Chapter 23.
4
SELECTION PROCEDURE
D AVID E. N ICHOLAS
23.4.1 GENERAL
The purpose of this section is to present the logical sequence
of events to follow in choosing a mining method. Characteristics
that have a major impact on the determination of the mining
method (as discussed in Chapter 23.1, Selection Variables) are
1. Physical and geologic characteristics of the deposit.
2. Ground conditions of the hanging wall, footwall, and ore
zone.
3. Mining and capital costs.
4. Mining rate.
5. Availability and cost of labor.
6. Environmental considerations.
What follows is a discussion of the work that should be done
at each stage of developing the deposit to choose the appropriate
mining method. There is no single appropriate mining method
for a deposit; there are usually two or more feasible methods.
Each method entails some inherent problems. Consequently, the
optimum method is that method with the least problems.
Although this chapter is aimed at determining the appro-
priate mining’ method, the ultimate goals are to maximize com-
pany profits, maximize recovery of the mineral, and provide a
safe environment for the miners (not necessarily in this order).
These ultimate goals may appear to be mutually exclusive, but
in fact are not. Maximizing the profit meets the business require-
ment of the company. Maximizing the recovery benefits the
mining company as well as society. The more tons recovered,
the less capital cost per ton, which is good for the company;
maximum recovery of our natural resources means society has
an adequate supply. Providing safety for the miners means the
work force will be able to attain the productivity called for in
the feasibility study.
For additional discussion of method comparisons, see
Section 16 for surface mining and Section 21 for underground
mining.
23.4.2 MINING METHODS FOR CONSIDERATION
Before the discussion of the actual process of mining method
selection, it is important to understand the key characteristics
required for each mining method. The following briefly summa-
rizes the mining methods. (For more detailed descriptions of
these methods, refer to Sections 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 22.)
Readers who are already familiar with the various methods can
proceed to 23.4.3, Selection Method Techniques.
OPEN PIT/OPEN CAST MINING. There are surface mining
techniques in which the waste material is removed to uncover
the ore. This category includes strip mining and quarrying. The
equipment used to extract the waste and ore is generally mechan-
ical but differs somewhat for each of these methods. The parame-
ters of stripping ratio and slope angle are critical to all in de-
termining whether the method is applicable. Open pit usually
refers to metal mines (Chapter 14.1), open cast or strip mining
(Chapter 14.3) generally refers to coal, and quarrying (Chapter
14.2) refers to construction materials and dimension stone such
as limestone and granite.
PLACER MINING. Another surface method, placer mining is
distinctive in that the ore is mined and initially concentrated
using gravity and water. This method requires that adequate
water is available, that the material to be mined is gravel-like in
character, and that the mineral to be mined can be separated
based on its density differences. Examples of placer mining are
dredging and hydraulicking (Chapter 15.1).
SOLUTION MINING. Solution mining requires that the min-
eral can be recovered using water or some type of acid, with a
minimum amount of crushing and no grinding. In situ solution
mining (Chapter 15.3) involves mining the ore in place. A solu-
tion is injected into the ore formation via boreholes and recovered
either from boreholes or underground drifts. Borehole mining is
commonly used for salt and sulfur-type deposits. Surface leach-
ing (Chapter 15.2) is a solution method where the ore is either
recovered in place in dumps or is drilled and blasted and stacked
in a heap or a vat. In order for the ore to be leached, it must
have the correct chemical makeup and possess adequate porosity
and permeability; good fragmentation is required so that the
solutions can pass through and there is sufficient surface area.
BLOCK CAVING (Chapter 20.3). An area of rock is undercut
so that it caves under its own weight; the overburden waste
material is expected to cave as well. Any rock can be made to
cave, but it must be determined how much area is needed in
order to cave, what the size of the caved blocks will be, and
whether the rock will cave fast enough. Therefore, the size distri-
bution of the caved rock and the size (plan dimensions) of the
deposit are critical parameters. This category includes panel and
continuous caving. Within the bounds of block caving, there is
still a choice to be made as to whether to use gravity, slusher, or
LHD (load-haul-dump) extraction drifts. The ground conditions
and the degree of fragmentation are the primary parameters in
determining which of these approaches should be used.
Recent longhole drilling has resulted in a method called
forced caving that is similar to block caving except that widely
spaced sublevels are developed from which the rock is drilled
and blasted, that is, induced caving. It is applied to those deposits
that may not cave for the dimensions of the deposit.
LONGWALL/SHORTWALL MINING (Chapter 20.1). The de-
posit, generally a coal seam, is removed in a continuous operation
along an extensive working face using a long series of props over
the face and the working area. The ground above the mined
out area caves and results in subsidence. This method requires
relatively low strength ore that is nearly flat lying and extends
over a large area.
ROOM AND PILLAR/STOPE AND PILLAR MINING (Chapters
18.1 and 18.2). In these similar methods, a grid of rooms or
stopes is developed, leaving pillars to support the roof or back.
The difference between these two methods is the height of the
zone to be mined. The rooms/stopes and pillars may or may not
be uniform in size, and the pillars may or may not be recovered
at a later date. The ore geometry, which is a flat-lying deposit
that is not much over 150 ft (50 m) thick, is the primary control-
ling factor of this method. The room/stope size and pillar size
are determined based on the depth and strength of the ground.
SUBLEVEL STOPING (Chapter 18.4). An overhand mining
method in which the ore is blasted by longholes from sublevels.
 SELECTION PROCEDURE
This method differs from stope and pillar in that the deposit is
so large or thick that sublevels are required and the blasting
requirements approach those of open pit operations. The ore is
drawn off as it is blasted, leaving an open stope. The stopes are
separated by pillars. The stopes may or may not be filled after
mining is completed, and if filled, the pillars are usually recov-
ered using the same method or some type of cut and fill stoping.
The parameters that control this method are an appropriate
geometry and competent enough ground to leave open stopes.
As in room and pillar, the stope and pillar widths are determined
by rock strength vs. depth as well as the stope height.
SUBLEVEL CAVING (Chapter 20.2). Sublevel caving is an
induced caving method in which the ore is blasted by ring drilling
from sublevel drifts. The overlying and hanging wall rock is
expected to cave as the ore is drawn. This method is chosen
when the ground does not cave on its own either because of the
limited width of the deposit or incompetent rock. Draw control
and maintaining the brow of the face are the key concerns of
this method.
SHRINKAGE STOPING (Chapter 18.3). A stoping method in
which the ore is blasted, with most of it being left in the stope
to accumulate until blasting is completed. The broken ore is then
drawn off all at once. This method is usually used in narrow,
steep deposits where the walls are not competent enough to stand
without some support, which is provided by the blasted muck.
CUT AND FILL STOPING (Chapter 19.1). A stoping method
in which each slice of rock is removed after blasting and replaced
with some type of fill material. There are a multitude of varia-
tions on this method such as overhand cut and fill, underhand
cut and fill, and post-pillar cut and fill, each of which is used
under different conditions. Overhand cut and fill is used in nar-
row, steeply dipping deposits where the ore is moderately to
highly competent, the walls are weakly to highly competent, and
the cost of fill is less than the cost of leaving pillars. An under-
hand cut and fill is used when the ore zone is an incompetent
material and the back cannot be kept open using normal ground
support. Post-pillar cut and fill is an overhand method that uses
a room and pillar pattern; it is used to obtain higher productivity
than is possible with overhand cut and fill. The pillars are de-
signed to support only the immediate roof.
SQUARE SET STOPING (Chapter 19.2). Prisms of timber are
formed to replace the rock mined and to support the surrounding
rock. Associated with this category are other timbered stoping
methods such as stull stoping. This method is used in cases where
the ground is incompetent and the ore geometry is too wide and/
or irregular for cut and fill stoping to be applied. This method
is not commonly used today because of the high cost of timber
and the intensive labor required.
TOP SLICING (Chapter 19.2). This method, too, is not often
used today because of the high cost of labor to lay the timber
mat. It has been more or less replaced by the cheaper method of
sublevel caving. It is discussed here because some of the mining
selection techniques include this method as an option. Mining is
done from sublevel drifts where the rock is blasted. Overlying
rock is separated from the ore by a timber mat. The overburden
is expected to cave.
N OVEL M INING M ETHODS (Section 22). These mining
methods are called “novel” because the technology is different
or more innovative than that used in traditional methods. Novel
methods that have already been considered and are either in
the research and development stage or have actually been tried
include these:
1. Rapid excavation.
2. Automation and robotics.
3. Hydraulic mining.
4. Methane drainage.
2091
5. Underground gasification and combustion.
6. Underground retorting.
7. Marine mining.
8. Nuclear mining.
Rapid Excavation—This is a method in which the drill, blast,
muck, and support cycle is replaced by continuous operation.
This method requires that the ground be weak enough that it
can be cut at a rate that will exceed normal mining. Rapid
excavation could be applied to most of the mining methods
discussed and especially to mine development and access drifts.
Continuous mining of coal is the forerunner to rapid excavation
in rock.
Automation and Robotics—This is not really a new method,
but rather a new technology that could be applied to existing
mining methods. The use of automation/robotics is not really as
dependent on the geological parameters and ground conditions
as it is on the knowledge of the engineers and labor force.
Hydraulic Mining—This method is dependent on the ground
being able to be cut by a high-pressure water jet. Transporting
the material once it is cut is one of the main technological
problems.
Methane Drainage—The success of this method is a function
of the “physical properties of the coal seam (diffusivity, reservoir
pressure, permeability, and gas content), mining method (if in
progress), and drainage method ” (Hartman, 1987). The method
is used in Europe but only now is gaining widespread acceptance
in the United States to produce coalbed methane. This method
is similar to borehole mining in which the wells are used to
recover the methane.
Underground Gasification—This method is applied to coal
and again is related to borehole mining, in which the coal is
burned at one end and the gases given off are recovered at
another borehole. Use of this method is based on whether the
cost of burning the coal and recovering the gases is cheaper than
traditional mining. The key parameters that impact the method
are the fracturing of the coal and the chemical composition of
the coal. This method may become more feasible in cases where
the coal seam is too narrow for traditional methods, or in recov-
ery of multiple seams, where the second seam is too close to the
first to be recovered in a traditional fashion.
Underground Retorting—This method is being tried with oil
shales and tar sands. The area is mined to some extent using
traditional drifting techniques and pillar designs. Then the rock
in the stope (retort) is blasted in place. Using the oil, it is released
from the rock and recovered under the stope. This method would
be chosen based on the retorting characteristics rather than on
the mining parameters. The critical factor from a mining per-
spective would be the cost and methodology of fracturing the
ground. The degree of fragmentation will impact the percentage
recovery of the oil, which is probably the most critical concern
nowadays.
Marine Mining—Marine mining is much like placer mining,
in which the recovery is of a mineral that has been concentrated
mechanically and can be mined without drilling and blasting.
From a mining point of view, the key determinant is whether
the material is low enough in strength that it can be dug or
vacuumed. The political problems involved will probably be
greater than the technical ones.
Nuclear Mining—The main advantage of this method is the
highly efficient fracturing of the rock that can be achieved. The
main drawbacks are the questionable working conditions for the
miners, environmental pollution concerns, and political treaty
prohibitions. This technique could be used to mine competent
rock in a block caving style, similar to a forced or induced caving
method.
2092 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
23.4.3 SELECTION METHOD TECHNIQUES
In order to determine which mining method is feasible, we
need to compare the characteristics of the deposit with those
required for each mining method; the method(s) that best
matches should be the one(s) considered technically feasible, and
should then be evaluated economically. The selection techniques
discussed deal with the first two parameters that determine a
mining method, (1) the physical and geologic characteristics of
the deposit, and (2) the ground conditions of the hanging wall,
footwall, and ore zone. The techniques for evaluating mining
methods are only attempts at defining and quantifying in a writ-
ten format what miners in years past determined through discus-
sion, previous experience, and intuition. Therefore, each of the
method selection schemes presented here is similar and yet differ-
ent, reflecting personal preferences in their emphasis. The pur-
pose of discussing these techniques is not to critique them but
simply to present the alternatives available to aid in selecting the
most appropriate.
Most of the schemes are aimed at determining the appro-
priate underground method, as there are so many possible
choices. However, the purpose of this chapter is to discuss the
selection of the best mining methods, including surface, hydrau-
lic, and other more novel methods. The method selection process
should first determine whether the deposit should be mined using
a more traditional surface, underground, or in situ leach mining
method. A novel method should only be considered if traditional
methods are not economically or technically feasible. To start a
mine with a novel mining method requires adequate funding
and an enormous commitment from the board of directors to
technical development; the board must also have the patience to
work out the technical problems.
If the deposit cannot be mined using a surface method, then
an underground method should be considered. The mining
method selection techniques are limited in that selection is based
solely on the known physical parameters and rock strength char-
acteristics. Sometimes several mining methods may appear to be
equally feasible. In order to further determine which method(s)
is the most suitable, the input variables of mining costs, mining
rate, labor availability, and environmental regulations should be
considered in more detail.
Note: None of the method selection systems deal with in situ
stress. The techniques do account for the vertical stress via depth,
but none of the methods discuss how a high horizontal stress
impacts the choice of the mining method.
23.4.3.1 Boshkov and Wright
The classification system proposed by Boshkov and Wright
(1973) in the SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 1st ed. (based
on Peele, 1941), was one of the first qualitative classification
schemes developed for underground method selection (Table
23.4.1). Their system assumes that the possibility of surface and
underground mining has already been eliminated. It uses general
descriptions of the ore thickness, ore dip, strength of the ore,
and strength of the walls to identify common methods that have
been applied in similar conditions. The results of this classifica-
tion provide up to four methods that may be applicable.
23.4.3.2 Hartman
Hartman (1987) has developed a flow chart selection process
for defining the mining method, based on the geometry of the
deposit and the ground conditions of the ore zone (Fig. 23.4.1).
This system is similar to that proposed by Boshkov and Wright,
but is aimed at more specific mining methods. Hartman admits
the method is qualitative and should be used as a first-pass
approach. This classification includes surface and underground
methods, coal, and hard rock.
23.4.3.3 Morrison
The classification system proposed by Morrison (1976) di-
vides underground mining into three basic groups: (1) rigid pillar
support, (2) controlled subsidence, and (3) caving (Fig. 23.4.2).
General definitions of ore width, support type, and strain energy
accumulation are used as the criteria for determining a mining
method. This classification helps to demonstrate the selection
continuum, choosing one method over another based on the
various combinations of ground conditions. In this system, the
ground conditions have already been evaluated to determine
the type of support required.
23.4.3.4 Laubscher
The selection of an appropriate mass underground mining
method has been presented by Laubscher (1981). The selection
process is based on his rock mass classification system (see Chap-
ter 23.1, Fig. 23.1.2), which adjusts for expected mining effects
on the rock mass strength. Laubscher’s scheme is aimed at the
mass mining methods, primarily block caving vs stoping; his
main emphasis is on cavability. The two parameters that deter-
mine whether a caving system is used over a stoping system are
the degree of fracturing, RQD (rock quality designation), joint
spacing, and the joint rating, which is a description of the charac-
ter of the joint, i.e., waviness, filling, and water conditions (Fig.
23.4.3). This scheme puts emphasis on the jointing as the only
control for determining cavability. Laubscher (1990) has re-
cently modified the classification to relate his rock mass rating
to the hydraulic radius (Fig. 23.4.4). By including the hydraulic
radius, cavability becomes feasible for more competent rock if
the area available for undercutting is large.
23.4.3.5 Nicholas
The classification proposed by Nicholas (1981) determines
feasible mining methods by numerical ranking and thus is truly
quantitative. The first step is to classify the ore geometry and
grade distribution using Table 23.4.2. The rock mechanics char-
acteristics of the ore zone, hanging wall, and footwall are simi-
larly classified using Table 23.4.3. A numerical ranking is then
performed by adding up the values of each mining method, using
Tables 23.4.4 and 23.4.5. The values of the tables represent
the suitability of a given characteristic for a particular mining
method. A value of 3 or 4 indicates that the characteristic is
preferred for the mining method. A value of 1 or 2 indicates that
a characteristic is probably suited to that mining method, while
a value of 0 indicates that a characteristic will probably not
promote the use of that mining method, although it does not
rule it out entirely. A value of –49 would indicate that a charac-
teristic will completely eliminate consideration of that method.
A recent modification to the system is the weighting of the
categories for the ore geometry, ore zone, hanging wall, and
footwall. To give each of these categories equal weight, the ore
zone, hanging wall, and footwall need to be multiplied by 1.33
However, the importance of each category is not equal;
the ore geometry is more important than the ore zone, the ore
zone more important than the hanging wall, and the hanging
wall more important than the footwall. The proposed weight-
ing for each category is summarized in Table 23.4.6; this
weighting can be changed based on personal experience. The net
weighting is then multiplied by each of the categories. Those two
 SELECTION PROCEDURE 2093
or three mining methods that have the highest overall positive processes improves. In addition, each individual has a different
numerical ranking should be economically analyzed. point of view as to the relative importance of the various charac-
The proposed values for the characteristics can be changed teristics for each method.
as our technical expertise with mining equipment and mining

Table 23.4.1. Applications of Underground Mining Methods

Fig. 23.4.1. Hartman’s chart for selection of a mining method (Hartman, 1987).
 Fig. 23.4.4. Laubscher’s cavability based on hydraulic radius and
classification.

Fig. 23.4.2. Morrison’s chart for selection of a mining method

(Morrison, 1976).

Table 23.4.2. Definition of Deposit Geometry and

Grade Distribution

Fig. 23.4.3. Laubscher’s 1981 classification for cavability evaluation.

2096 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
23.4.3.6 Example of Use of Selection Schemes Table 23.4.3. Rock Mechanics Characteristics

The following is an example and description of how to use

the various classification schemes. The data presented are fabri-
cated and aimed at being suitable input for Nicholas’ scheme,
but can be used for the other methods as well.

Morrison’s method would classify this deposit as “invariably

wide.” Based on this, the mining methods possible are a caving
method, top slicing, and sublevel caving.
Laubscher’s system requires more information than that pro-
vided, but a guesstimate can be made from the data given. In
actuality, one would have looked at the drill core and could
therefore make the necessary measurements. Using Laubscher’s
Boshkov and Wright’s method would classify this deposit as
classification (Fig. 23.1.2), the rating of the rock is 48, as follows:
either “very thick beds” or “massive,” with a “weak” ore and a
“weak/strong” wall rock (Table 23.4.1). Based on this classifica-
tion, feasible mining methods include top slicing, sublevel caving,
block caving, square set stoping, and combined methods.
Hartman’s method selection chart would show this deposit
as either shallow or deep in depth. The ore strength would be
moderate to weak, and the ore geometry would be tabular and
massive, or thick (Fig. 23.4.1). The possible mining methods
would be open pit mining, sublevel caving, and block caving. Using his first method selection, which is based primarily

Table 23.4.4. Ranking of Geometry/Grade Distribution for Different Mining Methods

 SELECTION PROCEDURE 2097
Table 23.4.5. Ranking of Rock Mechanics Characteristics for Different Mining Methods
5b: Hanging Wall

5a: Ore Zone 5c: Footwall

on jointing, the ground would be considered either “marginal

Table 23.4.6. Weighting Factors
caving” or open stoping” (Fig. 23.4.3). The newer selection
scheme, which uses the total mass rating and the hydraulic
radius, indicates that a hydraulic radius of 28 is required for the
deposit to cave (Fig. 23.4.4). A hydraulic radius of 28 is equiva-
lent to a square area of 370 ft (112 m) or an area of 330 by 410
ft (100 by 125 m). This means that for our example, the deposit
 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Table 23.4.7. Example of Numerical Model Selection Process
Characteristic Values Totaled for Different Mining Methods
must be undercut full width, and for a length greater than the
width. This may mean that the production schedule will have to
allow for additional time to undercut the large area or for some
type of inducement. Either that or a sublevel cave operation may
be used instead.
Nicholas’ example is summarized in Table 23.4.7. The first
step is to list the geometry/grade distribution and rock mechan-
ics characteristics of the deposit (Table 23.4.7, column 1). The
columns of characteristics in Tables 23.4.5 and 23.4.6 are then
identified for the deposit, and the values summed for the geom-
etry/grade distribution, ore zone rock mechanics, hanging wall
rock mechanics, and footwall rock mechanics for each mining
method (Table 23.4.7, columns 2 and 3).
The ore zone, hanging wall, and footwall should be
multiplied by the weighting factors and then summed. This total
should then be added to the geometry/grade distribution sum
(Table 23.4.8). Using this type of characteristic grouping, one
can see which grouping(s) reduce the chance of using a particular
mining method, or, in cases where the total sum is nearly equal,
one can determine which characteristics are the most suitable
for the mining method. For the example given, the preferred
mining methods would be open pit mining, top slicing, square
set stoping, block caving, and sublevel caving.
All of the method selection techniques arrive at similar con-
clusions (Table 23.4.9). One might surmise that the conclusions
were obvious from the beginning. This may be true for this
example but is not so in all cases. Important factors may be
overlooked; using a method selection scheme, one is forced to
consider all of the parameters. As is shown by Nicholas’ scheme,
in which the main drawback to using sublevel caving is the poor
ground conditions of the footwall, one unfavorable factor does
not necessarily eliminate a method. Some technical problems can
be overcome. Sublevel caving requires extensive drifting and ore
pass work in the footwall, so the poor ground conditions will
call for additional ground support, meaning development may
take longer. This does not rule out the feasibility of the method;
 SELECTION PROCEDURE 2099
Table 23.4.8. Characteristic Values Multiplied by Weighting Factors

Table 23.4.9. Summary of Methods Selected Table 23.4.10. Ranking of Mining Methods Based on
Relative Operating Costs

it simply means that when performing the cost analysis, one

should allow for a higher cost in the footwall development work.
None of the method selection systems deal with in situ stress.
The techniques account for the vertical stress via depth, but none
of the methods discuss how a high horizontal stress impacts the
choice of the mining method.
Although the mining methods resulting from the selection
process are all technically feasible, their mining costs may be
significantly different. Based on Hartman’s and Morrison’s (Ta-
ble 23.4.10) relative rankings of mining costs, those methods with
the potentially lowest operating cost can be identified. However,
these cost rankings represent averages, and the estimated cost
provided the method is appropriate for the ground conditions;
therefore the rankings should be used with caution.
On the basis of relative operating costs, the methods would 2. Developmental drilling to outline reserves and a feasibil-
be ranked as follows: ity study.
1. Open pit mining. 3. Design and development of the deposit.
2. Block caving. 4. Revising and updating during production.
3. Sublevel caving. 5. End of mine life.
4. Top slicing. The preceding section described how the key physical parameters
5. Square set stoping. of the deposit and the ground conditions are used to determine
With this ranking established, we must next determine a feasible mining method. These techniques can be used in each
whether the deposit can be mined from the surface or if it must iteration; what will change is the database, the degree of certainty
be mined underground. in the economic analysis, and the consideration of the other
parameters that determine the mining method such as costs,
labor, and environmental regulations.
23.4.4 STAGES IN THE SELECTION PROCESS
The mining method selection process is iterative, with each
23.4.4.1 Stage 1: Initial Discovery
iteration correlating to the stages of development of the property.
A deposit that is mined will go through roughly five stages: The exploration for a deposit is guided by corporate philoso-
1. Initial discovery of the mineralized zone. phy. The corporation should provide the exploration department
2100 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
with the rough target size and grade. (Exploration techniques
are discussed in Section 4, Prospecting and Exploration.) Al-
though the exploration geologist is trained in the required explo-
ration techniques, he/she may not understand the economics
behind the search for a particular mineral(s) with a minimum
grade and/or tonnage. The basic economics should be discussed
with the geologist so that he/she understands how the target was
defined. What is found may not match the target exactly, but
he/she will be able to assess how to change the exploration
program to meet the corporate needs. This will also open the
lines of communication between the geologist and the mining
engineers for future mine planning.
As soon as a mineralized zone is discovered, an initial predic-
tion of potential mining methods should be made. Primary con-
siderations for the method choice should be the expected ore
geometry and ground conditions, combined with engineering
judgment and comparisons to nearby operations. The use of
Boshkov and Wright’s and/or Hartman’s system is reasonable
during this stage. Using these techniques should help identify
which characteristics are critical for the mining method, so that
the necessary data can be collected during the development
drilling. The other method selection techniques could be used
but the database would probably not be adequate.
In order to plan a better development drilling program, the
Fig. 23.4.5. Stripping ratio vs. mineral value.
possible mining methods should be costed out for capital and
operating expenses at various production rates so that the size
and grade of the target can be better defined in order to identify
drilling limits.

23.4.4.2 Stage 2: Development Drilling and

Feasibility
In stage 2, development drilling is performed to determine
the tonnage and grade of the deposit as well as for the purpose
of collecting metallurgical, geotechnical, hydrologic, and envi-
ronmental data to determine mineral processing and mining
methods. During or near the end of the development drilling
program, a quantitative analysis of potential mining methods
can be performed. This is usually a conceptual mine plan or a
feasibility study.
The development drilling program should be designed to
define the target size and/or the limits of the deposit. Therefore,
the drill spacing is wide and a number of the holes are outside
of the minable limits. The holes outside the deposit provide the
rock mechanician with information on the area where the pit
walls or access facilities will be. The geologist must find out from
the metallurgist, rock mechanician, and mining engineer what
Fig. 23.4.6. Ultimate pit limit vs. underground breakeven pit limit.
data they each require from the drill core or cuttings. The drill
pattern, drilling method, and logging techniques have to be deter-
mined based on the particular type of deposit; this is further
discussed by Call (1979), and Peters (1978). less economic. Fig. 23.4.5 provides a rough guide as to when an
By stage 2, the database should be adequate to use Laub- underground method would be preferable to a surface method,
scher’s or Nicholas’ method selection technique. For a first pass, based on mineral value and stripping ratio.
the more traditional mining methods should be considered. If A situation that is becoming more common is for the deposit
conditions warrant investigation of more novel methods, then to be mined as an open pit initially, recovering the deeper reserves
they should be considered after the traditional methods have later using an underground method. One of the key factors in
been eliminated. As shown previously, a deposit may be mined planning this sequence of mining is to make sure there are ade-
either from the surface or underground. Chapter 23.2, Surface quate reserves after the open pit is mined to pay for the capital
vs. Underground Methods, discusses in detail the process of required to go underground. This can be done by mining the pit
choosing between these two. In general, if at all possible, a to the underground/open pit “breakeven” point rather than to
surface method should be chosen over an underground method, the ultimate pit limits (Fig. 23.4.6).
as surface mining involves fewer technical problems and gener- If an underground method appears to be preferable, then
ally yields more efficient productivities than underground meth- one of the method selection techniques discussed in 23.4.3 should
ods. The decision between a surface and an underground method be used to provide two or three possible mining methods. These
is usually an economic one, although environmental regulations methods should then be economically analyzed to determine
may require the use of an underground method, even when it is which method nets the best return on investment. The input
 SELECTION PROCEDURE 2101

Fig. 23.4.7. Probability of attaining DCFROI.

parameters for this cost analysis require some rough mining

dimensions. These dimensions can be based on either the classifi-
cation work or the judgment of the engineers doing the analysis.
The key parameters for some of the main mining methods are
discussed in 23.4.4.3.
The remaining parameters should be considered and the pros
and cons of the feasible methods should be weighed based on the
mining rate required by the corporation, the availability and type
of labor, and the environmental regulations/considerations.

23.4.4.3 Stage 3: Design

In stage 3, the design stage, the mine plans for the most
feasible method, as determined in stage 2, are evaluated. The
calculation of minable reserves and determination of cutoff
grades allows a detailed economic analysis to establish capitaliza-
tion requirements and return on investment. With this informa-
tion, final decisions on appropriate mining methods can be made.
While this level of detailed planning on paper may appear to
extend start-up time, it will always be more cost effective to
discover mistakes on paper than to find errors in the field after
mining has already begun. Still, a project can be evaluated “to
death” or beyond the limits of the data. The evaluation needs to
be based on an understanding of the variability of conditions and
the quantity and quality of data. Mining is a risky business.
Bankers understand risk analyses, and evaluations should be
done in their language, presenting distributions of possible out-
comes. As long as the probability of attaining a certain minimum
DCFROI (discounted cash flow return on investment) (Fig.
23.4.7) is met, the property will be considered a viable proposi-
tion (Chapter 6.5). The probability required is a function of the
corporate philosophy. The point here is that the accuracy of the
design should not be any greater than the accuracy of the ore
reserve or the mine design.
MINABLE RESERVES. The minable reserve defines what ore
is recoverable for the possible mining methods. These reserves
are the result of defining the mineral inventory, cutoff grade,
and limitations imposed by ore thickness, lateral extent, or depth.
The mineral inventory is the result of the drillhole data and
geologic interpretations. Numerous methods exist to interpolate
Fig. 23.4.8. Tons vs. grade frequency plot.
and extrapolate the ore grade from the drillholes, such as kriging,
inverse square, and assigning the grade to an area of influence
(see Chapter 5.6). Common methods used to calculate the min-
eral inventory include polygons, triangles, cross sections, and
block models.
Determining the cutoff grade is an iterative process and can
have a major impact on the minable reserves. The primary inputs
required to determine the cutoff grade are the capital and op-
erating costs. This information is not always available or accurate
in the early phases of defining the minable reserve. The geologist
should generate a grade and tonnage distribution to determine
whether there is a natural grade cutoff, that is, a point at which
mining below a certain grade does not add significantly to the
tonnage (Fig. 23.4.8). If this is not the case, then estimates of
operating and capital costs will have to be made. There are a
number of philosophies on whether capital should be included
in the cutoff grade (Marek and Welhener, 1985). Initially, cutoff
grade should be determined with and without the capital.
C RITICAL D ESIGN P ARAMETERS. For each of the mining
methods, several critical design parameters must be evaluated as
2102 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
part of the method selection process in order to make the eco-
nomic analysis.
Open Pit Mining—The critical design parameter for the se-
lection of an open pit mining method is the slope angle. This is
because the slope angle and limit of the ore zone will permit the
estimation of the stripping ratio, which will ultimately impact
the economics of the selection (Soderberg and Rausch, 1968).
An assessment of the final slope angles can be made by defining
potential failure geometries from the orientation of the geologic
structures and then choosing a slope angle that minimizes the
number of daylighted structures. If structure, shear strength,
length, and spacing are available, a stability analysis can also be
performed. Chapter 10.4, Slope Stability, discusses in more detail
the approaches to determining slope design.
Solution Mining—The critical parameter for solution mining
is the recovery of the mineral. That is, the metallurgical con-
straints are more critical than the mining constraints. For in situ
or surface leaching, the permeability and porosity are the limiting
factors; these parameters can be improved by increased fragmen-
tation from blasting. In borehole mining, design of the pump
sizes and hole spacings are required. Vat or heap leaching is
also controlled by fragment size distribution. The design of the
crusher size and/or blasting and fracture spacing determine ulti-
mate fragment size distribution.
Block Caving—The cavability of the deposit should be exam-
ined in greater detail than in stage 2. Once cavability is deter-
mined, the minimum drawpoint spacing, supportable drift size,
and subsidence limit should also be defined. Any ground can be
caved; cavability is a matter of how much area has to be undercut
to sustain the cave and what the fragment size distribution of
the caved muck will be. If the area of the deposit is too small to
sustain the cave, then some type of inducement will be required.
Using Laubscher’s classification or the pressure arch concept
(Alder, Potts, and Walker, 1951), the undercut width required
to sustain a cave can be estimated. Laubscher provides the hy-
draulic radius required based on his classification system. In the
pressure arch concept, the rock is considered to have a maximum
distance that it can transfer load. Although each deposit has its
own transfer distance, a correlation between depth and maxi-
mum transfer distance has been determined (Fig. 23.4.9). Based
on the pressure arch concept, if the undercut width does not
exceed twice the maximum transfer distance, only the rock under
the arch has the potential for caving. If the deposit is too small
to sustain the cave, then some form of inducement, such as
longhole blasting from sublevels or boundary weakening, may
be needed.
Drawpoint spacing is primarily a function of the ore, along
with overlying waste fragment size distribution and pillar
strength. The smaller the fragment size, the closer the drawpoint
spacing must be to minimize dilution. If the ore can be mined
uniformly, the impact of the fragment size will be minimized.
The rock mass between the drawpoints can be considered a pillar
and used to determine the minimum drawpoint spacing. Loading
on the pillar is difficult to determine, but estimates by Kendorski
(1975) or Panek (1978) can be used in conjunction with a pillar
analysis (Wilson, 1972) to determine load-carrying capacity.
With the fragmentation curve and pillar design, a comparison
of drawpoint spacing with existing operations can be made (Fig.
23.4.10).
The ore-gathering drift size and support required are impor-
tant in estimating the cost of the mining method. Equipment
selection may influence this decision, but the characteristics of
the rock mass will indicate what is feasible and what is not. Use
of the classification and support approaches (Barton, Lien, and
Lunde, 1974) may provide some estimates of support require-
ments.
The subsidence limit should be defined for locating buildings
and shafts that are to last the life of the deposit. In the absence
of any major geologic structure, a 45° angle projected from the
bottom of the ore zone is usually considered the closest to the
deposit that one should locate long-term facilities. However,
most actual ground movement takes place within a 60° angle
from the deposit, unless a major fault exists which will control
the limit of subsidence.
Longwall/Shortwall Mining—The critical parameters that
must be analyzed in the feasibility of a longwall mining system
are the expected stress field in the mining zone, the size of entry
and barrier pillars, and the support of the entries. Brady and
Brown (1985) emphasize how understanding the stress field will
have an impact on all aspects of the mine plan (also see Chapter
10.5). The length of the face, advance rate, face support require-
ments, and behavior of the caving waste will all be influenced
by the nature of the developing stress field. By understanding
this stress field, it becomes possible to design the entry size,
support requirements, and pillar sizes.
Room and Pillar/Stope and Pillar Mining—The three critical
parameters in a stoping or room and pillar method are the width
of the stopes or openings, the pillar size, and backfill require-
ments. In sublevel stoping, the width of the stope is a function of
the immediate and intermediate roof (Alder, Potts, and Walker,
1951). The intermediate roof is characterized by the pressure
arch concept. The maximum mining width without a barrier
pillar is twice the maximum pressure arch. Barrier pillars spaced
at twice the arch distance must be able to carry the tributary
area load to the surface. The immediate roof is the ground under
the pressure arch which will act as a beam, plate, or arch. Joint
orientation, spacing, and length can be used to define the stope
width. The pillars within the arch have to carry this rock mass
only (Fig. 23.4.11).
Backfill is not commonly used in room and pillar mining
because the pillars are designed to carry the load. However, if a
large area is being mined, backfill could be used to minimize a
failure area or to prevent the pillars from deteriorating with time.
Sublevel Stoping—The critical design parameters are similar
to those for stope and pillar, except that the design must consider
what the sublevel interval should be, if the stopes are to be
filled, and whether sill pillars are needed. The sublevel interval is
determined by the height of the ore and the pillar width. Backfill-
ing is implemented so that pillars can be recovered, or to reduce
the impact of a failed pillar; backfill also helps to minimize the
required pillar width. A sill pillar is necessary in cases where the
pillar width required is large, the sublevel interval is greater than
170 ft (50 m), or long-term access of the sublevel is required.
Whenever possible, rock fill should be used, as it makes a solid,
stiff fill. Tailings can be used for fill as long as they can be
dewatered, preferably before they enter the stope. The addition of
cement reduces dilution while mining the pillar. Adding cement
probably does not improve the load-carrying capacity of the fill
unless it is dewatered prior to placement.
Sublevel Caving—The critical parameters for sublevel caving
are the cavability of the hanging wall, the sublevel drift size and
required support, and the spacing between the sublevel drifts.
Janelid and Kvapil (1966) and Kvapil (1982) have presented
guidelines for the layout of a sublevel mine. The hanging wall
must come in behind the ore zone; otherwise sublevel caving will
not work. Using analyses similar to those used for block caving
will provide an estimate of the dimensions needed to initiate the
cave, as well as the impact of the fragment size distribution.
Vertical spacing of the drifts is mainly a function of equip-
ment, but the horizontal spacing between drifts is determined by
the width of the draw ellipsoid and the stability of the rock.
Janelid and Kvapil related drift spacing to the distance between
SELECTION PROCEDURE 2103

Fig. 23.4.9. Pressure arch concept.

Fig. 23.4.10. Fundamental width vs. fragment

size. Conversion factors: 1 in. = 25.4 mm,
1 ft = 0.3048 m.
2104 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Fig. 23.4.11. Load on yield pillars.
Fig. 23.4.12. Eccentricity vs. height of draw ellipsoid.
sublevels and the eccentricity of the ellipsoid (Fig. 23.4.12). The
rock masses between the drifts can be considered pillars and
analyzed as such.
Shrinkage Stoping—For shrinkage stoping, the same type of
analysis must be made, but the cavability of the overlying rock
must be evaluated as well. Support requirements can be esti-
mated, as discussed under block caving.
The considerations for designing a room and pillar mine
are basically identical to those made when designing a sublevel
stoping method.
Cut and Fill Stoping—The critical parameters to consider in
both overhand and underhand approaches to cut and fill stoping
are the rock mass conditions in the ore zone, hanging wall,
and footwall. MacMillan and Ferguson (1982) have presented
guidelines for cut and fill mine planning.
For a very weak ore zone, it is necessary to design an artificial
back in order to perform the mining process. If the ore zone is
relatively competent, overhand mining must be designed to take
into account the maximum stable exposure of the hanging wall.
In both cases, the joint characteristics and stress field will play
a critical role in predicting the rock’s behavior.
In some cases, it may be necessary to leave pillars behind to
aid in supporting the ore zone. Pillars used in cut and fill stoping
should be designed on a yield concept to permit transfer of loads
to the backfill material. The backfill material must be designed
to be of sufficient density or stiffness to carry transferred loads
after an acceptable deformation in the pillars and surrounding
wall rock has occurred.
Square Set Stoping—The key to square set stoping is good
timbermen. The timber sizes and spacing between timber sup-
ports can be designed. However, the design specifications should
be considered an average, as adjustments will be made as mining
progresses. The most difficult part is determining the load on
the timbers, which can be estimated using one of the numerical
analyses. Because of the high labor cost, materials handling
becomes a major component of the operating cost.
24.4.4.4 Stage 4: Modification During Production
During initial development and production, the ground con-
ditions and the ore geometry are better defined. Because of this
additional information, the mine design should be modified to
account for these changes. Just as the ore limits cannot be rede-
fined without additional drilling, the ground conditions cannot
be evaluated without additional data collection. This data collec-
tion should include additional structure, rock strength, and in
situ stress measurements, as discussed in Chapter 23.1, and the
ground response to mining should be monitored.
Monitoring can identify areas of potential instability much
sooner than they can be observed by the naked eye. By the time
cracks are visible, the rock mass strength may be reduced to the
point where the movement cannot be stopped. Monitoring
should be done using the simplest device possible, such as the
tape extensometer, borehole extensometers, surveying, borehole
inclinometers, or pressure cells. The tape extensometer and an
EDM (electronic distance measurement) survey system are two
of the easiest methods to use; the survey system is usually used in
the open pit, while the tape extensometer is used predominantly
underground. The EDM utilizes x, y, and z coordinates and
plots the bearing, plunge, and amount of displacement. The tape
extensometer measures the movement between two points, for
example from rib to rib, back to floor, or rib to back. The data
collection should include the stations monitored, and the date,
time, and extent of mining.
The following discussion on data interpretation applies spe-
cifically to the tape extensometer, but is also applicable to survey
monitoring. The data should be plotted as a cumulative displace-
ment plot and a velocity plot (Fig. 23.4.13). The shape of the
curve is more significant than the absolute value. On the cumula-
tive displacement plot, a flat line means no movement, a constant
sloping line means there is movement but the rate of movement
(velocity) is constant; an increase in the slope of the line means
the velocity is increasing, and a decrease in the slope of the line
means the velocity is decreasing. The velocity plot usually shows
more variability than the cumulative displacement plot. On a
velocity plot, a flat line means the velocity (rate of movement)
is constant, a constant slope means the velocity is either increas-
ing or decreasing at some constant rate (i.e., constantly accelerat-
ing or decelerating), and a changing slope means the acceleration
is increasing. By correlating the ground movement with the
mining activity, we can determine when ground is being loaded
to its limits. Unfortunately, it seems that unless there is an
operational concern regarding ground movement, the monitor-
ing does not get done. It should be part of the normal follow-up
on the design, and used to compare with design changes.
Even though at this stage we know more about the deposit,
making changes in the mining system is not necessarily easy.
The access drifts and/or haulage systems can have a lead time
requiring a three- to five-year delay before any changes in the
mining system can actually be implemented. A change in the
slope angle can be made at most any time during the operation.
 SELECTION PROCEDURE
Fig. 23.4.13. Cumulative displacement plot and velocity plot.
Even though the design has been engineered in the feasibility
study, the engineering approach at this point should be to
broaden and improve the database and to re-evaluate the mine
design during development and production.
2105
23.4.4.5 Stage 5: End of Mine Life
By the end of the mine life, the approach to ore recovery has
changed because the capital has been paid off and the main
objective is simply to extend the mine life as long as possible.
Because of this, there is more willingness to mine at a higher
operating cost, a lower grade, and a lower chance of success.
Therefore, the process of choosing how to mine the remaining
ore (or ore not included in the original minable reserves) is
similar to that discussed in stages 2 and 3; the difference lies in
the level of risk, because the only alternative is to shut the
operation down.
23.4.5 SUMMARY
In performing the mining method selection task, it is impor-
tant to remember that no one method is able to meet all of the
requirements and conditions. Rather, the appropriate mining
method is that method that is technically feasible for the ore
geometry and ground conditions, while also being a low-cost
operation. This means that the best mining method is the one
with the technical problems that are the cheapest to deal with.
The mining engineer must balance all of the input parameters
and select that method that appears to be the most suitable,
making method selection both an art and a science. Still, by
ensuring the maximum use of available data and performing
detailed economic analyses on paper, the chances of making the
most appropriate selection are vastly improved.
REFERENCES
Alder, H., Potts, E., and Walker, A., 1951, “Research on Strata Control
in the Northern Coalfield of Great Britain,” Proceedings Inichar-
International Conference at Leige, pp. 106–420.
Barton, N., Lien, R., and Lunde, J., 1974, “Engineering Classifications
of Rock Masses for the Design of Tunnel Support,” Journal of the
International Society for Rock Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 189–
236.
Boshkov, S.H., and Wright, F.D., 1973, “Basic and Parametric Criteria
in the Selection, Design and Development of Underground Mining
Systems,” SME Mining Engineering Handbook, A.B. Cummins and
I.A. Given, eds., Vol. 1, SME-AIME, New York, pp. 12.2 to 12.13.
Brady, B.H.G., and Brown, E.T., 1985, Rock Mechanics for Under-
ground Mining, Allen and Unwin, London, pp. 369–382.
Call, R.D., 1979, “Development Drilling,” Open Pit Mine Planning and
Design, J.T. Crawford and W.A. Hustrulid, eds., SME-AIME, New
York, pp. 29–40.
Hartman, H.L., 1987, Introductory Mining Engineering, Wiley, New
York, 633 pp.
Janelid, I., and Kvapil, R., 1966, “Sublevel Caving,” International Jour-
nal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, Vol. 3, pp. 129–153.
Kendorski, F.S., 1975, “Caving Operations Drift Support Design,” Pro-
ceedings, 16th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics, University of
Minnesota, pp. 173–180.
Kvapil, R., 1982, “The Mechanics and Design of Sublevel Caving Sys-
tems,” Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Chap. 2, W.A.
Hustrulid, ed., SME-AIME, New York, pp. 880–897.
Laubscher, D.H., 1981, “Selection of Mass Underground Mining Meth-
ads,” Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines,
Chap. 3, D. Stewart, ed., SME-AIME, New York, pp. 23–38.
Laubscher, D.H., 1990, private communication.
MacMillan, P.W., and Ferguson, B.A., 1982, “Principles of Stope Plan-
ning and Layout for Ground Control,” Underground Mining Meth-
ods Handbook, W.A. Hustrulid, ed., SME-AIME, New York, pp.
526–530.
Marek, J., and Welhener, H., 1985, “Cutoff Grade Strategy—A Balanc-
ing Act,” SME-AIME, Fall Meeting, Albuquerque, NM.
Morrison, R.G.K., 1976, AQ Philosophy of Ground Control, McGill
University, Montreal, Canada, pp. 125–159.
2106 MINING ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Nicholas, D.E., 1981, “Method Selection—A Numerical Approach,”
Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines, Chap.
4, D. Stewart, ed., SME-AIME, New York, pp. 39–53.
Panek, D.R., 1978, “Geotechnical Factors in Undercut Mining,” Pre-
print, AIME Meeting, Lake Buena Vista, FL.
Peele, R., ed., 1941, Mining Engineers’ Handbook, 3rd ed., Wiley, New
York, pp. 10-428 to 10-430.
Peters, WC., 1978, Exploration and Mining Geology, Wiley, New York,
696 pp.
Soderberg, A., and Rausch, D.O., 1968 “Pit Planning and Layout,”
Surface Mining, E.P. Pfleider, ed., 1st ed., SME-AIME, New York,
p. 151.
Wilson, A.H., 1972, “Research into the Determination of Pillar Size—
Part 1: A Hypothesis Concerning Pillar Stability,” Mining Engineer,
Vol. 131, No. 141, pp. 409–417.