 with the same seismic frequency as at the start of Block 1, an average
of 10 events per day. However, in October of 2011, before mining started in this sector, seismic events
reached a peak of 50 events/day as a result of the connection made in Block 1. This indicated that the two
blocks are not completely independent from each other despite the fact that they are some 200 m apart.

The first sign of high altitude caving propagation was a peak of 40 seismic events per day recorded at the
end of July 2013. The first signs of connection with the Teniente 5 level were observed on this date, with
approximately 10,000 m2 caved.

Finally, the connection with the Teniente 4 level occurred in October 2013 with 14,000 m2 caved and an
estimated connection time of 15 months.

As shown in Figure 5, Blocks 1 and 2 underwent similar processes in terms of frequency of events, with
both connection processes experiencing increased seismic activity throughout the breakup of the crown
pillar. Afterwards, seismic activity decreased back to a state of equilibrium. However, seismic activity in
Block 1 was much greater than in Block 2, probably because the high level of stress due to a greater column
height and increased fracturing frequency gave rise to conditions favorable for caving.

It took approximately four months to break up the crown pillar in each of the two blocks, starting with the
time the first peak in seismic activity was recorded until the blocks’ seismic activity returned to equilibrium.

3.4.2 Rock bust and event magnitude greater than 1.

Regarding the rock bursts that occurred while connecting the two blocks, it is important to note that there
were two rock bursts at Block 1: the first while expanding a cavity, and the second while connecting a cavity
to the upper level of South Teniente 4. One rock burst occurred at Block 2 while connecting that block to
the upper level.

Table 2 presents a summary of the linear meters damaged by the rock bursts. The damage caused by rock
bursts ranges from minor spalling of shotcrete to projection of rock mass. Block 1 suffered damage in the
ventilation level and hauling level, while the Block 2 burst caused damage at the production level, but not
at the lower levels.

Table 2 Lineal Damage in meters by Rock Burst, Block 1 and Block 2

Block 1 15-05-12 Block 1 29-09-12 Block 2 22-10-13

Level
Heavy Moderate Minor Heavy Moderate Minor Heavy Moderate Minor
Undercut
Production 45 m 10 m 70,5 m 22 m 103 m 125 m
Ventilation 103 m
Begin caving
experiences
in Esmeralda
7m 284 m 12 m 40 m
Mine, Division
El Teniente.
Transporting
Total 439 m Total 133 m Total 250 m

84
 Case Studies

The seismic events that damaged the tunnel’s support and rock mass were triggered by mining blasts. Table
3 shows the date and time of the blasts and the seismic events as well as the time lapse between the blasts
and the seismic events connected with the rock bursts.

Table 3 Date and time after blasting to triggers the rock burst, Block 1 and Block 2

Block Date Magnitude Distance to blasting Time since blasting

1 15/05/2012 1,7 29 0:00
1 29/09/2012 2,1 71 3:38
2 22/10/2013 1,9 29 0:00

Figure 5 show the blasting locations and the seismic events of each rock burst.

Figure 5 Event and blast location that triggers the rock burst

Events with magnitudes greater than 1 occurred in both blocks, 35 in Block 1 and 26 in Block 2, triggered by
undercut and drawbell blasts and by caving propagation, 80% in Block and 46% in Block 2 was registered
in the first 24 hours since the blast. Figure 6 shows plan and cross-section views of the seismic events equal
to or greater than 1 in Blocks 1 and 2.

85
Caving 2014, Santiago, Chile

Figure 6 Event magnitude great tan 1 Plant View and cross cut

3.4.3 Breakthrough and cave back

The cave back is estimated using information of seismic activity, inspections drillholes, subsidence
inspections, and the lithology and granulometry at extraction points.

The first evidence of expansion in Block 1 caving was recorded at the end of May 2012. This expansion
was associated with an increased frequency of seismic events and was furthered by the fact that the H and
J structures are situated semi-parallel to the undercut front of Block 1.

The seismic activity recorded at Block 1 after the first evidence of growth in the cavity manifests increased
collapse, spreading in altitude, and an increase in the collapsed area at the altitude of Teniente 5. Figure 7
shows the estimated cave back at the end of May 2012.

86
 Case Studies

Figure 7 Estimated cave back of Block 1 at May 2012.

After this expansion of the Block 1 cavity, seismic activity increased from 10 to 20 events/day. A first peak
of 200 events/day was reached, followed by a new peak of 350 events/day, evidence of the increased height
of the Block 1 cavity, which was connected in November 2012 (Figure 8).

Figure 8 Estimated Cave Back of Block 1 at November 2012

87
Caving 2014, Santiago, Chile

Exploitation of Block 2 began in July 2012, with the opening of the first drawbell. The block did not
generally provide evidence of high-altitude caving through seismicity until the records began to increase in
July 2013, when a variety of different seismic peaks occurred; this continued until November 2013. After
the connection to the upper level was made, seismic activity returned to equilibrium (Figure 9).

Figure 9 Estimated Cave Back of Block 1 at November 2013

It took a total of 15 months for both blocks to be connected to the upper level, and the differences between
the areas that caved in during this process are relevant. At Block 1, an area of 24,000 m2 was caved to make
the connection with the upper level, while 14,000 m2 was caved at Block 2. These differences in rate of
caving propagation have to do with the blocks’ stress conditions and the quality of their rock mass; Block
2 had more soft fractures and greater in situ stresses, resulting in caving propagation over a smaller area.
Figure 10 show the differences between Blocks 1 and 2 regarding the cave back heights and the tonnage
extracted, as well as the open area needed to reach cave back heights of approximately 160 m. They also
reflect the differences between mayor and minor principal stress of 19 MPa to Block 1 and 31 MPa to
Block 2.

Figure 10 Caving area and draw tones vs Cave Height, Block 1 and Block 2

88
 Case Studies

4 Conclusions
Seismic activity, in terms of frequency and relevancy of events, reflects the different features of the initial
processes, breakthroughs, and the regimes for caving in virgin areas. There was seismic activity before the
connection was made with the Teniente 4 and Teniente 5 levels, reflected in frequency peaks of roughly
200 events/day in Block 1 and 40 events/day in Block 2. Rock bursts also occurred prior to connection
due to the concentration of stresses generated by the connection process in the area of the undercut front
and underneath the production level. Therefore, it is important that, prior to and during the initiation of the
caving connection, mining activity be decreased in terms of m2 blasted per month. An example of this is
what occurred in Block 1, where the undercutting rate had to be reduced from 1,800 m2 to 1,200 m2 per
month.
Different area were needed for the two blocks to be connected due to the geological and structural
characteristics of each sector. In Block 1, the H and J structures were instrumental in beginning the caving
propagation process since the release of these structures produced a free face for material to collapse, thus
generating a sort of “toppling failure” toward the east sector. These structures were activated and behaved
as they did due to the effect of the front’s advance with respect to these failures (sub-parallel) combined
with the direction of the main stresses that caused the release. The P fault, in contrast, did not influence
the caving propagation process since the undercut front advanced perpendicular to the fault and, together
with the direction of the largest main stress, kept this structure confined, which caused it to respond with
significant seismic events.
The caving process in Block 2 was more benign than that of Block 1 in terms of frequency and relevance
of seismic events, probably because the intense stresses generated by the higher column and more frequent
fractures created favorable caving conditions.
Both caving processes took 15 months from the first drawbell blast until connection was made with the
upper level, compared to the previous experience at North Esmeralda, which took 46 months. This time
difference in connection may be explained by the fact that hydraulic fracturing was used with the blocks.
In both Block 1 and Block 2, four months of seismic activity was recorded that reflected the increasing
height of the cavity as the crown pillar was broken, with peaks of 200 to 350 events per day. Seismic
activity later returned to a frequency of less than 30 events per day.
The three rock bursts in the blocks were triggered by the caving or undercutting blasts, and two of the three
rock bursts that occurred during the blocks’ caving connection process were recorded during the seismic
event peaks and, therefore, while connection was being made with the upper cavity. While blasting was
halted at Block 1 during this process, this was only done during two weeks and after the rock burst that had
occurred in Block 1. During seismic peaks caused by caving propagation, the undercutting rate must be
decreased to keep from triggering major seismic events.

References
Quiroz, R, Vega H, Cuello D, Cifuentes C, Quezada O, Millán J & Barraza M 2010, ‘Esmeralda Sur
definiciones de crecimiento’, Informe Interno DPL-I-2010.
Coates, DF 1981, Rock Mechanics Principles. Monograph 874, pp. 5-1 to 5-37, Energy, Mines and
Resources, Canada.
Cuello, D, Cavieres P, Cifuentes C 2011, ‘Informe Lineamientos Geomecánicos para Planificación Minera
Bloque 1 Módulo A, Proyecto Esmeralda Sur’, Informe Interno SGM-I-006/2011.
Diaz, J, Cifuentes C, Orellana M 2013, ‘Back análisis conexión de bloque 1, mina esmeralda sur’, Informe
Interno SGM-NI-10-2013.
Diaz, J, Cifuentes C, Orellana M 2013, ‘TTAB, Esmeralda Bloque 1’, Presentación Interna.

89
Caving 2014, Santiago, Chile

Heslop, TG & Laubscher, D 1981, ‘Draw Control in Caving Operations on Southern African Chrysotile
Asbestos Mines’, Design and operation of caving and sublevel stoping mines, NewYork,
(Ed(s): D. Stewart), 755-774, Society of Mining Engineers -AIME.
Millán, J 2010, ‘Antecedentes geológico-geotécnico entre XC-Acceso 3 y XC-Acceso 4, Mina Esmeralda’,
SGL-I-083-2010.
Millán, J & Gonzalez F 2011, ‘Antecedentes geológicos y geotécnicos del área a incorporar el año 2012
(P0)’, SGL-I-072-2011.

90