Operational Improvement using

Geotechnical Block Models

By Megan Little
Datamine Forum
Kievits Kroon
15 - 16 March 2007

Outline

Introduction to PPRust
Geotechnical block modelling
Model applications
Geotech Modeller product
Future development

Outline

Introduction to PPRust
Geotechnical block modelling
Model applications
Geotech Modeller product
Future development

Location and Geology

Current and future open pits

PPRust North

Zwartfontein South
Sandsloot

Current open pits

PPRust North
depth: 30m
length: 300m
width: 100m

Zwartfontein South
depth: 100m
length: 1400m
width: 600m
Sandsloot
depth: 250m
length: 2km
width: 600m

PPRust Mining
3 open pits Sandsloot, Zwartfontein
South and PPRust North started in 1992,
2002 & 2006 respectively
2006: production 67Mt ex-pit 4.8 Mt of
ore to the plant
2007: production ramps up to 90Mt and
new plant commissioned
2008: production ramps up to 120Mt
Exploration to the south and west for
future open pits and underground
operations

Mining Sequence - Sandsloot

Local geology

Local geology at Sandsloot

E

Platreef

Hangingwall
norite

Reef pyroxenite
and
parapyroxenite
Footwall calc-silicate

Max pit depth=260m

Strong brittle rock

Outline

Introduction to PPRust
Geotechnical block modelling
Model applications
Geotech Modeller product
Future development

Model process
Proto model
(pit design)

Field data: boreholes,

facemaps, point load tests, UCS

Lithology & fault wireframes

Geotechnical zones

Ore/waste zones

Interpolation: RQD, UCS, FF,

IRMR, Q, RMR, PLI

Calculate MRMR, Slope

angles, BI, EF, Cost, DWT

Plant design

Slope design

Blast design

Geotechnical data collection

Borehole Logging
Face Mapping
Rock testing
SiroVision digital photogrammetry
All exploration and in-pit drilling at PPRust is
logged geotechnically and point load tested.

Exploration Drilling

> 380 km of geotechnical

logging
> 1100 boreholes logged
geotechnically
27 orientated boreholes
> 15,000 point load tests
> 300 UCS tests
> 150 met. tests

Geotechnical logging
Major Structures
Joint sets spacing, condition
Rock Mass Ratings Bartons Q, Bieniawskis RMR and
Laubschers IRMR (3 international stds for different applications)
Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4
Zone 5

SABLE RMR input logs

data per geotechnical unit

data per joint set

All data needed for 3 RMR systems collected at once plus

extra information for detailed analysis.

Point load testing

a simple field test for rock strength which gives a point

load index which is converted to a UCS.
10 point load tests per rock
type per hole
Average UCS used in RMR
calculations

Lab rock strength test logs

Lab tests taken per rock type

from boreholes when required
Average UCS in RMR
calculations
Over 25 type of test results
stored

Geotechnical mapping
Major Structures
Joint sets spacing, condition
Rock Mass Ratings Bartons Q, Bieniawskis RMR and
Laubschers MRMR, Hoeks GSI

Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3

A
geopoint
100m tape

MineMapper bench plans

Data is stored and viewed by bench plan

which can be viewed and

edited in 3D space

MineMapper Geotech data capture

RMR mapping and line
survey data stored

Point load and lab tests

also collected in tables

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Zone 4

SiroVision digitised structures

Datamine - data import and viewing

Boreholes, facemaps & wireframes

Geotech zoning
All the
geotechnical data
is used to define
geotechnical zones
for each pit and
each cutback.
The block
modelling is based
on these zones.

Geotechnical interpolation
Interpolated parameters

UCS
Fracture Frequency
RQD
Density
Point Load Index
Bartons Q
Bieniawskis RMR
Laubschers IRMR

Calculated parameters

MRMR
Slope angle
Blastability Index
Energy Factor
Drill & Blast Cost
Drop weight index
Elastic properties

Geotechnical block model

Each cell has parameters: UCS, FF, RQD, Rock type, IRMR,
RMR, Q, PLI, Elastic properties, Slope angle, Risk, BI, EF,
D&B cost/m3, DWTi

10m x 10m x
10m cells (for
10m benches)

Outline

Introduction to PPRust
Geotechnical block modelling
Model applications slope design
Geotech Modeller product
Future development

Haines and Terbrugge slope design chart

Laubschers MRMR slope angle @ set FOS and slope ht

Slope optimisation
Pit design overlaid on the block model filtered on slope
angle compares data vs actual.
Different slope heights must be considered.

Structural control may be more NB than RMR results.

Vertical slice through model

100m

Slope too
flat

Pit design

Model filtered on slope angle

Sandsloot Risk - Reward design chart

Sandsloot Open Pit
Final Slope Angle vs. Failure Risk & Potential Revenue
Wittle 4D
WHITTLE
4DOptimization
OPTIMIZATION
Final Pit Depth (m)
290
100

305

315

325

340

350
4,000,000,000

90
80

60
50

2,000,000,000

40
30
1,000,000,000
20
10
0

0
51

54

56

58

60

Maximum Hangingwall Angle

(Degrees)
Overall Slope Failure

Stack Failure

Bench Failure

Additional Revenue

62

Additional Revenue (R)

Failure Risk (Pf %)

3,000,000,000
70

Slope optimisation
The geotechnical block model

Highlights data deficient areas

Allows for more localised slope design
Gives an indication of unsafe areas over-designed slopes
Gives an indication of possible economic gains - underdesigned slopes

Enables more accurate NPV calculations

Outline

Introduction to PPRust
Geotechnical block modelling
Model applications blast design
Geotech Modeller product
Future development

Blast design at PPRust

1-2 Mt of rock are blasted each
week in ~ 10 blast blocks.
Blast patterns are individually
designed for every blast block.
The rock is very hard and high powder factors are used to
achieve fragmentation targets.
To reduce damage to slopes, limit blasting practices are
used.

Blast optimisation
Blastability Index (Lilly 1986): simple rock mass rating for
blasting guys
Kuz-Ram equation (Cunningham 1990): calculate the mean
fragment size of a blast based on the rock mass properties
and the blast design (powder factor, stemming, subdrill etc)
Therefore if you know your BI and target mean fragment
sizes you can calculate the ideal powder factor and thus
better design your blast pattern burden and spacing and
predict Drill and Blast costs.

Plant requirements
Ideal
fragmentation
reduces
crushing and
milling costs
and improves
mill
throughput
and
recoveries.

Fines

Coarse

-150mm

+150mm

Fragmentation Target:
P50 = 150mm
ORE FEED FROM PIT
COURSE ORE STOCKPILE
(+150mm)

FEED SILOS

GYRATORY CRUSHER

-250mm SIDE SETTING

FINE ORE STOCKPILE
(-150mm)

PRIMARY MILL

PROCESSING TO
CONCENTRATE

Loading requirements

Target Instantaneous Loading Rate: 3200t/hr

for RH200 face shovels
Target mean fragmentation: 230mm

based on analysis on 238 blasts

Split fragmentation analysis

Blasted
muckpile

Split size distribution analysis

Photo

Split Digital
image

Fragmentation Curves
Calibration of Design vs. Actual Fragmentation

100

90

(271) 5*6 -Current Ore

80

(311) 5.5*6.5 -New ore

% Passing

70

60

(311)8.0 x 9.0-New Waste

50

Actual 271mm-Ore

40

30

(271) 6.5 x 7.5-Current Waste

20

10

0
1

10

100

Fragment Size (mm)

1000

Block model used for blast optimisation

Geotech. zones & parameters Blastability Index (Lilly)
BI + target fragment sizes powder factor (Cunninghams
Kuz-Ram equation)
Powder factor blast pattern burden and spacing
Drill and Blast cost

waste

ore

blast pattern

Model filtered on EF

AutoCAD
menus

Blast design in AutoCAD

Blasters can now design the

patterns based on rock mass
properties and available drill
and blast equipment.

Model Evaluation, Planning & Scheduling

5
4

3
2

EVALUATE MINING BLOCKS

AVERAGE INFORMATION FOR BLOCK:
BI

= 52

MRMR

= 59

EF ORE

= 1.26 kg/m3

EF WASTE

= 0.96 kg/m3

COST ORE

= R 4.30 / m3

COST WASTE

= R 2.70 / m3

SLOPE ANGLE

= 62 Degrees

Drill bit selection based on UCS in block model

180 MPa

160 MPa
200 MPa
BLAST PATTERN

250 MPa

Results: Loading and Milling Performance

Loading and Milling Rates for 2003
300

3,900
Average Plant Milling Rate (t/hr) [ 18% Improvement]
Average AG Milling Rate (t/hr) [ 16% Improvement]
3,700

Average Instantaneous Load Rate Ore & Waste (t/hr) [ 13% Improvement]
260

Average Instantaneous Load Rate Ore (t/hr) [ 11% Improvement]

3,500

Milling Rate (t/hr)

240

3,300

220

200

3,100

180
2,900
160
2,700
140

120

2,500
Jan-03

Feb-03

Mar-03

Apr-03

May-03

Jun-03

Instantaneous Loading Rate (t/hr)

280

Comparison of Crushing and Blasting Costs

Comparison of Crushing and Blasting Costs (2003)
P80 Crusher Feed (mm)
390

390

300

300

260

260

R 2.00

R 2.00
R 1.74

R 1.80

R 1.89

R 1.89

R 1.80

R 1.74

R 1.60

R 1.40

R 1.31

R 1.31

R 1.20

R 1.20

R 1.00

R 0.80

R 1.00

R 0.72

R 0.80

R 0.72

R 0.60

R 0.60
R 0.47
R 0.47

R 0.40

R 0.20

D&B COSTS (R/t)

R 0.31

R 0.31

R 0.40

R 0.20

CRUSHING COST (R/t)

R-

RJan-03

Feb-03

Mar-03

Apr-03

May-03

Jun-03

Crushing Costs (R/t)

Drill & Blast Costs (R/t)

R 1.40

R 1.60

Summary: Operational improvement process

Characterise the Ore Body

Define Customer requirements milling and loading targets
Develop relationships between rock properties and blast
results
Optimise the Blast Performance
Monitor Plant Performance
Ensure the Initiative is Sustainable Geotech Modeller

Outline

Introduction to PPRust
Geotechnical block modelling
Model applications
Geotech Modeller product
Future development

Outline

Introduction to PPRust
Geotechnical block modelling
Model applications
Geotech Modeller product
Future development

DATAMINE MULTI-PARAMETER MODELLING SOFTWARE

Phase 1a
X,Y,Z

DENSITY

ROCK TYPE

RMR

UCS

3D GEOTECHNICAL
MODEL
ROCK TYPE

FF/m

DENSITY

RQD

FF/m

RMR
UCS

MRMR
JPS

RMD

ROCK FACTOR (A)

RDI

JPO

METALLURGICAL
DATA

GEOHYDROLOGICAL
DATA

- Strength Properties

- Porosity

-Throughput Properties

- Transmissivity

- [UCS; PLI; BWI; DWT]

- Flow Rates

- Mineralogy

- Structural Wireframes

- Recovery Properties

- Lithological Wireframes

- Etc

- Etc

STABLE SLOPE

BI

ANGLE MODEL

KUZ-RAM EQUATION

WASTE FRAGMENTATION TARGETS

ORE FRAGMENTATION TARGETS

REQUIRED EF (kg/m3)

REQUIRED EF (kg/m3)

MINING OPTIMISATION

Phase 2

Phase 1c

Phase 1b

MINE TO MILL OPTIMISATION

SLOPE
OPTIMISATION

METALLURGICAL
MODEL

GEOHYDROLOGICAL
MODEL

METALLURGICAL
OPTIMISATION

ENVIRONMENTAL &
DEWATERING

Multi-Parametric Model for Planning and Mine Optimisation

Underground Applications - Sunrise Dam Gold Mine

Underground Mine Design

Sunrise Dam Reference Information Base Rock Engineering Design

Average Modelled Q values for Design Area

Average Drill hole O values for Design Area
UG Mapping Q Values
Designed Span Width
Designed Support Requirements
Model Variance to Span width
Model Variance to Support Requirements

Design Area Information

7.0
Distance to Nearest Major Structure
8.5
Seismic Activity
6.5
MAP3D (Excess Shear Stress Halos)
8m
Model Confidence Value
Class 2
Distance to nearest excavation
+10%
Highest FF/m Value and distance to
Excavation
+10%

10m
10 events, Richter Max 1
Max ESS = xxx
92%
40m
FF/m = 11 @ 5m

Future developments
Rock testing results used for predicting mill
throughputs.

Include hydrological data in the models

Economic evaluation done with all geology,
geotech and mining data.
Integrate SiroVision
Underground application
a multi-parametric model that integrates all
information and maximises its usefulness!

Questions?