Arch. Min. Sci.

68 (2023), 4, 543-569
Electronic version (in color) of this paper is available: http://mining.archives.pl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24425/ams.2023.148149

1* 1 2
Kenneth K. Adams , Tuo Chen , Atsushi Sainoki ,
Hani S. Mitri 1

On the Merits of Modified Sublevel Caving Mining Method

– A Case Study

Sublevel caving (SLC) mining method has several features that make it one of the preferred methods
for ore extraction due to its high productivity and early access to ore recovery. However, there are some
major challenges associated with the SLC method such as ground surface subsidence, high unplanned ore
dilution, and the potential for air blast. To remedy these shortcomings, a recent approach has been to modify
the SLC method by introducing rockfill into the void atop the production zone to provide continued sup-
port for the host rock and prevent it from caving. This paper discusses in detail the merits of the Modified
SLC or MSLC. In comparison with other long-hole stoping methods that are predominantly practiced in
metal mines, the MSLC method boasts several advantages. Early production achieved from the topmost
level helps reduce the payback period. Productivity is enhanced due to multilevel mining without the
use of sill pillars. The cost of backfilling is significantly reduced as there is no need for the construction
of costly backfill plants. Continuous stoping is achieved without delays as mining and backfilling take
place concurrently from separate mining horizons. A significant reduction in underground development
costs is achieved as fewer slot raises and crosscuts are required for stope preparation. These merits of the
Modified SLC method in steeply dipping orebodies are discussed by way of reference to real-life mine
case studies. Dilution issues are addressed, and the benefits of top-down mining are explained. Typical
mine design, ventilation, materials handling, and mining schedules are presented. Geomechanics issues
associated with different in-situ stress environments are discussed and illustrated with simplified mine-
wide 3D numerical modeling study.

Keywords: Underground mining; Long hole mining; Sublevel caving; Modified sublevel caving; Surface
subsidence; Ore dilution; Backfill; Air blast; Mine design; Numerical modeling

1
McGill University, Canada
2
Kumamoto University, Japan
* Corresponding author: [email protected]

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en which permits the use,
redistribution of the material in any medium or format, transforming and building
BY NC upon the material, provided that the article is properly cited, the use is noncom-
mercial, and no modifications or adaptations are made.
544

1. Introduction
In the wake of rising energy and mining costs, environmental considerations, and the deple-
tion of high-grade and near-surface orebodies, mining companies are compelled to find innovative
ways to operate profitably and remain environmentally friendly. Many recently discovered metal
orebodies are tabular, low grade, and are found in geological conditions that are too complex
to mine profitably using traditional mining methods. Thus, alternative mining methods must be
sought [1]. One of the advanced and innovative techniques for mining steeply dipping tabular and
wide orebodies with weak hanging walls but fairly competent footwall conditions that require
minimal ground support is the Sublevel Caving (SLC) mining method. This is due to its low
cost, high efficiency, early access to ore recovery, operational safety, multi-level mining, high
mechanization, and flexibility [1-3].
Thus, the SLC mining method has become popular in many underground mines. The method
involves drawing ore from drifts surrounded by waste rock that caves under mining-induced
stresses and gravity, filling the void created by the extracted ore. Typically, the blasted ore directly
contacts the caved rocks during extraction [4].
The earlier application of the SLC mining method was in very weak grounds, both ore and
host rock, where smaller headings were developed and supported with timber sets. Mechaniza-
tion was thus not feasible. More recently, the SLC mining method has been applied to stronger
orebodies, allowing larger openings to be developed. Consequently, this has led to a high level
of mechanization. However, the method still relies on the caving of the walls and therefore
requires the host rock to be weak. This situation leads to four major challenges that impact the
environment, profitability, and safety of the SLC mining operation. These challenges include air
blast and dilution as demonstrated in Fig. 1. Other reported challenges are surface subsidence
and inrush as will be discussed below.

1.1. Surface Subsidence

The SLC mining method causes significant strata movement and subsidence ranging from
a few millimeters to several meters by caving the surrounding rock into the mined-out area,
presenting substantial risks to human lives and ground surface infrastructure [5-8]. Surface
subsidence impacts the location of surface infrastructure for the mining operation. No meaning-
ful infrastructure should be constructed within or near the anticipated subsidence zone. This
could entail an increase in capital and operational expenditure of the mining operation. Another
drawback of surface subsidence pertains to its ecological ramifications, impacting both topsoil
degradation/removal and subsurface hydrogeology. One of the primary reasons for adopting an
underground mining method is to preserve the ground surface ecology for environmental protec-
tion. The occurrence of surface subsidence because of underground mining defeats this objective.
While several researchers [9-11] focused their studies on predicting, monitoring, and assess-
ing the failure mechanisms of surface subsidence through GPS monitoring, numerical simula-
tion, and empirical analyses, others aimed to investigate and evaluate the impacts of subsidence
resulting from caving mining methods. Parmar et al. [12] evaluated the effect of subsidence
on surface infrastructure at the Anomaly No. 12 Sechahun iron deposit mine in central Iran.
The results indicated that surface infrastructure located within the subsidence zone had to be
moved 2-3 km away from the orebody center. A quantitative assessment of the impact of surface
 545

subsidence on the environment in the Hongqi mining area was conducted by Jianjun et al. [13].
They reported that a subsidence area of about 3.4 km2 necessitated the relocation of 1524 houses.
The loss of ecosystem services and the relocation exercise due to subsidence amounted to over
$2 million. Li et al., 2019 argued that a mine can experience huge economic losses because of
surface subsidence caused by caving mining methods.

1.2. Dilution
Ore dilution, as shown in Fig. 1a, is one of the biggest challenges encountered in SLC mining
operations. This is typically caused by the direct contact between blasted ore and caved (waste)
rocks [4]. Although dilution cannot be entirely eliminated from a mining operation, the success
of the SLC mining method is largely influenced by the level of acceptable dilution budgeted for
the extraction process as it is critical to the overall economics of the mine. Dilution levels that
are considered acceptable can vary greatly depending on cut-off grade and the mining method
adopted [14]. However, based on the Canadian experience, ore dilution exceeding 20% is gener-
ally considered to be excessive [15].
While much work has been dedicated to controlling dilution in underground mines in gen-
eral, e.g., [16], some researchers have suggested specialized solutions, particularly for the SLC
mining method. Tao et al. [4] proposed a new diversion drawing technique to control dilution
by changing the flow path and velocity of caved ore and host rock using triangular ore columns
known as diversion blocks. A steel-concrete structure artificial roof was also proposed by Shao
[17] which achieved certain results when applied in the Gongchangling mine. Other researchers
focused on minimizing dilution by proposing several concepts of ore fragment isolation which
was first proposed by Malakhov [18].

1.3. Air Blast

Air blast is a sudden movement of a compressed air mass through an underground opening
due to a collapse or slide of a large volume rock mass of the host rock into an air-filled void [19].
As one of its main features, the SLC mining method relies on the caving of the walls to fill the
void created atop the mining zone following the extraction of ore. However, in some situations,
either the walls are not weak enough to cave or the stresses acting on the walls are not high enough
to induce sliding, thereby delaying cave propagation. This could lead to the creation of a large
air-filled void in the caved zone owing to the constant drawing of ore material in relation to the
rate of cave propagation [20]. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the walls collapse into the air-filled
void, compressing the air mass beneath it and forcing it out through adjacent openings causing
air blast as shown in Fig. 1b. This phenomenon could cause injury to mine personnel, damage
to equipment, or disrupt mine operations [19].
The consequences of air blasts in underground mines can be devastating. In Zimbabwe,
Epoch mine reported considerable damage to the shaft system due to an air blast incident that
occurred in 1978 [21]. Northparkes Mines in New South Wales, Australia reported fatalities due
to an air blast that took place On November 24, 1999 [19]. The Codelco Chile Salvador Divi-
sion suffered from an air blast incident caused by sudden rock mass failure spanning an area of
approximately 15,000 m2 above an air-filled void [22]. Given the increasing number of caving
operations, air blast is likely to become an increasing phenomenon.
546

Fig. 1. Dilution and Air Blast Challenges of Sublevel Caving Mining Method

1.4. Inrush
Another major challenge faced by the SLC mining method is inrush. An inrush is basically
a high-volume water inflow that could be accompanied by mud [23]. Water inflows are water
gushes from the SLC draw-points due to water accumulation in the caved zone over time. Since
the underground workings in the SLC method are connected to the ground surface, rainfall or
snow melt as well as nearby lakes or streams could find their way to the SLC draw-points through
the caved rocks. Excessive inrushes may lead to fatality, equipment damage, dilution, production
delays, and possibly mine closure [24]. A good hydrogeological model for the caving system and
the implementation of a robust water management system are key to avoiding or reducing the
stringent impact of inrushes on any caving operation. Based on literature, the solutions suggested
to deal with all the challenges of inrush appear to be more mitigative than preventive, e.g., [25].
This paper discusses in detail the Modified Sublevel Caving (MSLC) mining method and shows
how it inherently eradicates the challenges of dilution, air blast, and inrush, yet benefits from all
the advantages of the traditional SLC mining method.

2. Modified Sublevel Caving (MSLC) Mining Method

The MSLC mining method has the same characteristics as the traditional SLC mining
method except that the orebody and host rock do not necessarily have to be weak since no cav-
ing of the host rock is required in this method. This is because a deliberate attempt is made to
backfill the void with waste rock through a fill raise created atop the mining zone to support the
host rock walls. To secure the underground mine workings, a crown pillar is required to separate
 547

the underground mine from the surface environment. To support the walls and prevent caving,
the MSLC method introduces uncemented rockfill into the void from the topmost level (backfill
drift). The rate of backfilling the void below from the topmost level corresponds to the rate of
drawing ore material from the lower levels. This way, the void is always filled with waste rock
with no significant air gaps, thus preventing the host rock walls from collapsing and avoiding
the possibility of both surface subsidence and air blast.

2.1. Mining System

Typically, the key features of the MSLC mining system include a surface ramp connecting
the levels to surface, a surface crown pillar separating the underground mine from the ground
surface, and a backfill system consisting of a dedicated level from which a number of fill raises
ends are used to fill the void created by production. One or more level accesses (LAC) are driven
from the ramp on each level to access the orebody and enable sill drive development. Fig. 2
displays a schematic of a typical MSLC system. Distinct from the conventional approach, the
MSLC mining system uses a crown pillar to separate the underground workings from an existing
mined-out open pit or the surface environment. The crown pillar serves to eliminate the challenge
of dealing with possible inrushes into the mine. The crown pillar is designed and supported with
cable bolts to achieve a long-term stand-up time that could be beyond the life of mine to avoid
surface subsidence [26].

Fig. 2. Schematic of a Typical MSLC Mining System

The underground mine is accessed by a ramp system that serves a series of level accesses
that are driven at uniform vertical intervals and perpendicular to the strike of the orebody. From
the topmost level access, a footwall drift – called the backfill drift – is driven along the strike of
the orebody at a geotechnically safe distance from the crown pillar to ensure long-term stabil-
ity. A series of waste passes are driven diagonally at uniform intervals from the backfill drift to
connect to the overcut drift at the top of the first mining block. Sill drives are then driven along
the strike through the orebody.
548

2.2. Mine Design

Depending on the thickness of the orebody, one of three main design alternatives could
be employed to mine the orebody. The first design layout is the longitudinal double retreat with
a single sill drive and crosscut as shown in Fig. 3. This layout is usually used for tabular deposits
with thicknesses ranging from 6 m to 10 m where a single sill drive runs through the orebody
along the strike. The second design layout is the longitudinal double retreat with twin sill drives
and a single crosscut as shown in Fig. 4. This layout is employed for wide orebodies with thick-
nesses around 15 m where two sill drives are required for reasons of ground stability. The third
design layout is the transverse stoping as shown in Fig. 5. This layout is used for wider orebodies
with thicknesses greater than 15 m where a series of crosscuts are driven off the haulage drift
perpendicular to the orebody strike and extended across the orebody (sill drives) at uniform
intervals. Ideally, the length of the crosscut which represents the stand-off distance from the
orebody is determined from rock mechanics considerations. The sill drives are used for retreat
mining towards the footwall. However, the longitudinal double retreat layout with multiple sill
drives is the most preferred even for orebodies with thicknesses greater than 15 m.

Fig. 3. Longitudinal Double Retreat with Single Sill Drive Layout

Fig. 4. Longitudinal Double Retreat with Twin Sill Drive Layout

 549

Fig. 5. Transverse Stoping Layout

2.3. Development of MSLC Mining Level

As ramp development from the ground surface reaches a particular mining level, a turn-off
is made to allow for the development of the level access as shown in Fig. 6. The typical com-
ponents of a level access include a level sump to collect mine water and pump it up to surface
through pipelines, a return air raise (RAR), through which foul air from the working areas on the
mining level is drawn by the primary exhaust fan sitting on surface, and a remuck bay to stockpile
blasted ore and to serve as truck-load-out station. An escape way (manway), which connects to
other escape ways on the upper levels is also developed to serve as a second egress out of the
mine in times of emergency.

Fig. 6. Development of MSLC Mining Level

550

The level access is extended across the orebody by developing a crosscut from the footwall
contact to the hanging wall contact. A long sill drive is driven longitudinally through the orebody
to the extreme ends (end of value) where slot raises are established. The slot raises are blasted,
and the mining sequence occurs in a double retreat manner towards the center of the orebody.
All these developments are repeated on each mining level.

2.4. Mine Ventilation

The mine is ventilated using a pull system as shown in Fig. 7. The Primary exhaust fan
mounted at surface on top of the main RAR draws the return air from the breakthrough area
through the RAR on every mining level. This condition naturally draws fresh air from the mine
portal through the surface ramp. A secondary fan is mounted at the shoulder of the ramp about
20 m away from each level access and ramp intersection; it pulls fresh air from the ramp and
pushes it through flexible ventilation ducts that run to the working areas. The suction pressure
existing at the breakthrough area of the RAR on the mining level causes the exhausted air to
return from the working areas, through the RAR and up to the surface.

Fig. 7. Schematic of Mining Level Ventilation

2.5. Equipment Selection

Owing to its high level of mechanization, the MSLC mining method allows for the use of
large-capacity equipment. In terms of development, one basic piece of equipment required for
face advance is the jumbo drill. Rock bolters and cable bolters could be employed for ground
 551

support activities. In terms of production, an ITH drill or Raise borer is used to establish the slot
raise at both ends of the sill drive. A long-hole drill rig to be set up in the sill drive is required
for drilling production holes (uppers) in a ring pattern around and in between the two slot raises.
An Explosive charge truck suitable for charging up-holes is required for charging and blasting
the rings. LHDs and trucks make up the preferred haulage fleet as the mining method relies on
ramp system for ore transportation.

2.6. Mining and Backfilling

After the development of the backfill drift, level 1 overcut (OC), level 1 sill drive, and
backfill raises as shown in Fig. 8a, slot raises are established at the extreme ends of the sill drive.
Production holes are then drilled to bring the first mining level to production.
A critical component of the MSLC mining method when production starts, is the mining
and backfilling sequence as demonstrated in Fig. 8b to Fig. 8f. After blasting the slot raises as
shown in Fig. 8b, the ore material is mucked out and backfilled with waste rocks from level 1 OC
using an LHD equipment as shown in Fig. 8c. The first ring of production holes closer to the
slot raise is then blasted, mucked out, and backfilled with waste rocks as shown in Fig. 8d and

Fig. 8a. Preparation for Early Production

Fig. 8b. Slot Raises Blasted

Fig. 8c. Backfilling Slot Raises

552

Fig. 8d. First Production Ring Blasted

Fig. 8e. Backfilling Ring 1 void

Fig. 8f. Concurrent Mining and Backfilling Activities

Fig. 8e. The subsequent rings of production holes are blasted to continue the same mining and
backfilling sequence in a retreating manner as shown in Fig. 8f. While mining and backfilling
activities are ongoing on the first mining level, development and production drilling at the lower
levels continue unabated to prepare more levels for production as shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9. Ongoing Development and Production Drilling at Lower Levels

 553

As more levels become ready for production, mining activities on the immediate lower levels
can commence as shown in Fig. 10 without leaving sill pillars between them to allow continuous
and even flow of the backfill material down to the lower levels. This makes the MSLC method
a multi-level mining method without the use of sill pillars. At this stage, backfilling is done from
both level 1 OC and backfill drift through the fill raises. When mining level 1 is completed, the
backfilling activity at level 1 OC ceases. All backfilling activities take place through the fill
raises on the backfill drift as shown in Fig. 11. To avoid hang-ups in the fill raises, the fill mate-
rial should be of uniform size not exceeding 1/6 of the fill raise diameter. Additionally, the fill
material should be dry, as wet materials could consolidate or arch in the caved zone impacting
its flowability.

Fig. 10. Multi-level Mining

Fig. 11. Mining Level 1 Completed

A well-ordered multi-level mining sequence is essential to prevent undermining upper levels

still in production. To do this, the production front at the upper level must advance away from that
of the immediate lower level as shown in Fig. 10. The “stand-off” distance, which is the mini-
mum horizontal distance between the brow of the upper and lower levels must be at least 5 rings
of production holes for a safe multi-level mining operation.
554

2.7. Materials Handling

The preferred materials handling system for the MSLC mining method is the LHD-Truck
system owing to the method’s reliance on the ramp system for ore transportation. As shown in
Fig. 12, the LHD travels between the draw-point and the remuck. When a haulage truck has ar-
rived, the LHD will load it at the truck load-out station. It is imperative to ensure that the LHD
is selected to match the truck capacity while satisfying the production requirement of the mine
plan. This equipment matching is to ensure that the LHD completes a truck payload in 3-5 passes.
Since material handling takes place on the same mining level using the LHD-truck combination,
there is no requirement for the development of ore passes in this mining method.

Fig. 12. Materials Handling Layout

2.8. Cycle Time and Productivity

From the perspective of mine planning, it is essential to determine the overall cycle time
of the LHD to determine its productivity. This in turn helps determine the stope cycle and daily
production rate. To determine the LHD cycle time, two scenarios are considered to estimate the
lowest and highest possible LHD daily productivity. Fig. 13 demonstrates scenario 1 representing
the lowest possible productivity where the LHD must travel to the slot raise location for muck-
ing. For the purpose of this study, the orebody is assumed to have a strike length of 500 m. After
blasting the slot raise, the total distance between the draw-point and the truck load-out station
is 290 m. Given the cycle time parameters in Table 1, the LHD round trip is estimated at ap-
proximately 4 minutes per round trip. Considering two 10-hour shifts per day which is commonly
practiced in Canadian mines, and assuming 7 working hours per shift with job efficiency of 50-55
mins/hr, it can be shown that the LHD productivity for scenario 1 is 1,577 tpd (tonnes per day).

Table 1

LHD Cycle Time Parameters

Bucket Muck Travel Speed Travel Speed

Fill Factor Load Time Dump Time
Capacity Density (loaded) (empty)
5.3 m3 90% 1.9 t/m3 30 s 10 km/h 30 s 14 km/h
 555

Fig. 13. LHD Cycle – Scenario 1

As mining retreats towards the center of the sill drive, the travel distance between the draw-
point and the truck load-out station decreases as shown in Fig. 14. Considering a travel distance of
40 m from the center of the sill drive to the truck load-out station, and using the same parameters
listed in TABLE 1, the LHD round trip is estimated at approximately 1.5 minutes per round trip.
Thus, the LHD productivity for scenario 2 is 4,183 tpd.

Fig. 14. LHD Cycle – Scenario 2

Comparing the daily LHD productivity per day from the two scenarios, it is obvious that the
mucking rate will increase as the mining operation retreats towards the center of the sill drive.
Fig. 15, which plots the LHD productivity versus the haulage distance, can be used as a basis for
estimating the daily production rate of the operation from multiple levels. For the system depicted
in Fig. 15 with 5 active production levels, it is reasonable to expect a high daily production rate
greater than 6,000 tpd, albeit subject to the ramp haulage capacity.
556

Fig. 15. LHD Daily Productivity vs Haulage Distance

2.9. Dilution Control and Geomechanics Issues

All mining methods suffer some level of dilution and geomechanics issues. The severity of
the geomechanics issues is largely dictated by the in-situ stress regime of the mining environment.
High levels of dilution and in-situ stresses pose significant challenges to any mining operation
if not properly managed. In this study, dilution control and the impact of in-situ stress regime
on the MSLC mining method are discussed and demonstrated by ways of reference to a real-life
mine case study.

3. Mine Case Study 1 – Chirano Gold Mines Limited

In this section, the Chirano Gold Mines Limited in Ghana, West Africa, which is a subsidi-
ary of Kinross Gold Corporation in Canada is selected as a case study to demonstrate the benefit
associated with the application of the MSLC method. The Paboase underground mine of Chirano
Gold produces an average of 6,000 tpd (tonnes per day) from a steeply dipping orebody that is
extracted with the MSLC method. The design layout used was the longitudinal double retreat
with twin sill drives at the upper levels which was later switched to a single sill drive layout at
the lower levels due to changes in orebody thickness. The following sections will discuss dilution
control measures and stress conditions associated with the MSLC method at the Paboase mine.
 557

3.1. Dilution Control

In the MSLC mining method, the introduction of waste rocks into the void to support the
walls could lead to some level of dilution if not properly controlled. To alleviate this problem, the
concept of “ore blanket” is introduced, in which a percentage of ore mucking at the first upper
mining level is left behind to build a layer of blasted ore that separates mucking from overlying
rockfill. This ore blanket technique was practiced by Chirano Gold Mines Limited at their Pa-
boase underground mine and yielded good results. The purpose of the ore blanket is to prevent
early contact of the rockfill with the ore material blasted from the subsequent lower levels. Thus,
leaving an ore blanket is a deliberate attempt to have maximum control over dilution for a pe-
riod of active production time on several mining levels until slightly more dilution is observed
as mining progresses deeper, at which point a second ore blanket is utilized. The sequence of
creating this “ore blanket” is demonstrated in Fig. 16. After blasting the slot raises on the first
level, approximately 70% of the ore material is mucked out, leaving the remaining 30% in the
stope to serve as blanket as shown in Fig. 16a. The void created atop the remaining 30% of ore
material is backfilled with waste rocks as shown in Fig. 16b. The next ring is blasted, and the
percentage mucking and backfilling sequence is repeated as shown in Fig. 16c. This sequence is
repeated for all subsequent rings to be blasted, leaving a blanket of blasted ore material between

Fig. 16a. Percentage Mucking – Slot Raise

Fig. 16b. Percentage Backfilling – Slot raise

Fig. 16c. Percentage Backfilling – Ring 1

558

Fig. 16d. Ore Blanket

the rockfill and the next mining block as shown in Fig. 16d. The thickness of the ore blanket may
be increased further by slightly reducing the percentage of ore material to be mucked from the
immediate lower level. When the desired ore blanket is achieved, a 100% mucking rate could be
done on the subsequent lower levels as mining progresses deeper. The ore blanket moves with
the downward progression of mining activities as shown in Fig. 17.

Fig. 17. Ore Blanket Movement

It is however noteworthy that the approximately 30% of ore left in the stope to create the
ore blanket only happens at the first upper level and not at every level of the entire mine since
the ore blanket moves downwards to the lower levels as mining progresses deeper. As such,
the ore blanket is only recreated on one of the lower levels when some evidence of dilution is
observed because of the continuous downward movement. It is also worth mentioning that the
ore blanket is recovered or mucked out at the bottom level during mine closure albeit at a low
grade due to some level of dilution that might have occurred.

3.2. Numerical Modeling of Pillar Stress Condition

Although preferred for the MSLC method, the longitudinal double retreat mining sequence
creates diminishing mining blocks or pillars while approaching the center of the orebody. These pil-
 559

lars are usually exposed to high horizontal mining-induced stresses which may lead to strain bursts
depending on the rock mass geo-mechanical properties and in-situ stress regime. To examine the
stress state in these pillars, a stress analysis is performed through mine-wide numerical modeling.

3.2.1. Mine-wide model construction

The orebody of the Paboase underground mine extends to 1 km below the ground surface.
It strikes in the NS direction with a strike length of 500 m at the top and 140 m at the bottom and
dips at 85°E. The orebody varies in thickness from 20 m wide at the top to 6m wide in the deeps,
with slightly uniform thickness along the strike. Due to the varying thicknesses of the orebody,
the longitudinal double retreat with twin sill drive layout was adopted for the upper levels and
single sill drive for the lower levels.
To build the large-scale 3D numerical model, CAD software Rhino 7 is used to construct the
model surface geometry. The surface mesh of the model is converted to a solid body grid using
Griddle 2.0 plugin released by Itasca company, as shown in Fig. 18. The 3D finite difference
code FLAC3D 7.0 from Itasca is then used to perform the stress analysis. As shown in Fig. 19,
the model encompasses the hanging wall, footwall, and orebody. A large part of the orebody has
been mined out at the upper levels and backfilled with waste rocks, leaving the crown pillar and
a few production levels in the deeps (1 Km) to demonstrate the effect of stresses on the diminish-
ing pillars due to the mining sequence. The rockfill and host rock contact is modeled as a weak
shear interface with normal stiffness, Kn = 15 GPa and Ks = 100 MPa. This is to ensure that the
waste rocks do not cling to the walls but freely move down to exert their full weight on the min-
ing blocks as happens in practical terms. The model is 2000 m in height, 1500 m in length, and
1100 m in width. The x- and y-directions in the model correspond to east and north, respectively.

3.2.2. Rockmass Properties of Chirano Mine

Rock samples were collected from the hanging wall (HW), footwall (FW), and the orebody,
and their mechanical properties estimated from uniaxial compressive tests. Average values of

Fig. 18. Isometric view of the Rhino model Fig. 19. Isometric view of FLAC3D mine-wide model
560

the experimental results, including the intact modulus of elasticity, Eintact, Poisson’s ratio, v, unit
weight, γ, and uniaxial compressive strength, σc, are presented in TABLE 2. It is noticed from
the table that the uniaxial compressive strength of the orebody is comparatively high, making it
capable of storing high elastic energy. The rockmass rating (RMR) system developed by Bieniawski
[27] was used to classify the orebody and host rocks. The RMR results obtained are 73, 74, and
74 for the HW, FW, and orebody, respectively. Using the RMR, the modulus of elasticity of the
rockmass, Erm, can be calculated using the equation proposed by Mitri et al. [28].

 RMR  
 GPa  0.5Ei 1  cos  
Erm   (1)
  100  

Table 2
Rockmass Properties of Chirano Mines

Eintact, Erm, γ σc C Ø
ν
(GPa) (GPa) (KN/m3) (MPa) (MPa) (°)
HW 78.3 64.9 0.23 27.4 116 — —
FW 64.0 54.0 0.23 27.4 186 — —
Orebody 69.0 57.8 0.23 27.4 223 — —
Backfill — 0.20 0.3 26.0 — 0 35

3.2.3. In-situ stress and boundary condition

The stress regime of the West African region is generally considered low compared to other
tectonically active regions [29]. In-situ stress measurements conducted by SRK Consulting in
the Paboase deeps (1 km) of Chirano Mines indicated that Sigma-1 and Sigma-2 are almost
sub-horizontal with a plunge of 30° and 20°, respectively. The Sigma-3 is almost sub-vertical.
The ratios of Sigma-1 to Sigma-3 and Sigma-2 to Sigma-3 are 1.73 and 1.17, respectively. The
vertical stress gradient is 0.0274 MPa/m. Sigma-1 stress acts perpendicular to the orebody strike.
Regarding boundary conditions, roller boundaries are applied to the bottom of the model and
each of its four vertical sides. A minimum constraint is applied to the outer boundaries of the
model to avoid the development of undesired local stress concentrations near the boundaries.
While gravity is applied as a body force, horizontal-to-vertical stress ratios are applied to the
domain to initialize in-situ stresses.

3.2.4. Stress Analysis of the Diminishing Pillars

In FLAC3D, the orebody is mined and backfilled using the MSLC mining and backfilling
sequence. The stress contours in the mining blocks are shown in Fig. 20. It is noticed that the
diminishing mining blocks suffer high horizontal mining-induced stresses as the mining opera-
tion approaches the center of the sill drive with the most diminished pillar recording an average
Sigma-1 stress of 118 MPa. This is not seen in the mining blocks yet to be mined which record
an average Sigma-1 stress of 45 MPa. It is worth mentioning that the size of the most diminished
mining block at the first production level as seen in Fig. 20 is about 16 m in strike length, which
is the width of the level access (LAC) plus two production rings on both sides of the sill drive
 561

as demonstrated in Fig. 21. Practically at Chirano mines, the retreating mining sequence stops
when the pillar reaches this size and is treated as a mass blast also known as intersection blast.

Fig. 20. Mining Induced Horizontal Stress Distribution in Diminishing Mining Blocks – Chirano Mine Model.
NB: HW, FW, and BF are hidden

Fig. 21. Sill Drive-Level Access Intersection Blast

It is also noteworthy that the analysis is carried out with linear elastic materials. This is not
uncommon when examining the potential for rockburst in mine stability analyses [30]. Therefore,
to assess the impact of the high horizontal mining-induced stresses in the diminishing mining
blocks on the safety of the mining operation at the production levels, the Brittle Shear Ratio
(BSR) criterion is used to determine the potential for strain bursting in these mining blocks.
The BSR, which is the ratio of the differential mining-induced principal stress (σ1 – σ3) to the
562

Table 3

Potential for Strain Bursting Based on BSR (Castro et al., 2012)

BSR Rock Mass Damage Potential for Strain Bursting

0.35 No to Minor No
0.35 to 0.45 Minor (e.g. Surface Spalling) No
0.45 to 0.6 Moderate (e.g. Breakout formation) Minor
to 0.7 Moderate to Major Moderate
>0.7 Major Major

uniaxial compressive strength of the intact rock (σc) is expressed by Eq. (2) and it summarizes
the potential for rock damage in TABLE 3 [31].

1   3
BSR  (2)
c
Stress analysis in the mining blocks suggests that although the diminishing blocks suffer
high horizontal mining-induced stress, the BSR values recorded in the back, shoulders, and
stope brow at the production levels are within acceptable limits as shown in Fig. 22. This could
be attributed to the low tectonic stress regime of the West Africa region as well as the high UCS
value of the orebody making it capable of taking up high mining-induced stresses. It is worth
noting that the development areas below the production zone in the Paboase deeps at Chirano
mine experienced minor seismic events from the 1450 level down to the 1400 level. However,
field investigations and analyses showed that these seismic events were primarily due to the pres-
ence of a weak hanging wall shear at those levels and not a consequence of the mining method.
Furthermore, the stability of the HW is checked with BSR as shown in Fig. 23. As can
be seen, the BSR values are well below the 0.7 limit suggesting little or no potential for brittle
burst failure. The low BSR values can be attributed to the confinement offered by the backfill
material, which is clearly a feature of the MSLC. It is worth mentioning that the findings of the

Fig. 22. Computed BSR Values in the Mining Blocks

 563

Fig. 23. Computed BSR Values in Hanging Wall

model corroborate well with real mine site observations at the Paboase underground mine which
operates to a level of approximately 1 km below ground surface using the MSLC mining method.

4. Mine Case Study 2 – Copper Cliff Mine

For the sake of comparison, the MSLC mining method is modeled in the Canadian shield
which has a relatively higher stress regime compared to that of the West African region. The data
on In-situ stresses and rock mass properties were taken from the study by Sainoki et al. [32] on
Copper Cliff Mine in Sudbury, Canada. Copper Cliff mine employed the sublevel stoping min-
ing method and not the MSLC mining method, and serves as a demonstration of the suitability
that the MLSC mining method would have exhibited if chosen. The same orebody geometry and
model size presented in the previous section are used in this case study.

4.1. Rockmass Properties of Copper Cliff Mine

The material properties of the rockmass in Copper Cliff Mine are presented in TABLE 4.
It is noticed that the uniaxial compressive strength of the orebody is comparatively low – almost
half the UCS value of the orebody at the Chirano mine. This could make it incapable of taking
up high mining-induced stresses due to the high in-situ stress regime of the Canadian shield.

Table 4

Rockmass Properties of Copper Cliff Mine (Sainoki et al., 2016)

Eintact, (GPa) Erm, (GPa) ν γ, (KN/m3) σc, (MPa)

Host rock 52 37.8 0.24 28.5 94
Orebody 38 27.6 0.28 36.3 78
564

4.2. In-situ Stress Regime

Calibration of the pre-mining stress state was carried out by Sainoki et al. [32] based on the
stress-depth relationship used at the Copper Cliff mine. This was done based on stresses calculated
from Eqs. (3) to (5). From their calibration results, the stress-depth relationships were almost
identical to those proposed by Herget [33] and Diederichs [34].

 H0
max
0.0407  D  10.35 (3)

 H0
min
0.0326  D  8.69 (4)

 v0 0.029  D
 (5)

Where D is the mining depth in meters. Considering 1 km mining depth as in the case of Chirano
mines, the maximum and minimum horizontal to vertical stress ratios are estimated to be 1.8
and 1.4, respectively.

4.3. Stress Analysis of the Diminishing Pillars

Following the same modeling procedures in Section 3, the stress contours of the mining
blocks in the MSLC mining sequence are shown in Fig. 24. As expected, it is noticed that the
diminishing mining blocks suffer high horizontal mining-induced stresses as the mining opera-
tion retreats towards the center of the sill drive.

Fig. 24. Mining Induced Horizontal Stress Distribution in Diminishing Mining Blocks – Copper Cliff Mine
Model. NB: HW, FW, and BF are hidden

However, contrary to the low BSR readings in the mining blocks in Chirano mines, the BSR
readings in the Copper Cliff mine model are considerably high and beyond the acceptable limits
 565

for strain bursting as shown in Fig. 25. This could be attributed to the high tectonic stress regime
of the Canadian shield coupled with the considerably low UCS value of the orebody making it
unable to take up high mining-induced stresses leading to strain bursts.

Fig. 25. Computed BSR Values in the Mining Blocks – Copper Cliff Mine Model

The BSR results from the two case studies suggest that the MSLC mining method may suffer
strain burst challenges when applied in regions of high tectonic stresses. This is primarily due
to the creation of diminishing pillars resulting from the mining sequence. To solve this problem,
a center-out mining sequence is adopted. That is, instead of mining from the abutments towards
the center of the orebody, mining is done from the center of the orebody towards the abutments.
In this case, two crosscuts would be required to access the far ends of the orebody. Details of
mine development for the center-out system is beyond the scope of the current study.
The center-out mining sequence eliminates the creation of stand-alone pillars that are inca-
pable of taking up high mining-induced stresses. The pillars in the center-out mining sequence
are attached to the host rock as shown in Fig. 26. This way, the host rock takes up part of the
mining-induced stresses, reducing the burst potential of the pillars. From Fig. 27, it is noticed
that there is a significant reduction in BSR values to acceptable limits when the center-out min-
ing sequence is adopted for a region of high in-situ stresses, making the MSLC mining method
suitable to be applied in the Canadian shield.

5. Merits of the MSLC

Whereas the MSLC method enjoys all the advantages of the traditional SLC mining method
including early access to ore recovery thereby reducing the payback period, multilevel mining
operation leading to high production rates, low backfill cost, and continuous stoping without inter-
566

Fig. 26. Center-Out Mining Sequence – Copper Cliff Mine Model

Fig. 27. BSR Values for a Center-Out Mining Sequence – Copper Cliff Mine Model

rupting the mining cycle, it also boasts several benefits. The introduction of a well-designed and
supported crown pillar in the MSLC method prevents the occurrence of ground surface subsid-
ence. Air blast is avoided due to the prevention of the sudden movement of the host rock walls by
the continuous backfilling of the void created atop the mining zone with waste rocks to support
the walls. The devastating consequences of inrushes are avoided owing to the use of a crown
pillar to separate the surface environment from underground activities. Unlike the traditional
SLC mining method which requires additional developments such as ore passes, main haulage
 567

level, internal ramps, and lots of slot raises, the MSLC method requires only a few developments
to prepare a mining level for production leading to a significant reduction in development cost.

6. Conclusions
In this study, it is shown that the MSLC has several advantages over the traditional SLC
such as the avoidance of ground surface subsidence, reduced dilution, as well as the elimination
of potential air blasts and inrushes. The MSLC mining method provides exceptional solutions
to these challenges, and these are demonstrated by way of reference to real-life mine case study.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this study.
1) The Modified Sublevel Caving (MSLC) method is applied to moderate to competent
rockmass where caving of the host rock is not possible and/or undesired.
2) The issue of high ore dilution in the traditional SLC method has been addressed using
the ore blanket technique which yielded good results when practiced in Chirano Gold
Mines Limited.
3) Productivity is enhanced due to the benefit of multilevel mining without the use of sill
pillars and its associated recovery challenges.
4) The modeling results indicate that the application of MSLC in Chirano mine did not
pose any seismic threats to the mining operation. This is attributed to the comparatively
low in-situ stress regime of the West African region as well as the competency of the
Paboase orebody. However, in regions of high in-situ stresses like the Canadian Shield,
the MSLC method could cause seismic problems if the diminishing pillars are incapable
of taking up high mining-induced stresses. This may be avoided by adopting a center-
out mining sequence which significantly reduces the burst potential of the diminishing
pillars in high in-situ stress environments.
5) With the ground surface ecology kept undisturbed, the demonstrated MSLC mining
method is in line with sustainable practices for future mining that call for reduced foot-
print.

Acknowledgment
This work is financially supported by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
– Discovery Grants Program. The authors gratefully acknowledge Kinross Gold Corporation, Chirano
Gold Mines Limited for providing the data for the mine case study.

References

[1] S. Xu, F.T. Suorineni, L. An, Y. Li, A study of gravity flow principles of sublevel caving method in dipping narrow
veins. Granular Matter 19 (4), 1-13 (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-017-0748-z
[2] Q. Jia, G. Tao, Y. Liu, S. Wang, Laboratory study on three-dimensional characteristics of gravity flow during
longitudinal sublevel caving. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 144, 104815 (2021).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2021.104815
[3] I. Janelid, R. Kvapil, Sublevel caving. In International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Ge-
omechanics Abstracts 3 (2), 129-132 Pergamon (1966). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(66)90004-0
568

[4] G. Tao, M. Lu, X. Zhang, R. Zhang, Z. Zhu, A new diversion drawing technique for controlling ore loss and dilution
during longitudinal sublevel caving. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 113, 163-171
(2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2018.12.006
[5] M. Svartsjaern, A prognosis methodology for underground infrastructure damage in sublevel cave mining. Rock
Mechanics and Rock Engineering 52 (1), 247-263 (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-018-1464-7
[6] E. Can, Ş Kuşcu, M.E. Kartal, Effects of mining subsidence on masonry buildings in Zonguldak hard coal region in
Turkey. Environmental Earth Sciences 66 (8), 2503-2518 (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1473-2
[7] L. Nie, H. Wang, Y. Xu, Z. Li, A new prediction model for mining subsidence deformation: the arc tangent function
model. Natural Hazards 75 (3), 2185-2198 (2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1421-z
[8] F. Ma, H. Zhao, R. Yuan, J. Guo, Ground movement resulting from underground backfill mining in a nickel mine (Gan-
su Province, China). Natural Hazards 77 (3), 1475-1490 (2015). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1513-9
[9] X. Zhao, Q. Zhu, Analysis of the surface subsidence induced by sublevel caving based on GPS monitoring and nu-
merical simulation. Natural Hazards 103 (3), 3063-3083 (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04119-0
[10] A. van As, Subsidence definitions for block caving mines (2003).
[11] K.S. Woo, E. Eberhardt, D. Elmo, D. Stead, Empirical investigation and characterization of surface subsidence
related to block cave mining. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 61, 31-42 (2013).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2013.01.015
[12] H. Parmar, A. Yarahmadi Bafghi, M. Najafi, Impact of ground surface subsidence due to underground mining on
surface infrastructure: the case of the Anomaly No. 12 Sechahun, Iran. Environmental Earth Sciences 78, 1-14
(2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-019-8424-8
[13] S. Jianjun, H. Chunjian, L. Ping, Z. Junwei, L. Deyuan, J. Minde, Z. Jingkai, S. Jianying, Quantitative prediction
of mining subsidence and its impact on the environment. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology
22 (1), 69-73 (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2011.07.008
[14] R.S. Suglo, S. Opoku, An assessment of dilution in sublevel caving at Kazansi Mine. International Journal of
Mining and Mineral Engineering 4 (1), 1–16 (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMME.2012.047996
[15] R.C. Pakalnis, R. Poulin, J. Hadjigeorgiou, Quantifying the cost of dilution in underground mines. In International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts 5 (33), 233A (1996).
[16] T. Chen, H.S. Mitri, Strategic sill pillar design for reduced hanging wall overbreak in longhole mining. International
Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 31 (5), 975-982 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2021.09.002
[17] A.L. Shao, A soffit type of sublevel caving method with a steel-concrete artificial roof. Chinese patent.
201110232079.7; 2011-8-15 [in Chinese].
[18] T.M. Malakhov, Drawing of Caving Ore Block. Beijing: Metallurgical Industry Press (1958).
[19] J. Oh, M. Bahaaddini, M. Sharifzadeh, Z. Chen, Evaluation of air blast parameters in block cave mining us-
ing particle flow code. International Journal of Mining, Reclamation, and Environment 33 (2), 87-101 (2019).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2017.1342064
[20] G.E. Flores, PhD thesis, Rock mass response to the transition from open pit to underground cave mining, Julius
Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Australia (2005).
[21] T.R. Stacey, J.A.C. Diering, N. Rigby, Stability predictions based on back analysis of collapsed crown pil-
lar, Epoch mine, Zimbabwe. In African Mining’91. Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, 55-60 (1991).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3656-3_6.
[22] R. De Nicola, M. Fishwick, An underground air blast–Codelco-Chile–Division Salvador. Proceedings of MassMin
2000, 173-178 (2000).
[23] R. Gómez, M. Loyola, S. Palma, C. Valdés, Experimental study of the inrush of fines events in caving mining.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 169, 105436 (2023).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2023.105436
[24] G. Flores, Major hazards associated with cave mining: are they manageable? In Proceedings of the First Inter-
national Conference on Mining Geomechanical Risk, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, 31-46 (2019).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1905_0.3_Flores-Gonzalez
[25] E. Samosir, J. Basuni, E. Widijanto, T. Syaifullah, The management of wet much at PT Freeport Indonesia’s Deep
Ore Zone mine, in H Schunnesson & E Nordlund (eds), Proceedings the 5th International Conference and Exhibi-
tion on Mass Mining, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, 323-332 (2008).
 569

[26] T. Chen, H.S. Mitri, Strategies for surface crown pillar design using numerical modelling – A case study. Interna-
tional Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 138, 104599 (2021).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2020.104599
[27] Z.T. Beniawski, Rock mass classifications in rock engineering. Exploration for Rock Engineering 1, 97-106 (1976).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3124/segj.58.112
[28] H.S. Mitri, R. Edrissi, J. Henning, Finite element modeling of cable-bolted stopes in hard rock ground mines.
In: SME Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 94-116 (1994).
[29] A. Letamo, B. Kavitha, T.P. Tezeswi, Seismicity pattern of African regions from 1964–2022: b-value and energy
mapping approach. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risk 14 (1), (2023).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2023.2197104
[30] I. Vennes, H. Mitri, D. R. Chinnasane, M. Yao, Large-scale destress blasting for seismicity control in hard
rock mines: a case study. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 30 (2), 141-149 (2020).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ijmst.2020.01.05
[31] L.A.M. Castro, R.P. Bewick, T.G. Carter, An overview of numerical modeling applied to deep mining. Innovative
Numerical Modeling in Geomechanics, 393-414 (2012). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b12130-22
[32] A. Sainoki, H. S. Mitri, M. Yao, D. Chinnasane, Discontinuum modeling approach for stress analysis at a seismic
source: Case Study. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 49, 4749-4765 (2016).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00603-016-1089-7
[33] G. Herget, Stress assumptions for underground excavations in the Canadian Shield. International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 24 (1), 95-97 (1987).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(87)91238-1
[34] M.S. Diederichs, P.K. Kaiser, E. Eberhardt, Damage initiation and propagation in hard rock during tunneling
and the influence of near-face stress rotation. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 41,
785-812 (2004). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2004.02.003