Quantifying open stope performance

E. Villaescusa
Professor of Geomechanics, Western Australian School of Mines, PMB 22 Kalgoorlie 6430 Australia

Abstract
Stope performance is reviewed with respect to the overall stope design process. Global and detailed design issues
are identified along the way, and the stope design note is described in detail. Stope performance is quantified
based on depth of failure measurements, which are calculated using block models of Cavity Monitoring System
wireframes and tested against the stope design boundaries. Finally a stope performance assessment summary data
sheet is also provided.

1 INTRODUCTION

2 STOPE DESIGN PROCESS

The sublevel open stoping method (SLOS) are

used to extract large massive or tabular, steeplydipping competent orebodies surrounded by
competent host rocks which in general have few
constraints regarding the shape, size and
continuity of the mineralization. In general, open
stopes are relatively large excavations in which
ring drilling is the main method of rock breakage
(Villaescusa, 2000).
The SLOS method offers several advantages
including, low cost and efficient non-entry
production operations, utilization of highly
mechanized, mobile drilling and loading
production equipment, high production rates with
a minimum level of personnel. Furthermore,
production operations are concentrated into few
locations such as ring drilling, blasting and
drawpoint mucking. The disadvantages include a
requirement for a significant level of development
infrastructure before production starts, thus
incurring a high initial capital investment.
However, most of the development occurs within
the orebody. In addition, the stopes must be
designed with regular boundaries and internal
waste pockets can not be separated within the
broken ore. Similarly, delineated ore can not be
recovered beyond a designed stope boundary.
Consequently, ore dilution, consisting of lowgrade, waste rock or minefill materials, may occur
at the stope boundaries. Furthermore, ore loss due
to insufficient breakage can also occur within the
stope boundaries.
The stope performance is measured by the
ability to achieve maximum extraction with
minimal dilution. Hence, the success of the
method relies on the stability of large (mainly unreinforced) stope walls and crowns as well as the
stability of any fill masses exposed

Stope design for dilution control requires

interactions among geology, mine planning, rock
mechanics and operating personnel (Villaescusa,
1998). The overall rational methodology for the
stope design process is shown in Figure 1. Six key
stages (and key personnel) are identified, with the
orebody
delineation
and
rock
mass
characterization stages as the basic input. The
tasks consists of an early determination of
rockmass properties on a block scale, followed by
an estimate of the likely loading conditions from
the mining sequences. The process requires a
global and a detailed design stage, where global
design issues are relevant and applicable within
entire areas of a mine, such as an extension of an
existing orebody, while detailed design issues are
applicable to the extraction of individual stopes.
Finally, a monitoring and back analysis strategy is
required to allow a documented closure of the
mine design loop.
3 GEOLOGICAL AND
CHARACTERIZATION

GEOTECHNICAL

The stope design process starts with an initial

orebody delineation process to provide an
interpolated outline of the grade contours. This
information is critical and is initially used to
locate the required drilling and mucking drives
along the orebody in question. The accuracy of the
delineated grade boundaries is a function of the
nature of the orebody, the amount of drilling
information and the mining access through the
orebody. For narrow orebodies, development is
carried out under strict geological control, a
process that requires geological mapping of drives

and crosscuts through the orebodies (and

sometimes additional in-fill drilling) in order to
define the stope ore-waste contacts.
Orebody delineation

Geology
Geology & Rock
mechanics

Rockmass characterization
Access & infrastructure
Stope & pillar sizes

No

Mine planning
Rock mechanics

Global sequences

Mine planning &

Rock mechanics

Global economics

Mine planning

Global
Design

Aceptable
design
Yes

Infill delineation drilling

Geology

Drill & blast design

Mine planning

Rock reinforcement

Rock mechanics

Detailed economics

Mine planning

Extraction monitoring
No

Input

Aceptable
design

Yes

Detailed
Design

well as to perform an economic evaluation to

determine whether a particular block should be
mined. This type of information requires that the
sampling process extend beyond the orebody
boundaries in order to determine the likelihood of
failure from orebody hangingwalls, footwalls or
stope crowns.
Experience has shown that the interpolated
grade may define the economics of a stope, but
the geological structures and the location (and
alignment) of the drives up-dip may define the
final shape. Lithology and the presence of major
faults and joints relative to the stope wall
orientations need to be anticipated in order to
control dilution (See Figure 2). A need exists for
routine geological mapping and timely
interpretations to keep the geology current and to
determine areas of low rock mass strength,
associated with clay fracture filling and moderate
to complete wall alteration. Interpreted geology
maps across all stope levels, on a stope composite
basis, are essential tools for evaluating the likely
influence of rock type and major geological
discontinuities on the actual stope performance.

Operations,
mine planning,
geology,
rock mechanics
Document
results

Closure of
Design loop

End

Figure 1. A formalized stope design methodology

from data collection to stope reconciliation.
The suggested approach is to obtain
representative (mine-wide) rock mass properties
required during the global excavation design and
stability analysis stages. In most cases, this
information is obtained from diamond drill holes
(core logging of non-oriented holes, as well as
geotechnical holes) and direct mapping of
underground openings. Geophysical tools can also
used for orebody delineation and rock mass
characterization. The confidence in the geological
information must be sufficient to establish the
nature and irregularities of the orebody, the nature
and location of major controlling geological
structures, the general rock mass characteristics as

Figure 2: Massive stope hangingwall failure

controlled by large scale faults.
4 GLOBAL DESIGN
Global design issues are related to the design and
stability of large sections of a mine, such as a new
orebody extension at depth or at the abutment for
an existing deposit. Global design issues are
schematically represented on Figure 1, and listed
in detail in Table 1. The issues involved include
global orebody delineation, design of mine access
and infrastructure, dimensions of sublevel
intervals, backfill requirements and infrastructure,
equipment and ventilation considerations, etc.

Stress analysis of the global production schedules

is critical to determine the loading conditions
(stress and displacement) likely to result from a
proposed mine-wide stoping sequence.
Table 1. Global (block) design issues.
Exploration drilling requirements for
orebody delineation for the designed area
Area wide rock mass characterization
from borehole data and direct access
Overall mining method selection
Quantity and grade of ore required
with respect to scheduled metal targets
Access and infrastructure development requirements
ore handling systems, workshops, etc.
Production scheduling, details and timing
Induced stresses from scheduled sequences,
including extraction directions
Primary and secondary stope dimensions
(including regional access pillars)
Backfill system requirements
Equipment requirements
Ventilation
Global economic assessment

5 DETAILED DESIGN
Detailed design is related to the extraction of
individual stopes within a global area and it
represents the process of establishing an optimum
extraction method for an individual stope, subject
to a number of variables and constraints. Blasthole
geometry, firing sequence, ground support,
ventilation and economics are some of the key
variables considered. The constraints include the
orebody boundaries, the geological structures, any
existing development, and in some cases, any
adjacent backfill masses (See Figure 3).
Detailed design is achieved by means of a stope
design note issued to the planning and operating
personnel. Such a document includes detail on the
overall extraction philosophy, plans of sublevel
development, sections showing blasthole design
concepts and drilling and blasting parameters,
ventilation, geology, rock mechanics and overall
firing sequence.
All the topics included on a stope design
document are inter-related. The extraction
philosophy provides a general overview of the
design, safety and production issues for a
particular section of an orebody. Properly
reinforced stope development is required to allow

access for drilling, blasting and mucking.

Development size is a function of the stoping
method and the equipment utilised. Knowledge of
the nature and stability of the adjacent backfill
masses is needed to design cleaner rings or to
avoid toeing of blastholes into the backfill.
Structural geology considerations such as the
presence of major geological discontinuities often
influence the blasting sequences. Other factors
considered are the stress re-distributions within
and around a stope and likely to control fall-off
behaviour on the exposed walls. In addition, the
retreat direction of the blasthole rings must take
into account the stope ventilation network, with a
retreat direction into fresh air.
6 STOPE DESIGN NOTE
A stope design note covers many aspects
involved in the development and production of a
stope (See Table 2). Technical presentations are
required to encourage technical input from all the
members of the design team (geology, rock
mechanics,
planning,
operations
and
management). They usually occur twice within the
design process: at the conceptual design stages
and prior to the issue of the final drill and blast
design. Feedback from both meetings should be
incorporated into the final stope design.
Table 2. Stope design presentation issues
Geological structures
Stope access and development requirements
Ore passes, loading bays, etc.
Stope cut-off location
Production blast directions
Stability issues, ground support requirements
Stress re-distributions assessment
Backfill or permanent pillar demands
Production schedule
Ventilation requirements
Detailed economic analysis

Once a final stope design status has been

achieved, the blasthole design is undertaken by
considering the production rigs that will be used,
the ore limits, the survey pick-up of the access
development, the extent and sublevels of the
stope, as well as the ring burden and toe spacing
(See Figure 4). The ore limits are usually updated
in accordance with the completed stope
development.

18E
18E

18B

ragm
rings

slo
Cut-off

18B

Diaphragm
rings

Main rings

Cut-off slot

18B

19C

Diaph

19C

agm
phr
Dia rings
ugh ts
T ro e rc u
und

19C

20E

Trough
undercuts

20E

20E

Figure 3. Multiple lift stope showing main ring and diaphragm ring details.

rp
Pu

ay
Fa

t
ul
Fa
le

Gr
ult

24A
2200 RL

S613
dF
Re
lt
au

25A
2150 RL

26D
26B

Figure 4. Cross section view showing drilling details in multiple lift open stoping.

A scaled floor plan showing details of the

latest survey information including any vertical
openings and status of surrounding stopes will be
provided to assist the drillers. Locations of
hangingwall, footwall, cut-off detail and location
of the main rings are also included. A long
section that includes a schematic view of the
stope cut-off raise, the cut-off, the production
rings and the trough undercuts, is also
completed. This section helps to explain the

stope design philosophy, and becomes a useful

tool during drilling and blasting of the stope.
7 STOPE EXTRACTION
The actual firing sequence used to extract
individual stopes is likely to influence stress redistribution as well as blast induced damage
within a stope. Stress and blast induced fall-off
within a stope boundary may lead to poor
mucking performance during extraction.

Although fall-off resulting from stope firing is

not the only source of poor fragmentation, it can
be
minimized
by
avoiding
excessive
undercutting of the stope walls (See Figure 5).

progressive stress relief of the shear stresses (See

Figure 6b).
1

Cutoff slot

Main rings
Cutoff slot

Drill & blast

access

Stope
undercut

Main rings

Fault
zone

Fault
zone

Cut-off slot

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Exposure of large geological features

during stoping operations.
Broken
ore
Mucking

Mucking

Figure 5. Stope wall undercutting within a stope

firing sequence.
A number of design options can be used to
reduce stope undercut; including for example,
firing the cut-off slot to the full height of the
stope before blasting of the main rings
commences. This can be followed by the
sequential blasting of the main rings to the full
stope height (Villaescusa, 2000). The objective is
to reduce the number of stope faces exposed,
thereby reducing the potential for time related
structurally controlled fall-off. Undercut of the
main rings can be avoided by designing the
troughs to be blasted with coinciding faces.
A stope firing sequence also determines the
rate of exposure of the main geological
discontinuities intersecting a stope (See Figure
6). A rapid exposure of a large fault may occur
after mass blasting or after progressive firing to a
fault (See Figure 6a). Such exposures may not
allow sufficient time for a gradual stress relief. If
the orientation of the stress field is unfavorable,
large shear stresses may result and induce local
and regional fault movements leading to stope
fall-off. In order to optimize stability, stope
firings should proceed across a structure to allow

8 STOPE PERFORMANCE
A stope performance review is undertaken as a
technical audit of a stope design process. The
review is performed during the stope extraction
(after each firing) to monitor the conditions at
the exposed stope walls, including backbreak,
underbreak and broken ore fragmentation. The
purpose of the review is to determine any
variations from a planned stope design extraction
strategy. To achieve this, a series of stope
surveys can be carried out after each significant
firing, and also following the completion of all
firings (See Figure 7).

Strike length
44m

37m 33m

26m

0m

Retreat

ok
Br

en

o re

Figure 7. Longitudinal section view of a large

scale bench stope showing consecutive surveys
indicating minimal backbreak.
.

The performance review provides a mechanism

to record the observations from operators and
technical personnel in order to indicate problems
and successes during stope extraction. A database
that highlights lessons to be learnt and
improvements to be made can be adopted for each
stope. Table 3 shows some of the typical problems
and possible solutions (by no means exhaustive)
encountered in open stoping. In addition to those
problems, stopes left open over long periods of
time may be influenced by time-dependent
regional fault behaviour. Stress re-distribution,
production blasting and backfill drainage from

adjacent stopes are likely to influence stope

stability over a period of time. Blast damage and
the effects of water from backfill can be
transmitted along common fault structures
intersecting a number of stopes. Instability may
create difficult remote mucking conditions due to
large material falling off into the stope. These
delays (stope production tails) actually extend the
stope life, which in turn may contribute to more
overbreak and more mucking delays.

Table 3. Example of potential problems and solutions in open stoping.

Open Stope Activity

Rock mass characterization

Stope design

Potential Problem

Potential Solution

Design may not be stable

Back analyze
previous extracted stopes
Geological engineering judgement

Different domain for design

Within stope boundaries
Insufficient information
Major discontinuities
intersect stope walls
Design by default
Tonnage and grade do not match the
design
Stope access is not in the appropriate
location
Orebody delineation do not match the
geological interpretation
Excessive development in waste
Not following the design
Excessive hole deviation

Drilling and blasting

Mucking

Stope survey

Not following design

Not drilling to required depth
Poor workmanship due to bonus driven
Explosive malfunctioning
Area of low or high powder factor
Falloff
Inability to establish failure triggering
mechanism
Orepass hang-up
Large fragmentation/fall-off
Long tramming distances
Poor ventilation
Poor reporting practices
Poor drawpoint condition
Continuous fall-off inside the stope
Ability to survey as stope is extracted
Limited access
Poor ventilation, laser beam can not shoot
through
Fall-off may damage equipment

More geological mapping

Consider firing sequences and
cablebolt reinforcement
Better preparation job use
databases of stope performance
Better geological interpretation
needed
Better planning
More definition drilling, use
geophysical techniques
Optimize the block design
Spot check and quality control,
better communication with
production
Down hole surveys, better
operator skills, laser alignment
Efficient supervision
Efficient supervision
There may not be a short term
solution
Review pattern
Use modelling blasting software
Less aggressive design?
Use information from seismic
system
Limit intake size (use screen)
Optimize drilling and blasting
Improve block design
Review ventilation system
More personnel training
Support and reinforcement
Exclusion periods
Communication with survey
department
Establish stope access doors
Improve ventilation
Wait until ground stabilizes

Production profiles are usually shown as

histograms of mucked volume on a daily basis.
The data in Figure 8 show that long-hole winzing
(or any re-slotting) actually slow down
productivity. Since dilution is defined as any
material that is extracted beyond the boundaries of
a designed orebody outline, a comparison of
mucked versus designed volume can be used to
estimate dilution as shown in Figure 9.

the blocks is perpendicular to the hangingwall, the

X direction parallel to the strike and Z direction
parallel to the dip of the stopes as shown in Figure
10.

Production volume (cubic metres)

1200
1000
800

Figure 10. A CMS wireframe filled with 0.25m x

0.25m x 0.25m blocks.

600
400
200
0
6-Nov

11-Nov

16-Nov

21-Nov

26-Nov

1-Dec

6-Dec

Date

Figure 8. Production profile from a high lift bench

stope

The block model can then be interrogated using

the lode hangingwall and footwall and the CMS
wireframes. The blocks inside the CMS
wireframe, yet outside the lode hangingwall
boundaries (depth of failure) need to be
determined. Once the thickness for each column
of blocks in the Y direction is calculated, the
information can then be contoured using 0.5 metre
intervals as shown in Figure 11.
0.5m

1.0m

0.5m

m
4.5
m
4.0

m
3.5

m
3.0
m
2.5

2.0m

Figure 9. Cumulative plot of time vs volume for

fired and mucked volumes.

1.5m

1.0m

1.5m

With the advent of the Cavity Monitoring

System (CMS) stope survey technique (Miller et
al., 1992), information about the actual variations
from a designed stope shape can be routinely
obtained and used analytically to calculate
dilution, depth of failure and to determine
structural control by large faults at the stope
boundaries. Contours of depth of failure can be
determined by filling the CMS wireframes with
blocks and using the stope orientation information
to orient the block model such that Y direction of

1.0m
0.5m

Figure 11. Longitudinal view of hangingwall

depth of failure contours showing structurally
controlled failure
Information from failure depths can be used to
compare stope performance between double and

single lift stopes for a similar range of strike

lengths and rock mass conditions (See Figure 12).
Back analysis of CMS data can be used as a
diagnostic tool to identify stopes where blast
damage may be causing early failures as shown in
Figure 12(a). The stope highlighted by a large
circle shows a depth of failure that is not in
accordance with the other stopes of similar size
and shape at this particular mining operation.
The data in Figure 12(b) show that for this site
similar depths of failure were experienced within
the short stopes (25m high down dip) compared
with the large stopes (50m down dip). A stronger

geometrical control on the behaviour was

experienced within the large stopes, where a range
of failure depths can be established for stopes
having a similar strike length. The depth of failure
within the short stopes was controlled by factors
other then geometry, such as blast damage or time
dependency. The depth of failure increases
sharply when the hydraulic radius exceeds 8 as
shown in Figure 13. The depth of failure in the
stope footwalls is not controlled by stope
geometry.

60

Stope depth of failure (m)

100

50

Up Dip Span (m)

80

5.3
3.4

60

3.4

2.8

40

2.5
2.5

20

5.2

Depth
of
failure

40

0-1m
1-2m
2-3m
3-4m
>4m

30

20

3.6
2.8

10

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

10

20

Strike Span (m)

30

40

50

Strike Span (m)

(b)

(a)

Figure 12. Depth of failure for different hangingwall stope geometries.

HW

FW

Total

9
8
7
Depth of Failure (m)

Up Dip Span (m)

5.6

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
3

10

11

12

Hydraulic Radius

Figure 13. Depth of failure for different hydraulic radius

60

The stope performance can also be quantified by

plotting depth of failure versus critical span as
shown in Figure 14. The economical impact of
dilution can readily be linked to depth of failure.
The larger the critical span for this particular
operation, the larger the failure depth. A reduction
on the critical spans may require additional pillars
(hence ore loss). The balance between additional
pillars versus the detrimental effects of failures
(See Figure 15) can only be established using an
economic model of dilution.

Failure Depth (m)

stope completion. The information contained

varies depending upon the stoping practices at a
particular mine site. The following issues may be
included:

Geology
Geological orebody model and interpretations,
geological structural and rock mass properties.

Stope design
Initial stope design geometry, documentation
of changes to design parameters, the reason
and the results.

Stope extraction
Drilling and blasting practice, in-the-hole
survey data and comparison to design,
fragmentation assessment.
Stope performance
Maximum spans achieved, stope survey
(CMS) data, back analysis of failures,
geotechnical information that contributed to
understanding the failures, ground support
performance.

5
4
3

2
1
0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Critical Span (m)

Figure 14. Depth of failure for different spans

within a shallow dipping tabular open stope
operation.

Figure 15. The detrimental effects of stope back

failure following stope blasting leading to ore
contamination and ore loss.
In order to ensure that the actual stope
performance information is used to the best
advantage, and to improve future designs, the
details of stope design and its underlying
assumptions can be documented in a Stope Atlas,
where the history of the stope performance is
recorded from the initial firing through to final

Stope summary
A one page stope performance review for easy
reference (See Table 4).

Table 4. Suggested stope performance assessment summary

STOPE PERFORMANCE REVIEW
By:
Designed
Actual

Stope name:
Date:
Material
Tonnes mucked
Ore (t)
Grade (%)
Internal dilution (%)
External dilution (%)
Underbreak (%)
Fill dilution (%)
Geology:
The effects of major geological structures, rock types and properties
Reasons for any difference between design and actual grade and tonnes
Development:
Problems and concerns regarding ground conditions
Performance of ground support
Drilling:
Whether any holes or ring section could not be drilled as planned, set-up or deviation problems.
Reasons for variation from design.
Blasting:
Any problems encountered with charging, firing or design sequence.
The results of the blast, eg. Fragmentation, misfires, freezing of holes, induced failures
Production mucking:
Ventilation problems or otherwise with chosen circuit. Drawpoint and orepass conditions. Broken ore
left in base of stope?
Backfill:
Condition of fill passes, filling times and cement ratios used, any problems encountered.
Rock mechanics:
Stope and adjacent development stability. Timing of failures, and features that contributed to dilution,
effects of blasting, structure and stress.
Exposure and stability of adjacent fill masses.
Planning and design:
General comments on original vs. actual extraction. Recommended changes to design procedure.
Financial analysis of stope extraction.

9 CONCLUSIONS
The Stope performance is measured by the ability
to achieve maximum extraction with minimal
dilution. The key variable used to compare
performance is depth of failure, which is
calculated using CMS wireframes and the
designed stope boundaries. The data show that
depth of failure can be used to identify blast
damage and other factors controlling stability such
as time dependency. Depth of failure increases
significantly when the stope size exceeds a critical
value and can be readily used to develop
economic models of dilution.

REFERENCES
Miller, F., Jacob, D. and Y. Potvin, 1992. Cavity
Monitoring System: Update and applications. 94th
Annual General Meeting. Canadian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy, Montreal.
Villaescusa, E., 1998. Geotechnical design for dilution
control in underground mining. Mine Planning and
Equipment Selection. Singhal R. (ed), Balkema,
Rotterdam, 141-149.
Villaescusa, E. 2000. A review of sublevel stoping.
MassMin2000, Chitombo G. (ed), The AusIMM:
Melbourne, 577-590.