International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and

Environment

ISSN: 1748-0930 (Print) 1748-0949 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsme20

Evaluation of air blast parameters in block cave

mining using particle flow code

J. Oh, M. Bahaaddini , M. Sharifzadeh & Z. Chen

To cite this article: J. Oh, M. Bahaaddini , M. Sharifzadeh & Z. Chen (2017): Evaluation of air
blast parameters in block cave mining using particle flow code, International Journal of Mining,
Reclamation and Environment, DOI: 10.1080/17480930.2017.1342064

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2017.1342064

Published online: 20 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nsme20

Download by: [Mount Sinai Health System Libraries] Date: 28 June 2017, At: 08:28
International Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930.2017.1342064

Evaluation of air blast parameters in block cave mining using

particle flow code
J. Oha, M. Bahaaddinib  , M. Sharifzadehc and Z. Chend 
a
School of Mining Engineering, UNSW Australia, Sydney, Australia; bHigher Education Complex of Zarand, Shahid
Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran; cWestern Australian School of Mines, Curtin University, Perth, Australia;
d
School of Mechanical & Mining Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Air blast, a sudden mass movement of air, can occur in underground Received 12 August 2016
mining system where caving develops an extensive mass of unsupported Accepted 10 June 2017
rock spanning a large void. Air blast can result in injury to mine personnel,
KEYWORDS
damage to equipment or disrupts mine operation. Evaluation of air blast Air blast; block caving;
parameters is, therefore, an essential part to develop strategies to mitigate muckpile; caved zone;
the hazard. The properties of a muckpile or a caved zone are significant blasted zone; PFC2D
factors affecting the magnitude of air blast in particular on the undercut and
extraction levels. This research investigates the effect of muckpile properties
on air flow using the numerical code, PFC2D. The critical parameters such
as thickness, block size and porosity (swell factor) of the muckpile have
been studied to quantify how much they could change the magnitude of
air pressures and velocities while the air flows through the muckpile. It was
found that the porosity of the muckpile is the most effective parameter on
the magnitude of air blast and by designing a thick layer of blasted rock
with low porosity in the caved zone, the intensity of the air blast can be
significantly reduced. The findings of this study can be used to design air
blast plugs or bulkheads in order to isolate any potential air blast from the
active workings, or to quantify the minimum thickness of the muckpile above
extraction levels to manage air blast hazards.

1. Introduction
Air blast can be defined as a rapid flow of air, which is compressed in a confined space, through
underground openings. This phenomenon is the result of sudden fall of a large volume of rock. In
underground coal mining, this phenomenon is sometimes called ‘wind blast’.
Duplancic and Brady [1], using seismic monitoring system in the Northparkes block caving mine
(located in New South Wales, Australia) and analysing seismic data, developed a conceptual model of
the caving, as shown in Figure 1. By advancing the undercut, five regions are generated namely: caved
zone, air gap, zone of loosening, seismogenic zone and pseudo-continuous region. Blocks of fallen
rocks from the cave back form the caved zone and they provide support to the walls of the cave. By
propagation of the cave, the air gap zone is formed. The air gap’s size is dependent on the extraction rate
of materials from the caved zone. In the zone of loosening, which is also called yielded zone, the rock
mass has lost most or all of its cohesive strength. The rock mass in this zone is subjected to significant

CONTACT  M. Bahaaddini  m_bahaaddini@uk.ac.ir

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2   J. OH ET AL.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of caving zones [1].

Figure 2. Causes of air blast in block caving mines [2].

damage and large-scale displacements occur due to disintegration of the rock mass. By brittle failure
of the rock and slip on discontinuities, seismogenic zone is formed. The active seismic behaviour of
this zone is related to the change of stress conditions by advancing the undercut and propagation of
the cave. The rock mass surrounding the seismogenic region is a pseudo-continuous zone in which
elastic deformations take place [1].
The main causes of air blast in block caving and panel caving mines are illustrated in Figure 2. In
the worst case (Figure 2(a)), compression of the air takes place by sudden collapse of the whole crown
pillar into the underneath void gap under the influence of gravity. The air is compressed in a process
like piston effect and under high pressure it will escape through connected openings. The compressed
air travels through drawpoints to extraction-level drifts and makes its way out of the mine usually via
ventilation and access shafts. The other type of air blast, shown in Figure 2(b), can be caused by falls
of large blocks of rock above the air void. The severity of this air blast is less compared to the first type
but still violent and damaging, especially for blocks of rock with large basal areas [2].
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   3

The air blast can lead to serious consequences causing fatalities as occurred at the Northparkes
Mine, NSW on 24 November 1999. In metalliferous mines, air blast is principally an issue in block
or panel caving and sublevel caving, although on occasions air blast has arisen from crown pillar
failure in open stopes [3]. Heslop [4] stated that the phenomenon is ‘more common than one might
imagine’ and Dolipas [5] reported the occurrence of air blast at the Philex block cave operation in the
Philippines. Escobar et al. [6] also presented the results of the investigation into the Codelco Chile
Salvador Division’s air blast. In a section of the block cave mine, a stable arch formed covering an area
of approximately 15,000 m2, and subsequently its collapse produced a massive air blast [6]. Given the
growing number of caving operations, air blast is likely to become an increasing occurrence. Therefore,
evaluation of air blast parameters, such as air velocities and overpressures, is an essential part to develop
strategies to mitigate the hazard. Design of air blast plugs for caving operations is in high demand in
this regard. It is obvious that the success of the appropriate design of air plugs or air blast barricades
is dependent on the reliable prediction of the magnitude of the air blast.
A few attempts have been undertaken to quantify the resulting overpressure or air velocity in the
process of air blast by modelling [7–9]. However, the assumptions which have been used in those
models are idealised or very simple. Permeability of the muckpile or the caved zone has a significant
effect on the magnitude of air blast in particular on the undercut and extraction levels, which can be
used for estimation of air pressure or velocity for designing plugs. Although there are other compli-
cated factors involved in the air blast phenomenon, it is interesting to note that at Northparkes Mine,
Australia, the thickness of the muckpile at the time of the air blast was of the order of 60 metres and
none of the undercut and extraction levels were disturbed or damaged [10]. On the other hand, it was
reported that at Urad Mine, USA, the air blast penetrated about 61 to 76 metres of broken muck and
was still strong enough to blow people down [11]. A large number of numerical studies can be found
in the literature which investigate the mechanism of cave propagation and seismic hazards in block
caving mines, such as [12–15], but studies about the modelling of air blast are very limited [16,17]. A
review of previous studies shows that a numerical model, which can fully represent the behaviour of
compressed air through the muckpile, cannot be found. This is mostly due to the complexity of the
process and thus no reliable predictions of the magnitude of air blast have been made yet.
This paper aims to investigate the effect of the muckpile properties on the air flow using the numer-
ical code, PFC2D. The validity of the numerical model was assessed by comparing the simulation
results against analytical solutions such as Ergun’s equation for both laminar and turbulent flows. The
critical parameters such as thickness, block size and porosity (swell factor) of the muckpile have been
studied in this research to quantify how much they could change the magnitude of air pressures and
velocities when the air flows through the muckpile. The findings of this study can be used to design
air blast plugs or bulkheads in order to isolate any potential air blast from the active working areas
in underground mines.

2.  Numerical analysis of air flow through a porous media

Nowadays, numerical modelling is known as a scientific and low-cost tool to discover the mecha-
nisms which are controlled physical phenomena. This approach is used extensively in mining and
geomechanics engineering concerns, such as stability analysis of surface and underground excavations
[18–20] and fluid flow in mining waste rocks [21,22].
Air flow through the muckpile can be attributed to various physical mechanisms. The major
mechanical nature of air flow is due to an exerted forced flow as a result of pressure difference. In
general, there are two ways to numerically simulate air flow through the muckpile or the broken rocks.
The first approach is to assume the broken rock as an equivalent continuum media which consists
of permeable material, and the second approach is to consider the broken rock as an assemblage of
separate elements and the flow ways are formed from the interstitial space between these elements.
Particle flow code (PFC) is a discrete element code that represents the rock material as an assembly
of circular particles (PFC2D) or spherical particles (PFC3D) [23]. The mechanical behaviour of the
4   J. OH ET AL.

material in this code is simulated by the displacement and force interaction of these particles. The
basic relationship between forces and particles motions is governed by the inter-particle forces at
their contact points and Newton’s laws of motion [23]. PFC has successfully been used for numerical
simulations of the mechanical behaviour of rock joints and jointed rock masses under different loading
regimes [24–30]. This code has the ability to simulate the fluid scheme in a grained medium [31]. In
PFC, the coupled fluid particle simulations are undertaken using the fixed coarse grid flow scheme. This
scheme solves the two phase of fluid and solid mass and momentum equations using the generalised
form of the Navier–Stokes equation using the well-known SIMPLE scheme [32].
In order to include the effect of particle solid phase into the fluid, the Navier–Stokes equations can
be modified as described by Bouillard et al. [33],
𝜕𝜖𝜈
𝜌f + 𝜌f v⃗.∇(𝜖nu) = −𝜖∇p + 𝜇∇2 (𝜖𝜈) + Fb (1)
𝜕t

𝜕𝜖
+ ∇(𝜖𝜈) = 0 (2)
𝜕t
The former is called fluid moment equation. In this equation, the first term on the left side is repre-
sentative of local acceleration and the second term denotes convective acceleration. The terms on the
right side are representative of pressure gradient, momentum loss due to viscosity and drag force per
unit volume, respectively. The latter equation is called continuity equation. In these equations, ρf is
the fluid density, μ is dynamic viscosity of fluid, ∊ is porosity, p is the fluid pressure and v is the fluid
velocity. Two types of velocity are available in porous media flow, namely interstitial velocity and
macroscopic velocity. The interstitial velocity is the actual velocity with which the fluid moves through
the pores of porous media while the macroscopic velocity is defined as the volumetric flow rate over
the cross-sectional area. The above-mentioned velocity v is the interstitial velocity [23].
The porosity is defined as,
Vp
𝜖 = 1− (3)
V
where Vp is the total volume of particles and V is the volume of fluid cell. The drag force in each fluid
element is calculated as,
Fb = 𝛽U (4)
where β is a drag coefficient and U is the average relative velocity between particle and fluid, which
is defined as,
U =u−𝜈 (5)
where ū is the average velocity of all particles in a given cell and v is the fluid velocity [23]. The drag
coefficient β is dependent on the porosity of fluid element and can be calculated as [34],
⎧ � �
⎪
1−𝜖
150(1 − ̄
𝜖)𝜇 + 1.75𝜌f d�U� 𝜖 < 0.8
d̄ 2 𝜖 2
𝛽=⎨ 4 �U�𝜌f (1−𝜖) (6)
⎪ 3 d
C d𝜖 ̄ 1.7 𝜖 ≥ 0.8
⎩
where d̄ is the average particle diameter in the element and Cd is a turbulent drag coefficient which is
dependent on the Reynolds number Rep,
{ (1 + 0.15Rep0.687 )
24 Rep < 1000
Cd = Rep
(7)
0.44 Rep < 1000
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   5

where Reynolds number can be calculated as,

̄
𝜖𝜌f d|U|
Rep = (8)
𝜇

The above-mentioned equations give the body force by the fluid as a consequence of moving particles.
The total applied force to the particle by the fluid is a summation of drag force and buoyancy force,
4 3 Fb 4
Ffluid = Fdrag + Fbuoyancy = 𝜋r + 𝜋r 3 𝜌f g (9)
3 (1 − 𝜖) 3
In the equations of particle motion, the fluid force is applied to the centre of particle and no rotational
moment term is considered [23].
{ F +F
𝜕u
= mechm fluid + g
𝜕t
𝜕𝜔 (10)
𝜕t
= MI

The fluid region is discretised into fluid cells using a staggered grid. In order to define a different grid
for each velocity component, a scalar grid is defined as shown in Figure 3, where each cell is a control
volume within which a uniform pressure acts. There are four types of boundary conditions for fluid
model, including pressure, velocity, slip and non-slip. The slip boundary condition specifies zero veloc-
ity normal to the boundary and there is no restriction on tangential velocity while non-slip condition
specifies zero velocity normal and tangential to the boundary. Thus, the slip and non-slip conditions
describe the interaction of the fluid with a physical constraint. A layer of virtual cells surrounds the
fluid region and is used to define the boundary conditions of a model [23].
PFC2D undertakes the fluid analysis based on the pseudo-3D analysis. It means that the Navier–
Stokes equations are solved in 2D but the porosity calculation is undertaken based on the volumes of
spheres. Fluid cells are assumed to have an out of plane depth equal to the maximum particle size and
particles with diameter less than the maximum particle diameter are scaled by a factor of maximum
particle diameter to the particle diameter. This assumption is based on the fact that calculation of
porosity based on the 2D area of discs would underestimate the porosity and consequently overesti-
mate the particle forces compared to 3D analysis [23].

3.  Verification of the numerical modelling

This section aims to investigate the reliability of the numerical model in estimation of the flow rate in a
porous media by comparing against the analytical models. Darcy was among the first who investigated
the flow rate in a porous media and showed that the flow rate Q in a packed column of sands is directly
related to the cross-sectional area A, hydrodynamic head difference h1 – h2 and inversely related to the
length of column L. The generalised form of Darcy equation can be expressed as,
K
Q = − A(∇p − 𝜌g) (11)
𝜇
where ∇p is pressure gradient vector, μ and ρ are dynamic viscosity and density of fluid, respectively,
and K is permeability with unit m2. However, the Darcy equation is only valid for laminar flow and
when the fluid flow changes to turbulent flow, the results of experiments and Darcy method diverge.
Ergun [35] assumed that the total pressure drop ∆P is due to viscous and kinematic factors and by
undertaking a large number of experiments, he proposed the following equation which is valid for a
wide range of Reynolds numbers for both laminar and turbulent flows,
150(1 − 𝜖)2 Q𝜇L 1.75(1 − 𝜖)𝜌Q2 L
ΔP = + (12)
𝜖3d2A 𝜖 3 dA2
6   J. OH ET AL.

Figure 3. Fluid cells and definition of staggered and scalar cells [23].

This equation can be written in terms of flow rate as follows,

√
1.75(1 − 𝜖)4d 3 𝜖 3 ||∇p||𝜌 − 1502 (1 − 𝜖)4 𝜇2 − 150𝜇(1 − 𝜖)2
Q =A× (13)
1.75(1 − 𝜖)2d𝜌
For a validation study, a porous media having a width of 50 mm and a height of 100 mm was gener-
ated, as shown in Figure 4. Assemblies of randomly placed particles with an average particle diameter
of 2.58 mm were generated (non-uniform sized particles in the range of 1.98–3.16 mm). The models
were generated with two different porosities of 0.26 and 0.41. Properties of rock and air are presented
in Table 1. The slip boundary condition was set to the sides of the models. Two different boundary
conditions were assigned for this validation study, as shown in Figure 4.
In the first case, the pressure drop (the pressure difference between the inlet and outlet of the model)
was varied and the effect of this change on the flow rate was measured. Pressure boundary conditions
were applied for both top and bottom of the model. The inlet pressure was varied in the range of 100 Pa
to 35 kPa and the outlet flow rate was measured at different pressure gradients. The pressure of 35 kPa
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   7

Inlet pressure (case I) or velocities (Case II)

Slip boundary
Slip boundary

P = 0 Pa

Figure 4. Schematic view of a randomly generated assembly and fluid model boundary conditions.

Table 1. Properties of particles and fluid.

Rock material (Particles) Air

Normal stiffness Shear stiffness Friction coefficient Density Viscosity Density
1.0 × 106 N/m 1.0 × 106 N/m 0.5 2600 kg/m3 1.8 × 10−5 Pa.s 1.2 kg/m3

is the maximum recorded overpressure in Moonee Colliery mine and was considered as a threshold
of a rapid increase in injury at the working place generated by wind blast or air blast [36]. The change
of pressure through the medium with low porosity (0.26) is shown in Figure 5. The measured flow
rates were compared against the Ergun analytical model and the results are presented in Figure 6.
Results of this comparison show that there is a good agreement between the results of numerical and
analytical models for both porosities of 0.26 and 0.41.
For the second validation study case, the effect of flow rate on the pressure drop was studied. A
velocity boundary condition was assigned to the top of the model and the inlet velocity was changed
in the range of 1 to 100 m/s. The boundary pressure of atmosphere was assigned to the bottom of the
model and the difference between the inlet and outlet air pressure (fluid pressure drop) through the
porous media was measured for both porosities of 0.26 and 0.41. Results of the comparison between
numerical and analytical models are presented in Figure 7 which show a good agreement between
them.
Therefore, the results of this validation study clearly show that PFC has the ability to simulate
the fluid flow through the muckpile and this code can be used to investigate the effect of muckpile
parameters on the magnitude of the air blast.

4.  Parametric studies on pressure drop through a muckpile

In this section, detailed parametric studies were conducted to evaluate the effect of muckpile parame-
ters on the air flow. Previous studies have shown that the height, porosity of muckpile, size of broken
rocks, etc. have significant effects on the magnitude of air blast [3,4,37]. However, the effect of these
parameters has not been well studied. In order to provide realistic simulations of air flow through a
muckpile, a typical block caving mine parameters were chosen for this study. The muckpiles consisting
8   J. OH ET AL.

P = 35 kPa

Cell Height (m × 10-2)

P = 0 Pa

Pressure Drop (Pa × 104)

Figure 5. Change of pressure in low porosity random porous media at high inlet pressure.

40000
Analytical Porosity 0.26
35000
Analytical Porosity 0.41
30000
Pressure Drop (Pa)

Numerical Porosity 0.26

25000
Numerical Porosity 0.41
20000

15000

10000

5000

0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012
Flow rate (m3/sec)

Figure 6. Comparison of the results of numerical models against analytical model under the varying inlet pressures.

of blasted rocks and caved rocks having the width of 220 m with different muckpile thicknesses were
generated. The lower level of the muckpile was assumed to be blasted (in some cases of this study) in
order to enhance the cave extraction, which is called blasted rocks. Blasted rocks have smaller particle
diameters and lower porosity compared to the caved rock. A typical model of a muckpile consisting
of caved and blasted rocks is shown in Figure 8. It should be noted that the sensitivity analysis began
with separate muckpile models – blasted rock or caved rock in order to avoid uncertainty caused by
composite materials. Then, simulations were made for muckpile models consisting of both blasted
and caved rocks.
Previous studies have shown that the air blast or wind blast exhibits a rapid rise in pressure or
velocity to a maximum and then shows a sudden reversal into the suck back phase [3]. Therefore,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   9

3.E+07
Ergun Porosity 0.26
Ergun Porosity 0.41
2.E+07
Numerical Porosity 0.26
Pressure Drop (Pa)
Numerical Porosity 0.41
2.E+07

1.E+07

5.E+06

0.E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Velocity (m/sec)

Figure 7. Comparison of the results of numerical models against analytical model under the various inlet velocities.

V i n = given

Caved rock

Blasted rock

P = 0.0

Figure 8. Schematic view of a muckpile model consisting of blasted and caved rocks.

the velocity time history was used as inlet velocity for simulations, for which the velocity graph of a
typical air blast was reconstructed as illustrated in Figure 9. The same material properties of rock and
air as used in the previous section were employed for the following parametric studies and boundary
conditions similar to second case of validation study were employed for the parametric studies.

4.1.  Effect of muckpile thickness on pressure drop

In order to investigate the effect of muckpile thickness on the air flow through the muckpiles, separate
muckpiles consisting of (only) blasted rock with porosity of 39% and (only) caved rock with porosity
of 20% were generated. For the blasted muckpile, the average particle size Davg = 0.986 m and the ratio
of maximum to minimum particle size Dmax/Dmin = 1.5 were chosen. For the caved muckpile, Davg
of 1.53 m and Dmax/Dmin = 2 were chosen. Muckpiles with different heights were generated for both
blasted and caved cases and the results are presented in Figure 10 and Figure 11. The results show that
as the muckpile height increases, the pressure drop increases, as it was expected. It is interesting to
note that for both blasted and caved rocks, there is a linear increase of pressure drop with an increase
in the muckpile height, but the rate of increment for the blasted muckpile is much higher than that of
the caved rock due to its lower porosity, as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11.
10   J. OH ET AL.

140

120

100
Inlet Velocity (m/sec)
80

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-20
Time (second)

Figure 9. Inlet air velocity time history for numerical simulation taken from a typical air blast [36].

(a) (b)
180 180
10 m
160
Peak Pressure Drop (MPa)

20 m 150
140 40 m
Pressure Drop (MPa)

120 60 m 120
100 75 m
y = 1.72x
90 m 90
80
60
60
40
20 30
0
0
-20 0 2 4 6
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (second) Height (m)

Figure 10. Effect of muckpile height on the pressure drop of blasted rock; (a) Pressure drop time history and (b) Peak pressure drop.

(a) (b)
30 30
10 m
Peak Pressure Drop (MPa)

25 20 m 25
40 m
Pressure Drop (MPa)

20 y = 0.2787x
60 m 20
75 m
15 15
90 m
10 10
5 5
0
0
0 2 4 6
0 20 40 60 80 100
-5
Time (second) Height (m)

Figure 11. Effect of muckpile height on the pressure drop of caved rock; (a) Pressure drop time history and (b) Peak pressure drop.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   11

4.2.  Effect of muckpile particle size on pressure drop

To investigate the effect of particle size on air flow behaviour through the muckpile, blasted muck-
piles (porosity 39%) with average particle size Davg in the range of 0.62–1.86  m (with constant
Dmax/Dmin = 1.5) and caved muckpiles (porosity 20%) with Davg in the range of 0.74–2.21 m (with
constant Dmax/Dmin = 2) were generated. The height of muckpiles was chosen to be 20 m. The results
of this analysis are presented in Figure 12 and Figure 13, which shows that the decrease of particle
size results in the increment of pressure drop. A linear relationship was found between the reverse
of particle size and the peak pressure drop for both blasted and caved muckpiles, as shown in Figure
12 and Figure 13.

4.3.  Effect of muckpile porosity

4.3.1.  Muckpile consisting of single zone
This section aims to study the effect of porosity on the air flow behaviour through the muckpile. To this
end, the particle size was kept constant and the thickness of a muckpile was set as 60 m. The muckpile
particle size was selected Davg = 1.53 m and Dmax/Dmin = 2. The porosity was varied in the range of 20%
to 39% and the results are presented in Figure 14. It can be clearly seen that the reduction of porosity
can lead to a significant decrease in pressure drop. It can also be found that the porosity is the most

(a) (b)
80 80
Davg = 0.74 m
70 Davg = 1.18 m 70
Peak Pressure Drop (MPa)
Pressure Drop (MPa)

60 Davg = 1.53 m 60
Davg = 1.77 m y = 52.697x
50 Davg = 2.21 m 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
-10 0 2 4 6 0 0.5 1 1.5
Time (second) 1/Davg (m-1)

Figure 12. Effect of muckpile particle size on the pressure drop of blasted rock; (a) Pressure drop time history and (b) Peak pressure
drop.

(a) (b)
10 10
Davg = 0.62 m
9 9
Peak Pressure Drop (MPa)

Davg = 0.99 m
8 Davg = 1.24 m 8
Pressure Drop (MPa)

y = 5.4974x
7 Davg = 1.86 m 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
-1 0 2 4 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time (second) 1/Davg (m-1)

Figure 13. Effect of muckpile particle size on the pressure drop of caved rock; (a) Pressure drop time history and (b) Peak pressure drop.
12   J. OH ET AL.

(a) (b)
120 120
Porosity = 20%

Peak Pressure Drop (MPa)

100 100
Porosity = 30%
Pressure Drop (MPa)

80 80
Porosity = 39% y = 3E+06x-3.388
60 60
40 40
20
20
0
0 2 4 6 0
-20 0 20 40 60
Time (second) Porosity (%)

Figure 14. Effect of muckpile porosity on the pressure drop; (a) Pressure drop time history and (b) Peak pressure drop.

500
450 Blasted/Caved porosity 10/30
400 Blasted/Caved porosity 20/40
Pressure Drop (MPa)

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time (second)

Figure 15. Effect of porosity on pressure drop of muckpile consisted blasted and caved rocks.

effective parameter on pressure drop and for the muckpiles with low porosities, a minor change of
porosity can lead to a significant drop in pressure, thereby reducing the intensity of the air blast.

4.3.2.  Muckpile consisting of blasted and caved rocks

A muckpile was generated consisting of blasted and caved rocks to simulate the muckpile as close as
possible to the field conditions. The blasted and caved rocks had heights of 20 m and 30 m, respectively,
as shown in Figure 8. Size of particles for blasted rock was chosen as Davg = 0.986 m and Dmax/Dmin = 1.5
and for caved rock was chosen as Davg = 1.532 m and Dmax/Dmin = 2.
Two models with blasted/caved rock porosities of 40% / 20% and 30% / 10% were generated and the
pressure differences in these two models were compared. The results are presented in Figure 15 which
shows that in the model with lower muckpile porosity, the air pressure is significantly reduced and
consequently the risk of air blast in this muckpile is much lower than the muckpile with higher porosity.

5. Discussion
As noted in Section 1, there are no numerical, experimental and analytical models which can fully
simulate the whole process of air blast in block caving mines. This is related to the complex mecha-
nism of air blast in underground mines. However, numerical modelling can provide a scientific tool
to enhance our understandings about its mechanism.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   13

This research has been focused on the management of air blast magnitude using the muckpile
properties. The effect of muckpile on the management and control of air blast can be investigated
from two aspects. The first aspect is related to the size of air gap above the muckpile. The scale of an
air blast is directly related to the volume of air gap, the travelling height of the plug and the area of the
plug. By designing an appropriate muckpile height above the extraction drawpoints, the volume of air
gap and travelling height can be reduced and the corresponding magnitude of air blast is reduced. The
second aspect is related to management of a caused air blast using the properties of muckpile. Results
of this study clearly show that the muckpile height, size of broken rocks and porosity of muckpile are
effective parameters on the magnitude of air blast. The fragmented muckpile can provide a safe height
above the drawpoints where there is less chance of air travel through the fine blasted materials with
appropriate height. The porosity or swelling factor of muckpile is the most effective parameter on air
blast which can reduce air pressure significantly (for example, the decrease in porosity form 39% to
20% can reduce the air blast pressure by one order of magnitude). Increasing the height of muckpile
and reducing size of broken rocks in the muckpile by blasting can also reduce air blast severity.
Therefore, designing a thick and low porosity muckpile can reduce air blast intensity. However,
in designing the height of muckpile, the size distribution and the coarse nature of the muckpile need
to be taken into consideration. It means that for example, 60 metres of a well-graded muckpile may
prevent air travel through the mining openings but 90 metres of poorly graded muckpile might be
required to manage the air blast risk at the same situation [38].
In order to improve the findings of this study for practical purposes, the following recommenda-
tions are suggested for future studies:
In the current study, the input values of air pressures or velocities have been taken from the lit-
erature and the change of these values through the muckpile has been studied. Future works should
be focused on predicting the magnitude of air pressures and velocities from the falling rock mass in
underground mines. It will require more comprehensive and complicated numerical modelling tech-
niques, for instance, considering computational fluid dynamics and geomechanics together, as well
as providing site-specific information such as local geology and mine layout.
In this study, the muckpile was assumed as circular particles with different sizes while the irregular
shape of rock blocks was not considered. This limitation is related to usage of circular particles for
fluid analysis in PFC. However, the particle shape seems to have a minor effect on the pressure drop
change than the critical parameters investigated here. Nonetheless, this factor needs to be consid-
ered for further study to obtain better estimation of the air pressure change. Another limitation of
this study is the assumption of fluid incompressibility in PFC. Unlike water, this assumption is not
valid for many situations. The falling rock mass or the cave back will compress the air beneath and
force it out of the void through the muckpile or surrounding openings. The numerical simulations
performed in this study use air pressures or velocities from those measured compressed air as input
values, and then compute the pressure change in terms of porosity, thickness and rock particle size
of the muckpile. Therefore, the assumption of air incompressibility made here is believed to have no
significant effect on conclusions drawn from the current study. More studies are required to develop
a numerical model which can simulate the whole process of compressing air by falling rocks, air flow
through the muckpile and mining system.

6. Conclusions
This paper presents the effect of the muckpile properties on air flow using the numerical code, PFC2D.
The critical parameters such as thickness, block size and porosity (swell factor) of the muckpile have
been studied to quantify how much they can change the magnitude of air pressures resulting from the
air blast. The study indicates that the porosity of a muckpile is the most effective parameter on pressure
change. It was observed that linear relationships exist between the height of muckpile and reverse of
particle size with pressure drop. Therefore, the study in this paper not only illustrates commonly held
notions regarding the air flow behaviour through the porous media, but provides quantitative values
14   J. OH ET AL.

of the change in air pressure from given inlet values. The findings of this research show that design
of a well-graded muckpile with appropriate height can provide a safety region above the drawpoints
to manage air blast intensity. These findings can also be used to design air blast plugs or bulkheads in
order to isolate any potential air blast from the active workings and to quantify the minimum thickness
of the muckpile above extraction levels as a cushion to manage air blast hazards.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Glenn Sharrock and Dr. Jason Furtney from Itasca Consulting Group for
their technical help and invaluable suggestions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Mining Education Australia (MEA), Collaborative Research Grant Scheme [grant
number RG140569].

ORCID
M. Bahaaddini   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8957-8092
Z. Chen   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0782-0648

References
  [1] P. Duplancic and B.H. Brady, Characterisation of caving mechanisms by analysis of seismicity and rock stress, 9th
International Congress on Rock Mechanics, Paris, 1999.
 [2] E.T. Brown, Block caving geomechanics, Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre, Queensland, 2003.
  [3] J.C.W. Fowler, B.K. Hebblewhite, and P. Sharma, Managing the hazard of wind blast/air blast in caving operations
in Australian underground mines, 10th ISRM Congress, Sandton, 2003.
 [4] T.G. Heslop, Block caving – controllable risk and fatal flaws, Massmin 2000, Brisbane, 2000.
 [5] R.S. Dolipas, Rock mechanics as applied in Philex block cave operations, MassMin 2000, Brisbane, 2000.
  [6] R. Escobar, N. de, and M.F. Tapia, An underground air blast – Codelco Chile – Division Salvador, MassMin 2000,
Brisbane, Queensland, 2000.
 [7] M.J. McPherson, The adiabatic compression of air by large falls of roof, 7th US Mine Ventilation Symposium,
Lexington, KY, 1995.
 [8] W. Lin, The ignition of methane and coal dust by air compression—The experimental proof, Master diss., Virginia
Tech University, 1997.
  [9] Y.J. Song and L.S. Xu, Study of the impact of mining under massive roof at Datong coal mines, China, 11th International
Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Wollongong, Australia, 1992.
[10] S. Bell, Northparkes fatalities puts spotlight of block caving technique, Australia’s Mining Monthly December 1999–
January 2000 (1999), pp. 51–57.
[11] R. Kendrick, Introduction caving of the Urad mine, Min Cong J 56 (1970), pp. 39–44.
[12] K.S. Woo, E. Eberhardt, D. Elmo, D. Stead, and P.K. Kaiser, Benchmark testing of numerical approaches for modelling
the influence of undercut depth on caving, fracture initiation and subsidence angles associated with block cave mining,
Mining Technol: Trans Inst Mining Metall: Sec A 123 (2014), pp. 128–139.
[13] B.-A. Sainsbury, A model for cave propagation and subsidence assessment in jointed rock masses, PhD diss, UNSW
Australia, 2012.
[14] D.A. Beck and B.H.G. Brady, Evaluation and application of controlling parameters for seismic events in hard-rock
mines, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci 39 (2002), pp. 633–642.
[15] J.P. Hurtado, N. Díaz, E.I. Acuña, and J. Fernández, Shock losses characterization of ventilation circuits for block
caving production levels, Tunn Underg Sp Tech 41 (2014), pp. 88–94.
[16] J.B. Albrecht, W.H. Gibson, A. Vakili, M.P. Sandy, and K. Ross, Application of advanced numerical modelling
techniques for the assessment of cavability, subsidence and airblast hazard in a sublevel cave mine, Caving 2010,
Perth, 2010.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINING, RECLAMATION AND ENVIRONMENT   15

[17] V. Mutton, J. Watson, and U. Singh, Design of air-blast plugs for a sublevel caving operation, Second Australasian
Ground Control in Mining, 2010.
[18] G.D. Raju, H. Mitri, D. Thibodeau, and L. Moreau-Verlaan, Numerical modelling and in situ monitoring of drift
support performance with respect to mining sequence, Int J Min Reclam Environ 29 (2015), pp. 83–95.
[19] V.K. Singh, M. Prasad, S.K. Singh, D.G. Rao, and U.K. Singh, Slope design based on geotechnical study and numerical
modelling of a deep open pit mine in India, Int J Surf Min Reclam Environ 9 (1995), pp. 105–111.
[20] C. Wang, D.D. Tannant, and P.A. Lilly, Numerical analysis of the stability of heavily jointed rock slopes using PFC2D,
Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40 (2003), pp. 415–424.
[21] O. Fala, J. Molson, M. Aubertin, I. Dawood, B. Bussière, and R.P. Chapuis, A numerical modelling approach to
assess long-term unsaturated flow and geochemical transport in a waste rock pile, Int J Surf Min Reclam Environ
27 (2013), pp. 38–55.
[22] B. Lahmira and R. Lefebvre, Numerical modelling of transfer processes in a waste rock pile undergoing the temporal
evolution of its heterogeneous material properties, Int J Surf Min Reclam Environ 29 (2015), pp. 499–520.
[23] Itasca Consulting Group Inc, PFC2D manual, version 4.0, Minneapolis, MI, 2008.
[24] M. Bahaaddini, P.C. Hagan, R. Mitra, and B.K. Hebblewhite, Numerical study of the mechanical behaviour of non-
persistent jointed rock masses, Int J Geomech 16 (2016), pp. 040150351–40150351.
[25] M. Bahaaddini, P.C. Hagan, R. Mitra, and M.H. Khosravi, Experimental and numerical study of asperity degradation
in the direct shear test, Eng Geol 204 (2016), pp. 41–52.
[26] D. Mas Ivars, M.E. Pierce, C. Darcel, J. Reyes-Montes, D.O. Potyondy, R.P. Young, and P.A. Cundall, The synthetic
rock mass approach for jointed rock mass modelling, Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 48 (2011), pp. 219–244.
[27] M. Bahaaddini, P.C. Hagan, R. Mitra, and B.K. Hebblewhite, Scale effect on the shear behaviour of rock joints based
on a numerical study, Eng Geol 181 (2014), pp. 212–223.
[28] J. Hadjigeorgiou, K. Esmaieli, and M. Grenon, Stability analysis of vertical excavations in hard rock by integrating
a fracture system into a PFC model, Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 24 (2009), pp. 296–308.
[29] X.F. Li, H.B. Li, Y.Q. Liu, Q.C. Zhou, and X. Xia, Numerical simulation of rock fragmentation mechanisms subject
to wedge penetration for TBMs, Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 53 (2016), pp. 96–108.
[30] M. Bahaaddini, P.C. Hagan, R. Mitra, and B.K. Hebblewhite, Parametric Study of Smooth Joint Parameters on the
Shear Behaviour of Rock Joints, Rock Mech Rock Eng 48 (2015), pp. 923–940.
[31] Y. Shimizu, Fluid coupling in PFC2D and PFC3D, 2nd International PFC Symposium, Kyoto, 2004.
[32] S.V. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere Series on Computational Methods in Mechanics
and Thermal Science, CRC Press, 1980.
[33] J.X. Bouillard, R.W. Lyczkowski, and D. Gidaspow, Porosity distributions in a fluidized bed with an immersed
obstacle, AIChE J 35 (1989), pp. 908–922.
[34] C.Y. Wen and Y.H. Yu, Mechanics of fluidization, Chemical Engineering Progress Symposium, 1966.
[35] S. Ergun, Fluid flow through packed columns, Chemical Engineering Progress 48 (1952), pp. 89–94.
[36] J.C.W. Fowler and B.K. Hebblewhite, Wind blast and methane expulsion: extension of field monitoring at Moonee
Colliery, Australian coal association research program, School of Mining Engineering, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, 2003.
[37] I. Ross and A. Van As, Northparkes mines – design, sudden failure, air-blast and hazard management at the E26
block cave, 9th Underground Operators’ Conference, Perth, 2005.
[38] D. Laubscher, Cave Mining Handbook, De Beers, 2003.