Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Kinematic model and drawbody in underground mining process
F. Vivanco1, C. Fuentes2, V. Apablaza2 & , F. Melo1
1Universidad de Santiago de Chile, CIMAT2IM2, Codelco, Chile
Outline
• Goal: Develop a simple tool to help in optimizing ore recovery reducing dilution in undergroundmines.
• Approach: Kinematic model, laboratory scaleexperiment validation.
Underground mining - blockcaving
• Large scale production. Low cost methodapplicable in weak ore, unsafe to mine with othertechniques (1000M ton., cost US$ 1000M, profit US$6000M).
• Conditions. Massive ore bodies, large dimensions, rock mass breaking into manageable size block.
Courtesy of C. Fuentes
• Problems. Lots pre-ore recovery, ore dilution1,2
extraction, surface disturbance.
Block caving
• Description. Gravity+rock stresses fracturing rock mass. Minimal drilling and blasting.
1tonnes waste rock mined/tonnes ore mined2tonnes waste rock mined/tonnes ore+waste mined
Block design andoperation optimization
DRAWBODY
LOOSENING ZONE
DRAWPOINT
Concepts
Drawbody models
• Bergmark-Roos
2
20
0
20 )(
21)(),(
rr
tartr r
ρρ
θθθ
=
−=
Drawbody models
0
2
20 )(
ρρ
θ
=
−= frrvv D
r
• Plasticity1
1Velocity distribution is obtained from stress distribution in static material
Drawbody volume
max
3 3 2 20 max max max
30 max
(1 cos )6
(1 cos )6D
G D D D
Gr r
r r r r r r
r
π θ
π θ>>
⎡ ⎤Ω = − − + +⎣ ⎦
→ Ω = −
• Bergmark-Roos
23 3
0 max
3 3max
0 2
cos 2cos 1( )3 1 cos
2 sin 13 ( / 2 ) 1 2
G GD
G
DG
G G
r r
r r
θ θπθ
π π θπ θ θ
⎡ ⎤− +Ω = − ⎢ ⎥−⎣ ⎦
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤−Ω = −⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥−⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
• Plasticity
Kinematic model
Nedderman and Tüzun, Powder Technol. 22, 243 (1979)
2
2y y y
x P P
v v vv D D
x y x∂ ∂ ∂
= − ⇒ =∂ ∂ ∂
1z zP
v vD rz r r r
∂ ⎡ ∂ ⎤∂ ⎛ ⎞= ⎜ ⎟⎢ ⎥∂ ∂ ∂⎝ ⎠⎣ ⎦
• Velocity distribution in rectangular hopper.
• Stationary conditions.
• Loose packing state.
• Dilation when dense packing systems start to flow.
Single drawpoint extraction
• Particles streamline
( ), , ,dx f x y D Qdt
=
( ), , ,dy g x y D Qdt
=
• Condition for drawbody
( )0 0, ,R x y D Qt=
R
• Extraction: simultaneousor alternating
• Open question: How drawpoint interact?
• Drawpoints distribution isbased on common belief.
• Description simplified by linearity of kinematicmodel.
Drawpoints interaction
Drawpoints interaction
• Simultaneous extraction )(0 i
LQ Lxvv
i
i−=∑
Drawpoints interaction
• Alternating extraction
Experiment & model
• Pure kinematic model
• Good agreement close tothe aperture.
• Theoretical prediction fails athigher vertical positions.
• Area of deflection is equal toextracted material (constantdensity hypothesis.) Notfulfilled in experiments.
• Dilatancy effect must be considered.
F. Melo et al, to be published in IJRMMS (2006).
Experiment & model
• Kinematic model + dilatancy
DILATION
2
2( ) ( , )n n
nT T
v vD v f v d vy x
∂ ∂= +
∂ ∂
0( , ) exp( )n
TT
v vf v dd d
α= − −
Summary• Model in use (B-R) presents unphysical increase of density.• More physical models, Kinematic and plasticity, are suitable to
describe drawbody and loosening shape.• Simple kinematic model captures characteristics found in
single drawpoint extraction.• Interactions of drawpoint can be described by kinematic
model.• Divergence between kinematic model and experiments can be
surpassed introducing a dilatancy term.• Kinematic model can be used as a simple tool to optimize
draw spacing and draw strategy in underground mining.• We believe even in the worst case it is enough to characterize
a single drawpoint experimentally and use linear superpositionto get insights on flows interactions.
Ongoing research• Lab. scale ore stock experiment.
C. Fuentes, G.Bravo & D. Opazo
Ongoing research
• Full scale ore stock experiment.
• 1100M ton. Stock capacity• 500K ton. Production, 3 months duration.• Local measure accessibility