ISSN 1062-7391, Journal of Mining Science, 2013, Vol. 49, No. 6, pp. 955–966. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2013.

______________________________ MINERAL MINING ________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

TECHNOLOGY
Transition from Open-Pit to Underground in the Case
of Chah-Gaz Iron Ore Combined Mining1
E. Bakhtavar
Department of Mining and Material Engineering, Urmia University of Technology,
Band Road, Urmia, West Azerbaijan, Iran
e-mail: ebakhtavar@gmail.com
Received December 27, 2013

Abstract—Geological and economic modeling of an ore body and also optimization of the depth at which
transition is made from open-pit to underground mining is an important part of the mining design process in
large and massive deposits. In this paper, a geological block model of Chah-Gaz iron ore deposit located in
Iran was first created based on iron ore cut-off grade. Then with considering the economic parameters in the
geological block model an economic model was derived. The economic block model of the deposit was
used to determine the transition from open-pit to underground mining. The transition depth determination
process was mathematically modelled for the case study. The objective function was chosen to be the
maximization of the total profits earned from the combination of both open-pit and underground mining of
the deposit. Chah-Gaz transition problem was finally solved by developing MATLAB optimization based
code. The results obtained indicate a transition depth of 450 m.
Keywords: Mathematical programming, transition, open-pit to underground, combined mining, Chah-Gaz.

INTRODUCTION
Mineral deposits may be so near surface that their exploitation by surface methods can easily be
accomplished. There are on the other hand deposits whose depth from the surface would only allow
them to be won by underground methods. Apart from these clear-cut situations, there are also some
deposits that start at surface or near surface and continue to great depths. In the case of such deposits,
using a combination of both surface and underground methods could result in a higher net profit than
only one. If such decision is taken, the design engineer must then determine a depth at which the
mining method changes from surface to underground. The value of this depth depends upon many
factors and sub-factors. One of these is the underground method adopted which in the case of this
research has been decided to be block caving.
Open-pit, underground or a combination of open-pit and underground methods will therefore be
selected on the basis of, amongst other things, the ore deposit geometry (dimensions, shape and
depth), rock characteristics and conditions, productivity, capacities of machineries, capital
requirements, operating costs, investments, amortization, depreciation, ore recovery, safety,
environmental aspects etc. [1].
It is generally expected that using open-pit methods are advantageous to underground methods
since the former are expect to have a higher production and productivity, mechaniziability, ore
recovery, grade control, safety records and lower ore loss and dilution, investment and costs.
Underground mining has, however, gained popularity in recent decades due to the fact that they are
less detrimental to the natural environmental in terms of leaving a permanent footprint in comparison
with an open-pit of similar capacity [1].

1
The article is published in the original.

955
956 BAKHTAVAR

Fig. 1. Schematic of a typical open-pit copper mine with the main components such as benches, ramp and hauling (truck)
system.
Figure 1 shows a typical open-pit mine with its benches, machines and ramp. In open-pit mining,
before beginning the ore extraction overburden (waste rocks) must be removed. Ramps and haulage
roads play the major role in transmission of the extracted ore from open-pit bottom to the surface.
Extraction arises from benches [2]. The major factors influencing an open-pit layout are: deposit
shape and depth, slope angle limitations, grade variations and cut-off grade limits and equipment
characteristics.
As for underground mining methods, these are divided into three categories [3]:
1. Naturally supporting methods such as room-and-pillar and sublevel stoping.
2. Artificially supporting methods such as shrinkage and cut-and-fill mining.
3. Caving methods that can be subdivided into sublevel caving and block caving.
Among these categories, caving methods and in particular block caving can result in lowest cost per
ton of the ore extracted. The method can only be applied to large and massive deposits that are often
suitable candidates for the application of combined open-pit and underground methods.
Figure 2 shows general features of an underground mine that uses block caving. The method can be
applied to ore deposits of much lower grade as long as they are large or massive with appropriate
fracture pattern [2]. After undercutting, the ore body caves naturally due to the force created by the
weight of ore and surrounding strata. Drawing of the caved ore below the ore column continues until the
entire ore above the undercut breaks into suitable sizes for handling. Since there is no control over
fragmentation of the extracted ore, secondary blasting, however, is an inseparable part of the method.
The main disadvantages of the method are dilution and ore loss together with their measurement and
control. Both these are inherent to the method but difficulties in their control may lead to the situation
where the method becomes unacceptably expensive.

Fig. 2. Schematic of an underground mine with using block caving with some main components.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 TRANSITION FROM OPEN-PIT TO UNDERGROUND IN THE CASE OF CHAH-GAZ IRON ORE 957

There are generally three practicable forms of block caving: block system, panel caving and mass
caving. The presence of these three forms increases the application of block caving method
drastically [3].
In surface mining the determination of optimal ultimate open-pit limit is an important design
criterion whereas in underground mining, stope or panel dimensions are of utmost importance. In the
combined method, however, determination of the transition depth is of great importance [4].
Application of operations research techniques and mathematical programming in the mining industry
dates back to the 1960’s. Lerchs and Grossmann (1965) presented the first application of operations
research to optimise of ultimate open-pit limits [5]. Optimization of underground mining layout is more
complex than open-pit since there are various underground mining methods available with vastly
different requirements and characteristics. First time, Riddle (1977) attempted to arrive at optimal
underground stope layout [6]. The efforts spent by Alford (1995) in optimization of underground mine
layout and design are also noteworthy [7].
Some optimization tasks both in open-pit and underground mining, which have used operational
research techniques, are [2]:
- Open-pit: ultimate pit limits, short and long term production scheduling, cut-off grade, etc.
- Underground: stope layout design, access road design, production scheduling, location of
haulage shafts and declines, ventilation network etc.
Researchers have used geological and economic block models of ore deposits as the basis for most
optimization attempts in both open-pit and underground mining layouts.
1. TRANSITION FROM OPEN-PIT TO UNDERGROUND MINING
After initially mining the ore deposit by the use of open-pit method, there is a point (depth) where
we have to decide whether to continue deepening the open-pit mine or changing to an underground
method. The point at which technical and economic considerations dictate to make change from open-
pit to underground mining is called “transition depth.” Optimization of transition from open-pit to
underground mining and therefore accurate determination of transition depth is of utmost important.
Open-pit is most widely applied amongst surface mining methods for the exploitation of various
kinds of ore deposits. On the other hand, block caving, if correctly adopted and properly applied, is
the most economic underground method and will therefore be the most attractive candidate when
considering the application of a combined method for development of a large or massive ore deposit.
Figure 3 shows a schematic view of transition depth including some components.

Fig. 3. Transition problem consists of both open-pit and block-caving parts, together with a crown pillar.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

958 BAKHTAVAR

There are few research papers related to the transition depth problem. Nilsson (1982) introduced
the basic systematic methodology to solve the problem [9]. Recently, a number of researchers
attempted to establish a solution for optimization of the transition problem as the most challenging
problem especially for the biggest metal mines throughout the world.
Nilsson (1982, 1992 and 1997) proposed the first systematic method on the basis of net present
value (NPV) and cash flow. This method follows a heuristic algorithm which can solve the transition
problem by comparing the achieved NPVs form the different probable alternatives of combined open-
pit and underground methods [9], [10], [11]
Camus (1992) introduced a heuristic-based algorithm on the basis of block models including both
open-pit and underground net economic values for each block [12].
Whittle programming (4-x) includes a special heuristic-based algorithm in order to solve the
transition problem by making a decision amongst the operational scenarios of transition from open-pit
to underground [13].
Chen et al. (2003) introduced a mathematical form approach based on “allowable stripping ratio”
for the objective [14].
Visser and Ding (2007) founded a computer program based on a heuristic algorithm for
optimization of open-pit to underground transition [15].
Bakhtavar and Shahriar (2007) presented a heuristic-based algorithm using the economic block
models of open-pit and underground methods [16]. The basis of this algorithm is comparison between
the total values of open-pit and underground blocks in each level. This algorithm was systematically
improved in order to solve the transition problem [17].
An analytical-based procedure was introduced using the allowable and overall stripping ratios
according to tabulate ore deposits for solving this problem [18]. Shahriar et al. (2010) then extended
this procedure by integrating with a mathematical-based form [19].
Bakhtavar et al. (2009) improved the original algorithm presented by Nilsson (1982) through
some essential modifications [20]. In this modified algorithm, they used the economic block models
and considered the combined of open-pit and underground options including a crown pillar.
A heuristic-based algorithm was introduced by comparing the total NPVs through the open-pit
and underground level-cuts [21].
Bakhtavar et al. (2012) proposed a mathematical model in order to determine transition depth
from open-pit to underground mining [22]. The binary linear integer programming was used on the
basis of maximization of the profit gained by open-pit and underground mining. The model was
assessed using a hypothetical example.
A mathematically based methodology with the application of operations research techniques is
essential in order to find an optimal solution. In this study, after generation of the geological and
economic block models of Chah-Gaz iron ore deposit located in Iran the transition problem
mathematically modelled on the basis of the model proposed by Bakhtavar et al. (2012). Finally, the
problem is solved by developing MATLAB optimization code.
2. TRANSITION PROBLEM IN THE CASE OF CHAH-GAZ IRON ORE DEPOSIT
2.1. Mathematical Model
The transition problem was mathematically founded a close fit to a binary integer programming
[22]. The mathematical model was developed by defining “zero” and “one” integer decision
variables: “one” for extracting and “zero” for non-extracting each element (block) through the

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 TRANSITION FROM OPEN-PIT TO UNDERGROUND IN THE CASE OF CHAH-GAZ IRON ORE 959

economic block models including separate open-pit and block caving block values. There are some
basic assumptions made during the formulation of objective function and constraints, being:
- Maximization of total profit by using both open-pit and block caving.
- Using only one method for mining of each block or level.
- Extraction of each block and level is only implemented once.
- Crown pillar can include one or more level(s) of blocks beneath the open-pit blocks.
- All open-pit levels are contiguous.
- All block caving levels are contiguous.
- All crown pillar levels are contiguous.
According to Bakhtavar et al. (2012) for the purpose of problem formulation, in addition to
“variables” and “constants” some essential indices, counters and sets are defined as given in the
appendix. Mathematical model of the transition problem includes objective function and the related
constraints as in Equations (1)–(9). Equation (1) indicates the objective function which is
maximization of the total profit achieved from open-pit and block caving blocks.
Equation (2) ensures applying no more than one method for extraction of each block in the
economic block model and also extraction of each block no more than once. This constraint allows
leaving a block as waste rock or crown pillar between open-pit and block caving.
M N 2
Z = Max    ( p ⋅z ), (1)
i =1 j =1 k =1 i, j,k i, j,k
zi, j ,1 + zi, j ,2 ≤ 1 ∀i = {1, 2, ..., M } , j = {1, 2, ..., N } , (2)
1
A ⋅ zi, j ,1 −  z ≤0, (3)
l =−1 i −1, j +l ,1
( R−1) Q ( Q −1) 
[(Q * R ) − 1]⋅ zi, j ,2 −    zi−r ,q+ j −1,2 +  zi,q+ j ,2  ≤ 0 , (4)
 r =1 q =1 q =1 
∀ i = {M , M − 1, M − 2, ..., R} , j = {1, 2, ..., N − Q + 1}
( S −1)
(S − 1) ⋅ zi , j ,2 −  zi−s, j ,2 ≥ 0 ∀ i = {M , M − 1, M − 2, ..., R} , j , (5)
s =1
(U −1)
(U − 1) ⋅ zi, j ,2 −  zi,u + j ,2 ≥ 0 ∀ i = {M , M − 1, ..., S } , j = {1, 2, ..., N − U + 1} , (6)
u =1

zi , j ,1 − wi ,1 = 0 ∀i , j , (7)
V

z
v =1
i +v , j , 2 + wi ,1 ≤ 1 ∀i , j , (8)

wi ,1 − wi , 2 ≤ 1 ∀i , (9)
z i , j ,1 , z i , j , 2 = 0 or 1 wi ,1 , wi , 2 = 0 or 1.

Equation (3) guarantees the pit slope stability and continuity of mining operational levels (rows).
From technical points of view, before beginning the extraction of a given block, removal of the
overlying blocks is essential. Two-dimensional economic block models and a wall slope of 45° were
considered. It means that the overlying blocks with the addresses of (i − 1, j − 1) , (i − 1, j ) and
(i − 1, j + 1) have to move before extraction of block (i, j ) .

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

960 BAKHTAVAR

Fig. 4. Minimum block caving stope geometry indicating the workable blocks in relation to extraction of block (i, j ) on
2D economic block model of block caving method [22].

Minimum applicable width and height are important factors playing a major role in optimization of
underground stope layout. In block caving underground method, extraction of each block is often
conditional upon extracting all adjacent blocks within the stope layout. For the purpose of this study,
minimum possible width and height of block caving stope are assumed equal to three and four
contiguous blocks, respectively. It means that in order to extract block (i, j ) it is necessary to mine
entirely the blocks as highlighted in Fig. 4. The minimum width and height of stope constraints are
merged in form of a set of constraints as in Eq. (4). Furthermore, due to the restriction of maximum
dimensions (width and height) of a block caving stope, the maximum width and height are presented
according to Eqs. (5) and (6).
Crown pillars often prevent water entering from the open-pit floor into the stope and control
surface subsidence and caving propagation to open-pit working benches. Assigning the most
appropriate crown pillar between open-pit and block caving, which can minimize detrimental
interaction between two working areas, is a challenging issue in the mining industry today. During the
mathematical modeling, crown pillar constraints are provided for ensuring no more than one uniform
crown pillar as a multiple of row (level) height. In Eqs. (7), (8) two sets of constraints are formulated
for the purpose of considering a crown pillar. Constraints in Eq. (9) ensure that each row (level) can
remain as crown pillar or to be extracted by only of the two methods, open-pit or block caving.
2.2. Solving Chah-Gaz Problem Using Developed MATLAB Based Coding
There are several metaliferrous ore deposits in Iran which are suitable for mining by a
combination of open-pit with an underground method. Chah-Gaz iron ore deposit, located in central
Iran, is one of these. The underground mining method to be applied in this case is expected to be
block caving.
The available linear integer programming codes in the optimization toolbox of MATLAB
software is developed in this research in order to solve the transition problem of Chah-Gaz case study
according to the mathematical model proposed by Bakhtavar et al. (2012). For easy application of the
developed a visual computer based program using graphical user interface (GUI) has been set. This
program can solve all transition problems during the steps of importing block economic values of
open-pit and block caving, selection of the required constraints according to transition problem
conditions, importing all parameters required for the modeling according to the chosen constraints
and finally running the program. The following steps are set in order to carry out mathematical
modeling and hence solve the transition problem of Chah-Gaz case study:
- Step 1: Assigning an applicable size of blocks as the base for both geological and
economic block models.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 TRANSITION FROM OPEN-PIT TO UNDERGROUND IN THE CASE OF CHAH-GAZ IRON ORE 961

- Step 2: Creation of geological (block) model of the ore deposit.

- Step 3: Creation of both open-pit and block caving economic block models according to
the geological block model.
- Step 4: Selection of a common section of the open-pit and block caving economic block
models which include the lowest row (level).
- Step 5: Formulation of the transition problem according to the selected two-dimensional
block models (sections) on the basis of the mathematical model by Bakhtavar et al., 2012
that we presented earlier.
- Step 6: Solving the problem by importing data into the MATLAB based coding program.
Although there are the classical exploration methods for creation of a geological model, the
computerized modeling programs according to exploration boreholes work more accurately with
detailed modeling [23].
Figure 5 illustrates the geological block model of Chah-Gaz iron ore body together with
topography and the exploration drill holes. Figure 6 shows the main geological block model including
waste and ore blocks for the case under consideration. Dimensions of the ore deposit block model are
960, 1500 and 750 m in X, Y, and Z directions, respectively. Dimensions of the blocks in the block
model are 30×30×30 m. They are a multiple of the designed bench height of 15 m for the case study.
Block grades are estimated using “inverse distance squared” during the block modeling of the ore
body.

Fig. 5. Geological block model of Chah-Gaz iron ore body with topography and the exploration boreholes.

Fig. 6. Geological block model including waste and ore blocks for Chah-Gaz deposit.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

962 BAKHTAVAR

Technical and economic parameters of Chah-Gaz mine for creating open-pit and block caving
economical block models
Parameter (unit) Value

Price ($/ton) 53

Open-pit stripping cost ($/ton) 1.25

Open-pit mining cost ($/ton) 1.5

Block caving cost ($/ton) 3.25

Processing cost ($/ton) 8

Processing recovery (%) 80

In the next step, the economic block models of open-pit and block caving are created on the basis
of the geological block model and also using some technical and economic data of both mining
methods. The table summarizes all data required for the economic block models.
Section “357080E North-South” from economic block model has been selected for both open-pit
and block caving according to step 4. Figures 7 and 8 include this section with separate open-pit and
underground block values.

Fig. 7. Section “357080E North-South” of Chah-Gaz economical block model with open-pit block values.

Fig. 8. Section “357080E North-South” of Chah-Gaz economical block model with block caving block values.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 TRANSITION FROM OPEN-PIT TO UNDERGROUND IN THE CASE OF CHAH-GAZ IRON ORE 963

Fig. 9. Transition from open-pit to block-caving for the mine using the model.

The block values for both open-pit and block caving methods are imported according to section
“357080E North-South” of Chah-Gaz economic block model to the MATLAB based coding program.
Furthermore, all constraints and therefore amount of the required parameters are considered. For
instance, there are:
- Two contiguous rows as the practical thickness of crown pillar according to geo-
mechanical considerations;
- Four contiguous blocks in each row as the minimum possible width of the stope;
- Fifteen contiguous blocks in each row as the maximum width of the stope;
- Four contiguous blocks in each row as the minimum height of the stope; and
- Fifteen contiguous blocks in each row as the maximum height of the stope;
Finally, the program is executed. Figure 9 shows the output in Graphical format of MATLAB. The
results indicate a transition depth of 450 m (15 rows) and seven contiguous rows as the height of the
block caving stope beneath the crown pillar. Figure 9 comprises open-pit and block caving layouts.
2.3. Results and Discussion
Chah-Gaz iron ore body for combined mining of open-pit and block caving are considered in
order to study the practicability of the model produced in this paper. The main input parameters
required for importing to the model are the net block values of open-pit and block caving methods.
Therefore, a block size of 30*30 m is considered for creating the economic block models of open-pit
and block caving. This size is a multiple of open-pit bench height of 15 m for the case study, which is
common in open-pit mines design. It is notable that there is no limit in assigning a blocks size
according to the common open-pit bench heights of 10, 12.5 and 15m. Some economic parameters are
taken into account such as production costs due to open-pit and block caving and final product price
for creating the block models. Block value originally is the profit achieved through extraction of a
block by a mining method and selling the product. After creation of the block models the section
named “1060N East-West” is selected which includes the maximum numbers of the ore blocks. This
section is considered as the base block model for importing open-pit and block caving block values to
the model.
There are, however, the some assumptions made and limitations to the mathematical model
introduced in this paper. These are:
- Applying economic block models including open-pit and block caving block values as the
base input parameters.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

964 BAKHTAVAR

- Considering the essential constraints for both open-pit and block caving.
- Possibility of assigning a crown pillar between open-pit and block caving.
- The model should be better used in case non-simultaneous mining of open-pit and block
caving.
- Base of the model is on two dimensional sections of open-pit and block caving economic
block models.
CONCLUSIONS
The mathematical model of the transition problem from open pit to block caving by developing a
binary linear integer programming was used in this research. Then a visual computer based program
on the basis of the available codes in optimization toolbox of MATLAB software was set up, in order
to solve the transition problems of Chah-Gaz case study during a simple process. The utilized
program in this paper is an applicable tool for mining engineers in all situations where the non-
simultaneous mining of open-pit and block caving is considered. The base inputs that are imported to
the model consist of the block values of open pit and block caving. After creating Chah-Gaz
geological and economic block models the transition problem was mathematically modelled and
finally solved. The results indicate a transition depth of 450 m.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks go to all the managers of the Iranian Minerals Production and Supply Company
(IMPASCO), especially to Mr. Morshedzadeh, Chahgaz Project Manager, for helping with the data
collection as required. I would also like to thank all others who gave me the valuable notes and
comments.
REFERENCES
1. Bakhtavar, E., Shahriar, K., Oraee, K., and Flett, P., Mining Method Selection and Transition Depth
Determination Problems—Which One is in Priority of Consideration? Proc. Mine Planning and
Equipment Selection (MPES), Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2009, pp.67–74.
2. Newman, A., Rubio, E., Caro, R., Weintraub, A., and Eurek, K., A Review of Operations Research in
Mine Planning,” Interfaces, 2010, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 222–245.
3. Gertsch, R.E. and Bullock, R.L., Techniques in Underground Mining,” Society for Mining, Metallurgy,
and Exploration, 1998.
4. Shahriar, K. and Bakhtavar, E., Operations Research and Mine Design—A Review, Proc. 22nd World
Mining Congress & Expo, Istanbul, Turkey, 2011, pp. 167–176.
5. Lerchs H. and Grossmann, I.F., Optimum Design of Open Pit Mines, Canadian Institute of Mining
Bulletin, 1965, vol. 58, no. 633,, pp. 47–54.
6. Riddle, J.M., A Dynamic Programming Solution of a Block-Caving Mine Layout, Proc. 14th Int. APCOM
Symp., SME, New York, 1977, pp. 767–780.
7. Alford, C., Optimization in Underground Mine Design, Proc. 25th Int. APCOM Symp., Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Littleton, CO., 1995, pp. 213–218.
8. Hamrin, H., Underground Mining Methods and Applications, Underground Mining Methods: Engineering
Fundamentals and International Case Studies, W.A. Hustrulid, R.L. Bullock (Eds.), SME, Littleton, CO,
2001, pp. 3–14.
9. Nilsson, D.S., Open Pit or Underground Mining, Underground Mining Methods Handbook, Section.1.5,
AIME, New York, 1982, pp. 70–87.
10. Nilsson, D.S., Surface vs. Underground Methods, SME Mining Engineering Handbook, Section 23.2, H.L.
Hartman (Ed.), 1992, pp. 2058–2068.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

 TRANSITION FROM OPEN-PIT TO UNDERGROUND IN THE CASE OF CHAH-GAZ IRON ORE 965

11. Nilsson, D.S., Optimal Final Pit Depth: Once Again (Technical Paper), International Journal of Mining
Engineering, 1997, pp. 71–72.
12. Camus, J.P., Open Pit Optimization Considering an Underground Alternative, Proc. 23th Int. APCOM
Symp., Tucson, Arizona, USA, 1992, pp. 435–441.
13. Tulp, T., Open Pit to Underground Mining, Mine Planning and Equipment Selection, Rotterdam: Balkema,
1998, pp. 9–12.
14. Chen J., Guo, D., and Li, J., Optimization Principle of Combined Surface and Underground Mining and Its
Applications, Journal of Central South University of Technology, 2003, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 222–225.
15. Visser W.F. and Ding, B., Optimization of the Transition from Open Pit to Underground Mining,
Proc. 4th AACHEN Int. Mining Symp.—High Performance Mine Production, Aachen, Germany,
2007, pp. 131–148.
16. Bakhtavar, E. and Shahriar, K., Optimal Ultimate Pit Depth Considering an Underground Alternative,
Proc. 4th AACHEN Int. Mining Symp.—High Performance Mine Production, Aachen, Germany,
2007, pp. 213–221.
17. Bakhtavar, E., Shahriar, K., and Oraee, K., A Model for Determining Optimal Transition Depth over from
Open-Pit to Underground Mining, Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Mass Mining, Luleå, Sweden, 2008, pp. 393–400.
18. Bakhtavar, E., Shahriar, K., and Oraee, K., An approach towards ascertaining open-pit to underground
transition depth, Journal of Applied Sciences, 2008, vol. 8, no. 23, pp. 4445–4449.
19. Shahriar, K., Oraee, K., Bakhtavar, E., and Flett, P., Economico-Mathematical Modeling of Transition
from Open-pit to Underground Mining, Proc. Int. Conf. SME, USA, 2010.
20. Bakhtavar, E., Shahriar, K., and Oraee, K., Mining Method Selection and Optimization of Transition from
Open Pit to Underground in Combined Mining, Journal of Archives of Mining Sciences, 2009, vol. 54,
no. 3, pp. 481–493.
21. Bakhtavar, E., Shahriar, K., and Oraee, K., Transition from Open-Pit to Underground as a New Optimization
Challenge in Mining Engineering, Journal of Mining Science, 2009, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 87–96.
22. Bakhtavar, E., Shahriar, K., and Mirhassani, A., Optimization of the Transition from Open-Pit to Underground
Operation in Combined Mining using (0 - 1) Integer Programming, The Journal of the Southern African Institute
of Mining and Metallurgy, 2012, vol. 112, pp. 1059–1064.
23. Abdollahisharif, J., Bakhtavar, E., lipour, A., and Mokhtarian, M., Geological Modeling and Short-Term
Production Planning of Dimension Stone Quarries Based on Market Demand, Journal Geological Society
of India, 2012, vol. 80, pp. 420–428.

APPENDIX (mathematical model by Bakhtavar et al. (2012))

Indices and counters:

i is index for rows
j is index for columns
i,j is index specifying location of a block within the economic block models
k is index to indicates possible mining methods for blocks (1, for open-pit; 2, for underground)
l is counter for blocks overlying ore-block (i,j) considered for assigning the slope constraint
q is counter for blocks (in a row) considered for setting the minimum width of an underground stope
constraint
u is counter for blocks (in a row) considered for setting the maximum width of an underground
stope constraint
r is counter for blocks (in a column) considered for setting the minimum height of an underground
stope constraint

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013

966 BAKHTAVAR

s is counter for blocks (in a column) considered for setting the maximum height of an underground
stope constraint
v is counter for rows considered for setting the crown pillar between open-pit and underground
stope mining constraint
Sets:
K is a set of possible mining methods for blocks; K= {1, 2}
B is a set of blocks considered in modeling
Ba is a set of blocks overlying ore-block (i, j) considered in modeling
BR is a set of blocks should be successively mined in a row through underground method;
BR= {(i, 1),(i, 2),…,(i, Q), …,(i, B)}
BC is a set of blocks should be successively mined in a column through underground method;
BC= {(1, j),(2, j),…,(R, j), …,(S, j)}
I is a set of rows; I= {1, 2,…,M}
J is a set of columns; J= {1, 2,…,N}
Ih is a set of contiguous rows should be remained immediately below open-pit mining;
Ih= {1, 2,…,V}
Constant parameters:
A is the number of blocks overlying ore-block (i, j) considered in modeling
Q is the minimum number of blocks should be successively mined in a row through underground
method
U is the maximum number of blocks should be successively mined in a row through underground
method
R is the minimum number of blocks should be successively mined in a column through underground
method
S is the maximum number of blocks should be successively mined in a column through
underground method
V is the number of rows should be successively remained below the open-pit mining
M is the number of rows considered in modeling
N is the number of columns considered in modeling
pi,j,k is economic net value of block (i, j), which pi,j,1 is considered for open-pit and pi,j,2 is for
underground mining
Decision variables:
zi,j,1 is a binary variable representing block (i, j) mined through open-pit; it is assigned 1 if block (i, j)
is mined through open-pit and assigned 0 otherwise.
zi,j,2 is a binary variable representing block (i, j) mined through underground; it is assigned 1 if block
(i, j) is mined through underground and assigned 0 otherwise.
wi,1 is a binary variable representing row i mined through open-pit; it is assigned 1 if wi,1 is one and
assigned 0 otherwise.
wi,2 is a binary variable representing row i mined through underground; it is assigned 1 if wi,2 is one
and assigned 0 otherwise.

JOURNAL OF MINING SCIENCE Vol. 49 No. 6 2013