Chapter 14
Mining Method Selection Techniques -
Requirements for Successful Solutions
by
Thomas Oberndorfer
Montan-University Leoben
Department for Mining Engeneering and
Mineral Economics
Leoben, Austria
Recent publications indicate that there is a
rising interest in the field of mining method
selection, and increasing efforts are being
undertaken to develop satisfying solutions. Yet,
computer assistance for mining method selection
(MMS), or in other ' terms assistance in the
@re-)feasibilitystate of a project, still lags behind
the computer application in other mining
activities. This is true for research as well as for
application.
This paper is intended as a contribution to the
development in computer-assisted mining method
selection, and focuses especially on underground
hard-rock mining. It is structured in four main
parts. The first deals with general aspects of
mining method selection within the process of
mine planning, and with problems and
requirements which derive from this specific
situation. In the second p a some
MMS-approaches hitherto published are briefly
introdud, and investigations on these
approaches are discussed. Based on these
experiences, in the third part an analysis of the
complex system MMS is presented. It focuses on
heuristics, influencing factors, objectives,
assessment-routines and mining methods, and
emphasizes the essential necessity of a profound
mining method description (MMD)
developed for the requirements of MMS and
numerical processing. Accordinglythe fourth part
of this paper presents a mining method
description model developed at the Department of
Mining Engineering, Montan-University Leoben
(MUL), Austria. It describes the consequences of
the investigation, in particular the new mining
method description model, on 'the design of a
MMS-system. The paper closes with a outlook on
the possibilities of an successful MMS-system
being realised.
I. Importance and problems of mining
method selection
' U S U ~the ~ ~development
Y of a successful to01
Starts with investigations on the intentions of what
if is expected to be used for, and what tasks it
should be capable of solving. Therefore a short
look at the tasks and problems during the
progress of a mining-project should be made. The
gnph at the right side of Fig. 1 shows the
development of expenditures, together with the
necessary activities (displayed as bars, which
indicate their approximate length of time) for a
-
typical mining-~roject"*'-MMS indicated by a
- can be as a Pa
feasibility-investigations, strictly speaking it is an
essential Part the technical of project
feasibility. The graph at the left side of the figure
shows the availability and application of
COmputer-s~ftwarefor the respective activities.
 146 * 23rd APCOM PROCEEDINGS
:' med,um
:_very low
--__--. feasibility
very hlgh )
explorati?
__--
. computer- proceeding of project
application
Fig. 1 Computer application during mining-projects
' Three statements can be drawn.
First, there is generally a noticeable lack of
computer-assistance for feasibility-estimations
tasks. This is especially true for MMS.
Second, the feasibility-phase can be regarded
as critical. Erroneous decisions lead to a'loss of
revenues if a profitable project is rejected; or to
an extreme increase of expenditures according to
the graph of the figure if a unprofitable project is
carried on. This is the reason why a reliable
MMS-system would certainly repay the efforts of
its development.
The third point is the most important in r e s w t
to the requirements for an MMS-system. Similar
to the feasibility itself, MMS develops gradually
from rough estimations to detailed calculation.
This means that the MMS-process is not liable to
be structured in a simple two-step procedure,
namely 'pre-selection' and 'final-selection'. An
MMS-system,. which should be applicable and
.,valuable in practical planning-work, must cover
the whole range of tasks from obtainig a rough
idea of preferable mining methods up to
determining the exact mining method layout
.including dimensions, machinery and equipment,
time schedules, etc. It will be shown that
especially this demand has strong effects on the . problem.
design of an MMS-system.
According to the opinion. of several experts,
'
, MMS is one of the.most demanding and complex
tasks. the mining engineer has
to deal with. The problems he
has to face (and solve) are due
to: '
- the great number of factors
influencing the mining
V) method selection, as well as
% . , the complexity of inter-
,
n . relations between these
'
3 factors and the mining
methods,
. - the contradictory and
t competitive character of
objectives on which basis
the decision is made (e.g.
'
' productivity vs. selectivity,
etc.),
- the fact that several data are vague and
uncertain, and additionally
- that the degree of vagueness and uncertainty is
changing during the project and, decision
progress,
- the multitude of formulations of problems for
different projects and different stages of
decision he is confronted with,
- - the interdisciplinary character of the task,
which comprises , technical, economical,
legislative subjects .(to list only the most
important ones),
- the fact that the involved technical procedures
themselves are extremely- multitudinous
(covering for example as diverse ,problems as
geomechanics, dewatering of backfilling,
transportation, milling, etc.)
- the involvation of experience, estimation and
calculation in the solution-process.
. The complexity bf ihk sibject is 'underlined
whenS'the long lists of influencing factors on
mining method operation in thyretical reports is
considered, i s weli ,as when the. variety of
a.@um&ts, for decision 'for a specific mining
method in operating mines is considered - which
repre&nts' the practical point of view of the
,
It should not be concealed that there.are also
other opinions. In 'Rock Mechanics for
Underground Mining' by Brady and Browno) it
 MINING METHOD SELECTION TECHNIQUES
can be read: "It sometiks appears that mining
method selectionfor a particular mining prospect
can present acute technical dificulty. With the
exception discussed below [massive deposits], this
is not usually the c q e . In fact, the choice of
potential methodr of working a deposit is quickly
circumscribed, as candidate methods are
disqualified on the basis of specific properties'of
the orebody and its surroundings. It follows, that
the development of selection schemes ... .is
unnecessary. Such an approach implies that, for
an orebody, any mining method is a candidate
method. This is clearly at variance with the
philosophy and historical development of mining
engineering. "
This opinion is worth considering, because it
unveils a very critical aspect of MMS. The
quoted opinion holds true, if the term 'mining
method' is understood as a collective term for a
'set of similar' methods of exploitation, which
can be better termed as a 'mining method class'.
A class of mining method is characterized by one
or several typical specifications, which make it
clearly distinguishable from other classes. In this
understanding, indeed no more than about .a
dozen mining methods are usually applied. But
investigations on mining practice detect quickly
that there is a very large variety of mining
operations, and some mining engineers tend to
the opinion that each .mining method is as
individual as the deposit it is applied to. .
Obviously it is necessary to use a 'rigid
terminology to avoid confusion. For this reason
some definitions should be put ahead of the
further discussion.
'Mining operation' stands for a very, detailed
specified excavation" method, while 'mining
method class' is used for a ' set of mining
operations, which are 'similar' in respect of
certain classification criterions. The difference
between both terms is obviously defined by the
precision of specification. There is a comparable
distinction in terms of precision for mining
method selection: 'pre-selection' refers to a first-
step restriction of alternatives, while Ynal
selection' deals with the rather detailed
determination of mining method layout, including
dimensions, machinery, etc.
The given definitions are only the extremes of
147
a gradual spectrum of possibilities. Therefore the
terms 'mining method' and 'selection' are used as
collective terms for the complete spectrum.
In a first approximation it seems that there is a
correlation between mining method class and pre-
selection, respectively .between mining operation
and final selection. The key-question is, which
approach is most convenient for an MMS-system
which claims to treat both 'pre-selection' and
'final selection'. This will be discussed later in . .
this paper. These general and introductory
definitions are necessary for the further .
discussion, and also for characterization of the
problems of MMS. .. .
11. Hitherto published mining method
selection approaches
Hitherto published' MMS approaches be
classified into two 'generations'. The difference
between these generations is simply the applied
mathematical and.computer-technical methods.
One of the first numerical approaches was
published by Ni~holas''~.This approach can be
considered as a typical exponent of the la
generation. Far away from using any high-
sophisticated computer-technology he suggested
a decision-table approach. It is worth to note that
all proposals of this early generation - also
completely different in their presentation-form -
can be transferred into decision-tables in
principle. Fig. 2 gives 'some examples of these
'
approaches. These l* generation approaches were
subject of detailed tests and investigations at the
mining department of MUL. The results of these
tests can be summarized in the statement, that
"the 'behaving' of the distinct proposals is not
really 'overwhelming"'. This judgement derives
from the fact, that it is not uncommon, that the
suggested mining methods for specific conditions
include 'doubtful' or 'suspicious' alternatives.
Less common the approaches reject obviously
applicable or even favorable mining methods
under specific conditions.
Generally the situation for these approaches
can be described as following:
- All authors stress that the ,suggested proposals
are pre-selections, arid the selected mining
.-. ,methods require further investigation by
 148 23rd APCOM .PROCEEDINGS

.. .
Nicholas ('5)
. I 1 de Souza & Archibald '(17)! ' 1

Hartman (I1) Morrison (I4) . I

influencingfactors minin
' IFI . IF$ methois

Fig. 2 Schematic presentation of selected aspproachesfor mining method selection '11n14.16n17'.

. . .
technical and economical calculations, which
are not integrated. in.the numerical process.
- Only..a. few (about a dozen) mining methods
are involved . in the , selection-process; this
means that a selected alternative still covers a'
. variety of adaptations(: = mining'method class
approach).. , :
.-
- Description of mining . conditions :cover
. geometric and geomechanical data of the
deposit, . and rarely. economical or
... environmental data.: . :
. - Description of mining conditions is,generally
qualitative (e.g. rockrnass quality of ore is
. 'weak'). . . * .
- Selection is based on a ~ery'~enera1 objective
. in .. terms .of 'applicability' or ; 'general
suitabjlity ' . . ...
- Generally only a very. low perentake of
candidate methods are -'disqualified by the
; ' selection' process. , ,
_. "6
, 1
: ,Thk.last statement is:worth discussing in more
:. detail. It is clearly against the presumption.of
Brady and Brown that, .'quick:.and 'self-evident'
disqualification of mining methods will occur. In
fact, investigations turned out that there are good
reasons for this low disqualification-rate. To give
an example: Although a room-and-pillar method
(RAP) can be regarded as a typical mining
method for flat-dipping, thin, tabular-shaped
deposits, there are modifications of RAP which
are well suited for less typical conditions, as for
examples massive deposits. For this reason RAP
(or better RAP and its related mining methods)
cannot 'be rejected for a variety of conditions.
Similar examples can be found for almost any
mining method.
The 2"dgeneration of MMS-approaches can be
characterized by the implementation of highly-
I
sophisticated computer-software and advanced
mathematical t h e o r i e ~ @ * ~while
* ' ~ . ~ all
~ , other
characteristics of the 1" generation are retained,
. especially as far as number and type of
. '
description of both mining methods and' deposit
conditions are concerned. The keywords for these
approaches are expert-system, knowledge-based
systems, fuzzy-set theory, etc. It seems to be a
 MINING METHOD SELECTION TECHNIQLIES
tendency that the sole solution to the problem is
sought in these modem techniques.
Without doubt, expert-systems are very helpful
tools to model the complex interrelationships
involved in MMS, and .the introduction of this
software will definitely lead ,to improvements.
Nevertheless it should be kept .in mind that the
enthusiasm about the exciting. capabilities of
expert systems must not hide the obstacles which
derive from more fundamental difficulties of the
MMS-process itself.
111. Analysis of mining method
selection process
The' decision process is built up by three
elements: 1) the alternatives (mining methods),
2) the objectives (criterions in respect of which
the selection is made), and 3) the influencing
factors (which affect the selection) (Fig. 3). In
principle, the influenciong factors in combination
with the objectives lead to an assessment of
alternatives, on which basis a selection can be
made. Besides these primary dependencies,
secondary effects must be also considered
(indicated by dotted arrow in Fig. 3), and
additionally, it must not be forgotten, that this
scheme is not stationary, but flexible in respect of
problem formulation and project stage.
The manner in which these dependencies are
.controlled in order to obtain a solution, is called
the heuristics of decision making.
1 Heuristics of mining method selection
The solution of complex technical problems is
usually simplified by means of dividing it into
smaller, less complex sub-systems; or in other
words, by structurisation. Due to the
contemporary developments of both computer and
software technology, the necessity of
structurisation seemed to become less important.
The inference machinery of expert systems is
capable to find in any case a solution path by its
own, and this fact tempts to 'add just another
rule' in order to improve the system. But some
unpreferable consequences ensue from
unstructured system design: 1) The performance
would considerably slow down (and so one of the
strengths of expert systems - its interactive
operation - would be severely hampered),
149
( )
alternatives
.2z;-I
Fig. 3 Elements and dependencies between these
elements within mining method selection process. ,
'
2) upgrading and changing of the knowledgebase
would become impractical and susceptible to
errors, 3) the valuable explanation-facility of
expert systems would give explanations hardly
understandable for the user, and 4) in case of
faulty decisions (especially during the
development phase) the back-tracing of the
decision path for error detection and correction
would become very difficult.
This is definitely not a vote against expert
systems. In fact, expert systems are well suited
for the task of MMS, because trial-and-error,
constant recalculation and reconsiderations, or
generally the adaptation of the next investigation
steps in accordance to sub-decisions and
provisional results are typical elements of the
MMS-procedure.
Nevertheless, a well-founded structure forces
detailed investigations on relationships and helps
to avoid forgeting about fundamentals while
concentrating on details, which are undeniable
preconditions for a reliable, comprehensive and
speedy MMS-system.
Most critical for the design of heuristics is the
requirement that MMS must cover the whole
range from pre-selection to final selection. This
aspect will be especially emphasized in the
following discussion.. .
Influencing Factors and Objectives
Influencing factors and objectives relevant for
MMS are numerous. It is not the goal of this
paper to discuss them in detailQ. Of prime
importance for MMS-design is the fact that
during the distinct project-phases, the available

Information
preselec(lon
. ,
= ' I appl~lity
1q l ~ a m n u v o r
-
- -
. -
technical-.
.
=\=.
final '1
selection
, . - !
' .
Fig. 4: Schematic draft of effect of mining project
stage on objectives-
information (= utilizeable influencing factors for
MMS) will increase both in number and a
precision, and the various,objectives will change
their significance for the selection.
. Fig. -. 4 demonstrates in principle this
interrelationship. Of course costs are the decisive
objective for selection, but in early project stages
they cannot be calculated, and other objectives
must be used as substitutes. This leads by itself to
manageable sub-systems,. and in this way the
evolutionary development:of MMS is simplified,
.. because . not all influencing factors effect all
:objectives: . ,:,: I
Of course it is not sufficient to know about the
.,.meresexistence of dependencies and influences
between the elements of the'decision process, but
. as well, the numerically expressed assessment
must be figured. out. ;It.>is one of the key-
questions,:how to obiainfcorrect assessment-data.
In this context the importance of international
data-bases with mining-relevant data must be
,' emphasizedm.'Techniques; such as correlation-
analysis or rapid prototyping by expeyt'systems
can. help to ob@n valuable knowledge from such
data-bases. Other sources of information can 'be
mining handbooks and teaching books, which
have the advantage of comprehensive and concise
presentationg). Last but not least, a close
cooperation with research centers, mining
bureaus, mining companies, mining .consultants
' and mining-equipment producers will. help to
achieve the purpose. .
.. . ' I . * ,
, ,
23rd APCOM PROCEEDINGS
objectives - m a w assessment . fundlonal assessment
'preferablllv
safetv
environmental-
impacts
I algorithm assessment I rule-based aseGent I
invesbnent-
produmvlty
costs I ,-
Fig. 5 Mathematical formulation of assessments.
From mathematical and computertechnical
point of view, a large variety of possibilities are
conceivable, e.g. matrix-, , functional-,
algorithm-, or rule-based-assessment (Fig. 5).
The choice of the most appropriate form of
assessment depends highly on the data involved in
a definite assessment step. Matrix and rule-based
assessment seems preferable for qualitative data
(in early decision stage), while functional and
algorithm-assessment will be favorable for
quantified data and for complex relations (e.g.
dilution-calculations, geomechanicalcalculations)
usually occumng at a progressed stage of
decision. The capability of the assessment-routine
to process uncertain and fuzzy data is desirable,
otherwise laborious sensitivity-analysis must be
applied.
Mining methods . .. . . < _. .
The different points of #viewin respect of mining
methods and the tremendous effect on the MMS-
system have already been 'mentioned. Fig. 6
illustrates the different effects of two distinct
approaches, namely 'mining method class' and
'mining operation' approach on the MMS-
process. 8 8
The mining method class approach leads itself
to a step-by:step procedure, whereby with each
step the "mining method class increase in
precision, i.e. number of specified characteristics
(left side of Fig. 6). This means, that in a first
' step pieferable mining-method classes are
selectd. If the decision process is continued,
'
these classes will be splitted into its members,
 MINING METHOD SELECTION TECHNIQUES 151

class-selection individual-selection
1st step of '. . ,st step of.
9

, . ,
1st step of . 1st step of ' , ,

selection . selection .. selection selection

;dassiflcatlon :. ,. dassiflcatlon
1st order 2nd order
.............. ............................................ ..

,
, selected&.

.....................................
--'+ rejected

j / rejected

.....
. .
......................................,..................: .
:...................
. :...................
. .........
: '
*fa"" 1
..................; rejection
................ ..:

Fig. 6 Comparison of class-selection and individual selection of mining methods.

which will then be subject for more detailed 'deposit-condition classes' can be seen in the fact
investigations and selections. The schematic that completely different mining methods are
example shows, that a preferable mining method applied under conditions which look similar or
can easily get lost in previouslselection steps, comparable at first sight, and each mining
unless a very 'unselective' decision is accepted supervisor can list several good reasons why his
(this means a large number of mining methods decision was correct. All these aspects make the
remain candidates in early selection steps). In any class-selection approach rather unfavorable.
case, the applied classification criterions are most
critical for the success of the final selection. The problem of erroneous elimination is
Until now, only little investigations have been avoided if the 'individual selection' approach is
undertaken in respeq to 'mining .methods applied (displayed at the .right side of Fig. 6).
' description and cla~sification(~). The existing This approach is also much more flexible for
classification approaches have been developed distinct formulations of questions k d available
mainly for other purposes than MMS (e.g. in influencing factors. This means that from the
respect to education, or internationalization of very beginning (i.e. even for pre-selection) all
nomenclature, etc.), and they do not meet the mining methods have to be considered. Usually
very strict requirements for computerized pro- this would result in inconvenient long lists of
suggested mining methods at early selection-
cessing.
stages, but, this disadvantage can be avoided by
These classifications are often very theoretical
in nature, and do not always reflect similarities in means of a convenient mining method
the sense of operational characteristics, which are description. Summing up; it may be said that the
of importance for MMS. An indication of the advantages of the 'individual selection' make it
poor correlation of 'mining method classes' with the favorable choice.
152 ' 23rd APCOM PROCEEDINGS

As this is a central point, the

author undertook the trial to
develop a' mining method
description which fulfdls the
requirement for. 'individual
'
(
description enumerative classification

"
~ 1-
modular ,

1
digital

selection'. The basic ideas of schematic

IV. Mining method

description model
There are almost unlimited
possibilities how a mining
method can be described.
Generally speaking, any Fig. 7 Approaches of mining method description.
description consists of a set of
parameters, which specify the . .
characteristic of the mining method, and distict
differ in respect of
number and c o m ~ l e x i tof
~ parameters
(Fig. 7). Some typical representatives are:
- Enumerative list i
The definition of a mining method is restricted
to an identification name. The actual layout as
we1l;as its operation-characteristics of this
mining method cannot be deducted from this
name, but has to be externally defined (e.g. by
sketches, etc.).
winning
- Modular description
Mining are exclusively descdbed by
a 'sufficient9 number of attributes. Actually
this approach is the consequent funher
development of the classification approach. But
- as indicated by the term 'modular' - the
attributes are not hierarchically arranged.
Attributes (e.g. shape and size of open room)
and its elements - are clearly defined and
structured. Usually this is not possible with
common mining-terms, thus a new terminology
has to be used. , +

This approach is very close to current use of - Digital modelling .

nomenclature of mining methods (e.g.
'mechanized cut-and-fill', 'vertical block
mining', etc).
- classification approach
Mining methods are classified in several
'typical' groups. Classification characteristics
are usually few. in number, hierarchically
structured, and cover merely the features
-in'the context of MMS.
regarded as most important for a mining
method (e.g. applied ground control, mining
direction, etc.).
The hitherto introduced classification-systems
show, that at least for some mining methods,
problems arise to relate it with the proper
class. Beside that the characteristics for
classification usually do not correlate with
characteristics which are important for overall
operation-characteristics.
Mining methods are described in digitalized
form as applied in CAD-applications (e.g. each
excavation is defined by its coordinates).
It should -' be once .ag&n stated' that all
description niodels . are capable of 'describing
mining methods with ':similar precision.
' ' ''
Nevertheless, these versions
. . . :6ehave
. vej. different
I
This. difference is illustrated in Fig. 8, which
shows a comparision of enumerative and modular
mining method description within the mining
method process. In case of enumerativeMMD (at
the top. of figure) the assessment-machinery
connects the mining . method directly .with the
conditions of a specific case. This means that an
assessment routine must .be provided for each
mining method q d : for each condition.
 MINING METHOD SELECTION TECHNIQUES
.................................................. ,
MMD fw
;
MMD for cwnwier aOpNadlon
n
translation into
standard nomenclatur
I I
Fig. 8 Enumerative and modular approach of mining method selection
Obviously, if the number of involved mining
methods increases (as it has to if a more precise
specification is required), a huge number of
assessment-routines have to exist. Unfortunately
these assessments will incorporate a whole lot of
redundancy. To give an example: The simple fact
that caving will lead to remarkable subsidencies
on the surface (with all its consequences) must be
defined for each mining method which involves
caving. This redundancy does not only blow up
the system unnecessarily, but it is also dangerous
in case of system. upgrades (because the
assessment has to be changed for all mining
methods identically).
This is different for the modular-defined
version, because - as displayed in the bottom part
of Fig. 8 - in this case' the assessment-machinery
connects only the parameters with the conditions,
and the assessment is valid for any mining
method which incorporates this parameter. This
makes the system- quickly extendable with
additional mining methods without any additional
definitions of assessments or rules.
153
,.................................................................................................................
mlnlng method sdedkn
assessment
..................................................................................................................
mining msmod E&&XI
factors
assessment linked
to parameters of
-
.description model
The modular description approach is regarded
to be most appropriate for mining method
selection if the following preconditions are
fulfilled:
- Deductibility of description with lower
preciseness (simplified speaking a 'high
mechanized cut-and-fill with hydraulic backfill'
must be identifiable as 'cut and fill'). This
. requirement is necessary to eliminate the
previously stated disadvatages of too numerous
alternative suggestions in combination with
individual selection.
- The parameters used by the description model
must be connectable to the operation
characteristics (e.g.production rate, dilution,
etc), which are necessary for decision-making.
- Unequivocal definition, i.e. one mining
method is described by only one characteristic
set of attributes.
Under these preconditions the modular mining
method description provides many advantages:
- Elimination of usually unclear and overlapping
154 23rd APCOM PROCEEDINGS

................................................................... .........................................................................., . .
............................................................................................................................................................. phase VI , . . ,

. . .- ..
development . , , ) .
-
I ,

I
I :

phase fawmotlon +
development operation ref.
............................................................................................................................................................ ...........................................................................
Fig. 9 Proposed structure of mining method definition.

defined mining terms. geometry.

'-Provides uttermost flexibility in respect of - Dynamic description of mining sequence.
processing capabilities. - Incorporation of machinery, equipment and
- Elimination of redundant assessment-routines, manpower (together with operations).
i.e. compact system design. . ,

- Convertability into common mining-

~umerous mining methods have been
terminology,'also in different lariguages. . describd using the proposed 'model; To verify
- Enables simple interfaces into. digid ' the proper design of fie model, a computer
presentation for CAD purposes. program which converts the parameter setting
into a graphical display of the described mining
It is not possible to piesent the complete method, was deveioped. It was found that all
description system developed by the author here mining methods can be described rather easily
due to limited space. This will be done soon in aid .with any requirg precision.
another publication. It should be mentioned, that the model is still
exclusively descriptive, and does not involve any
Nevertheless it seems worth mentioning at least causal interrelationships. This means, that
the most important features (Fig. 9): eventually 'impossible mining methods' can be
- Use of rather simple attributes both for described as well (e.g. overhand caving
geometry and sequence definition. operations). A checking-module is currently
- Incorporation of operations (such as drilling, developed.
blasting, hauling, etc).
- The definition is linked with shape Of course the suitibility in respect of MMS is
and size of the deposit. still outstanding because investigations are not yet
- Hierarchical structure of both operations and finished, but. first . trials on' this . subject are
 MINING METHOD SELECTION TECHNIQUES
promising. The modular structure and the
parameters incorporated in the description give
evidence that it can serve as a profound basis for
MMS.
Summary and Outlook
A computerized MMS-assistance will only be
accepted and applied by mine-planning staff if it
is reliable and adaptable for a variety of
situations. This implicates some requirements for
the basic design of MMS, above all an
appropriate implementation of mining method
description. A proposal for such a description
model is briefly presented in the paper. An
MMS-system based on this provides the
capability for real interactive, unlimited
manipulation of planning problems, because the
planning engineer can introduce at any time any
additional mining method he regards as worth
considering and can compare it with other
alternatives. By this the innovative work of the
mining engineer is not restricted by any means.
But of course, the development of such a
valuable assistance tool is still at the beginning
stage. The most wearisome and time-consuming
work is still outstanding. This work, as already
mentioned, is not meant to be solvable for one
person, or even for a small team; but requires
the, preferably international, cooperation of
various institutions. Under these preconditions the
development of a successful MMS-system seems
possible, although it will require at least several
years, which is coinparable with the development
time for the first mining-related CAD systems. In
the authors opinion, a well-founded MMS-system
would definitely prove as successful and as
valuable in the future as CAD-systems proved in
the past.
References:
1 Allam, M.H.D., 1990, "Evaluation of Mining
Prospects as a Guide for a Proper Choice of
the Most Suitable Mining Method". Ph.D.
Thesis. Suez-Canal University and Montan-
University Leoben.
2 Bandopadhyay, S. und P. Venkataaubramanian,
"A Knowledege-based Decision Support
System for Mining Method Selection for Ore
Deposits".
3 Brady, B.H.G. and E.T.Brown, 1985, "Rock
Mechanics For Underground Mining", George
155
Allen & Unwin, London.
4 Demirci, A., 1987, "Untersuchungen und
Aufbau eines Systems zur Auswahl von
,Abbauverfahrenm, Dissertation, Montan-
universitat Leoben.
5 Fettweis, G.B., 1990, "Der Produktionsfaktor
Lagerstatte", in: Bergwirtschaft, Band I, Die
elementaren Produktionsfaktoren des
Bergbaubetriebd, Verlag Gluckauf, Essen.
6 Fettweis, G.B., 1979, "Zur Auswahl von
Betriebs- und Abbauverfahren als Kriterien fur
die Bewertung von Vorkommen fester
mineralischer Rohstoffe", BHM, Vol. 124,
No.12, pp.621-631.
7 Fettweis, G.B., T.H. Oberndorfer, G.Sterk and
L.Weber, 1990, "Mine Data Questionnairefor
purposes of a World Mining Data Information
System", BHM, Vol. 135, No.4. pp.99-109.
8 Gibbs, Betty L., 1990, "Mining'software trends
and application", Mining Engineering, pp.974-
981.
9 Graham, P.E. and B. Denby, 1989, "Project
analysis using expert systems", Mining
Science and Technology, No.9, p.309-316.
10 Hamrim, H., 1982, "Choosing a Underground
Mining Method", in: W.A. Hustrulid led.).
Underground Mining Method Handbook,
AIME, pp.88-112.
11 Hartman, H.L., 1987, "Introductionory Mining
Engineering", John Wiley & Sons, New York.
12 Hope, R.B., 1971, "Engineering management of
the Bougainville project", Civil Engineering
Transactions, April, (The Institution of
Engineers, Australia), p.45.
13 Laubscher, D.H., 1977, "Geomechanics
classification of jointed rock masses - mining
applications", Transactions of the Institution
of Mining & Metallurgy, Section A, Vo1.86,
January, pp. A1-A8.
14 Morrison, R.G.K., 1976, "A Philosophy of
Ground Control", McGill University, Montreal,
Canada, pp.125-159.
15 Nicholas, David E., 1981, "Method Selection A-
Numerical Approach", in: Steward led.):
Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel
Caving Systems. SME, 1981, pp.52-57.
16 NN, 1981, "Computer Evaluation of Mining
Projects", Mining Journal, Vo1.307, p.111.
17 Souza, E.M.de and J.F. Archibald, 1987, "Rock
Classification as an influence in Mine Design
Operations", Mining Science and Technology,
Vo1.6, pp. 1-8.
18 Szwiliski, A.B., 1987, "Advantages of Strategic
Mine Planning", Mining Science and
Technology, Vo1.5, pp.309-317.
19 Yun, Q.X. und G.Q. Huang, 1987, "A Fuzzy Set
Approach to the selection of Mining Method",
Mining Science and Technology, Vo1.6.
pp.9-16.
20 Wilke, F.L. and M. Seewald, 1989, "The ,
Fundamentals for an Expert System, Designed
to Assist the Layout Planning of Face
Operations for an Underground Coal Mine",
Proc. of the 21st APCOM-Symposium, Las
Vegas, Nevada, USA.