CHAPTER 6.

Mining Methods
Classification System
L. Adler and S.D. Thompson

inTRoDuCTion until near the end of the investigation, and then considered as
The purpose of a classification system for mining methods is modifying factors. This organization duplicates but tightens
to provide an initial guideline for the preliminary selection of others (Hartman 1987).
a suitable method or methods. Its significance is great as this
choice impinges on all future mine design decisions and, in SPATiAl DeSCRiPTion
turn, on safety, economy, and the environment. Most mineral deposits have been geometrically characterized
The choice of a mining method assumes a previous but as to an idealized shape, inclination, size, and depth. Complex
cursory knowledge of the methods themselves. It also assumes or composite bodies are then composed of these elements.
a brief understanding of ground control and of excavating and Ideal shapes are either tabular or massive, with chim-
bulk handling equipment. In the formal mine design proce- neys (or pipes) being subordinated. Tabular deposits extend
dure, the choice of mining methods immediately follows geo- at least hundreds of meters (feet) along two dimensions, and
logical and geotechnical studies, and feeds directly into the substantially less along a minor dimension. Massive bodies
crucial milestone diagram where regions of the property are are approximately unidimensional (cubic or spherical), being
delineated as to prospective mining methods (Lineberry and at least hundreds of meters (feet) in three dimensions. A modi-
Adler 1987). This step in turn just precedes the subjective, fication is recommended later to achieve closure with tabular
complex, and critical layout and sequencing study. deposits. For tabular deposits, the inclination (attitude or dip)
To develop the proposed classification system adopted and thickness are crucial. Inclinations range from flat to steep
here, many existing ones (both domestic United States and (Table 6.2-2) (Hamrin 1980; Popov 1971).
foreign) were examined and incorporated to varying degrees.
The result is deemed more systematic, inclusive, and under-
standable than its predecessors (i.e., Stoces 1966). Table 6.2-1 input statement categories
Subsequent parts of this handbook elaborate on the selec- Primary Categories
tion and comparison of mining methods. (Dependency) Secondary Categories
Natural conditions Geography
inPuT STATeMenT (invariant) Geology
A comprehensive statement has been developed to provide a
Economic engineering
rapid checklist of the many important input parameters (Adler
Company capabilities Business administration
and Thompson 1987). The three major areas are (1) natural
(variant) Monetary aspects
conditions, (2) company capabilities, and (3) public policy
(Table 6.2-1). Those parameters appearing early are gener- Management aspects
ally the most important. Natural conditions require that a dual Public policy Regulations
thrust be maintained concerning resource potentials and engi- (semivariant) Taxes
neering capabilities. An additional basic distinction occurs Contracts
between geography and geology. For company capabilities, Incentives
fiscal, engineering, and management resources must be recog- State of the art Salient distinctions
nized. This includes the scale of investment, profitability, and (mining engineering) Total systems (design/control)
personnel skills and experience. Public policy must be consid-
Encumbered (and regulated) space
ered, particularly as to governmental regulations (especially
Full-spectrum practice (manage/evaluate)
safety, health, and environmental), tax laws, and contract
status. Some of the latter input factors are held in abeyance Professionalism

L. Adler, Professor, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA

S.D. Thompson, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Illinois, USA

349
350 SMe Mining engineering handbook

Table 6.2-2 Tabular deposits classified by attitude and related to Table 6.2-5 Deposits classified by depth
bulk handling and rock strength
Deposit Depth
Attitude underground
Class or Dip Bulk handling Mode Rock Strength (a measure of overburden pressure)
Flat ≤20° Use mobile equipment Weak rock (surficial) Class Coal ore Surface
(and conveyors)
Shallow ≤61 m ≤305 m ≤61 m
Inclined 20–45° Use slashers (metal plate Average rock
(200 ft) slope (1,000 ft) (200 ft)
can also vibrate—as
entries possible
gravity slides)
Moderate 122–244 m 305–457 m 61–305 m
Steep ≥45° Gravity flow of bulk solids Strong rock (at depth)
(400–800 ft) (1,000–1,500 ft) (200–1,000 ft)
pillar problems
Deep ≥915 m ≥1,830 m ≥305–915 m
Table 6.2-3 Surface pit slopes related to rock strength and time (3,000 ft) bumps, (6,000 ft) (1,000–3,000 ft)
burst, closure open pit
Maximum Pit Slope
Rock Short Term long Term
Strong 41°–45°(–70°)* 18°–20° Table 6.2-6 Deposit classified by geometry and type
Average 30°–40° 15°–18°
geometric Class Deposit Type Comments
Weak (soils also) 15°–30° 10°–15°
Tabular Alluvium (placer) Near surface—weak
*Infrequently up to 70°.
Flat and Coal (folded too) Weak country rock—an
inclined erosion surface
Table 6.2-4 underground deposits classified by thickness Evaporites (domes too)
Sedimentary Good country rock, thicker
Deposit Thickness
Metamorphic (folded too)
Class Coal ore Comments
Steep Veins Can be weakened or
Tabular rehealed (gouge and
Thin 0.9–1.2 m 0.9–1.8 m Low profile or narrow alteration)
(3–4 ft) (3–6 ft) mine equipment Massive Igneous (magmatic) Strong
Medium 1.2–2.4 m 1.8–4.6 m Post and stulls Disseminated ores Can be weakened
(4–8 ft) (6–15 ft) ≤3.1 m (10 ft)
Thick 2.4–4.6 m 4.6–15.3 m Small surface
(8–15 ft) pillar (15–50 ft) can equipment; crib
problems cave (steep dip) problems
deposit tends to be treated as massive. Primarily in flat under-
Massive ≥4.6 m ≥ 5. 3 m Pillar problems
ground deposits, thickness governs the possible equipment
(15 ft) (50 ft) or poor recovery;
benching necessary;
height (low profile), and in steep ones its narrowness. Also,
caving considered in underground mining, the deposit thickness becomes a sup-
port problem, especially if effective pillars become so massive
that recovery is compromised. When the upper limit of any
In surface mining, the inclination limits the advanta- of these concerns is reached (e.g., benching, equipment size,
geous possibility of being able to cast waste material nearby, and pillar bulk), closure with massive deposits occurs for all
as opposed to hauling it a distance and then storing it. For flat practical purposes. Pillar size vs. recovery can dictate caving
deposits, especially when fairly shallow, an area can be suc- except where pillar sizes may be decreased because backfill-
cessively opened up and the waste can then be cast into the ing is used, such as in postpillar cut-and-fill.
previously mined-out strips, a substantial economic advan- Finally, the depth below the ground surface is impor-
tage. Casting, in its normal sense, is not restricted to the use of tant (Table 6.2-5) (Popov 1971; Stefanko 1983). For surface
rotating excavators; broadly, it means relatively short-distance deposits, even flat ones, this can obviate casting and require
hauling of waste, which can also be done with mobile loaders increased waste haulage and expanded dump sites. For under-
and/or trucks or with mobile bridge conveyors. For steeper ground mining, earth pressures usually increase with depth,
(and deeper) deposits, stable pit slopes become important consequently raising the support needs. The ground surface
(Table 6.2-3) (Hartman 1987; Popov 1971). Where the deposit location above a deposit must be clearly identified to evaluate
inclination exceeds that of the stable slope, both the hanging other parameters (see “Input Statement” section previously).
wall and footwall must be excavated and the increased waste
then handled and placed. CoRRelATing DePoSiT TyPeS
For both surface and underground mining methods, the The inclination (dip) can be roughly related to the deposit
inclination cutoff values nearly coincide (one for pit slopes, the type (Table 6.2-6). Rocks can also be related to strength
other for face bulk handling mechanisms, whether mechanical (Table 6.2-7) (Hartman 1987). The strength of the deposit and
or by gravity). While not identical, they are close enough to its envelope of country rock can then be related to its type
use similar values (20° and 45°; see Table 6.2-2). (Table 6.2-8). For determining pit slopes, (surface mining)
The thickness of a tabular deposit is also important and support requirements (underground mining), these rela-
(Table 6.2-4), with reference primarily to underground work tionships become important. Some variations are noted, espe-
(Popov 1971). When three or more benches are required, the cially for veins and disseminated deposits.
 Mining Methods Classification System 351

ClASSifying SuRfACe Mining MeThoDS Depth Related to excavating Technique and Stripping
Ratio
Depth Related to inclination
Because of the effects of weathering and stress release, exca-
The surface mining classification, although based on the cru-
vating becomes more difficult and expensive with depth,
cial ability to cast waste material rather than to haul it, has
following a continuum from hydraulic action and scooping
other features. These are primarily based on the depth of the
through to blasting (Hartman 1987).
deposit being a function of its inclination. Flat seams tend to
As a matter of definition, the stripping ratio (ratio of
be shallow, and casting is possible; steep and massive deposits
waste to mineral) usually increases with depth. However,
trend to depth. From this, a number of relationships result.
the relatively inexpensive handling of waste near the surface
by casting tends to mitigate this increase, permitting higher
ratios. The use of mobile, cross-pit, high-angle conveying
Table 6.2-7 Rocks classified by strength allows greater pit depths and, along with the mineral value,
also influences this ratio.
Class Compressive Strength examples
Weak ≤41.3 MPa (6,000 psi) Coal, weathered rock,
Surface Mining Classification System
alluvium
Based on the foregoing factors, a surface mining classification
Moderate 41.3–137.9 MPa Shale, sandstone, limestone,
has been developed (Table 6.2-9). The classification incorpo-
(6,000–20,000 psi) schist
rates information dependent on the intrinsic characteristics of
Evaporites, disseminated
deposit
the geometry of the deposit. Quarrying appears to be anoma-
lous because of (1) relatively steeper pit slopes, (2) special-
Strong 137.9–206.8 MPa Metamorphic, igneous, veins,
(20,000–30,000 psi) marble, slate
ized means of excavating and handling, and (3) less critical
amount of overburden. “Glory hole” mining or its equivalent
Very strong ≥206.8 MPa (30,000 psi) Quartzite, basalt, diabase
is making a comeback in very deep open pits using inclined

Table 6.2-8 Deposits related to geometry, genesis, and strength (in order of induration)
Strength and Stiffness,
Deposits Type geometry genesis Deposit/Country Rock examples
Alluvium (placers) Tabular-flat Surface-stream action deposition Poor/poor Sand and gravel; precious metals
(fans, deltas, meanders, braids) and stones (tin)
Erosion surface (swamps) Tabular-flat and thin Swamps (possible dynamic Poor/poor to good Coal
(possible folding) metamorphism)
Disseminated Massive Underground channels and Poor/poor Hydrothermal ores (porphyry
multifaceted advance coppers and sulfides)
Vein (can be rehealed) Tabular-inclined (pipes, Major underground channels Poor to good/good Hydrothermal ores (porphyry
chimney shoots) (fissures), gouge, alteration (reheal) coppers and sulfides)
Evaporites Tabular-flat-thick Interior drainage Good/good Salt, phosphates
Sedimentary (bedded) Tabular-flat-thick Shallow seas Good/good Limestone, sandstone
Metamorphic Tabular-flat-thick Dynamic and/or thermal Good/good Marble, slate
Igneous (magnetic) Massive Plutonic emplacement Good/good Granite, basalt, diabase

Table 6.2-9 Classification of surface mining methods

excavation
Shape, Deposit
Attitude (dip) Characteristics Stripping Ratio Waste handling excavation Mining Method
Tabular
Flat Near surface Low Onsite Hydraulic, scoop, dig Placers—hydrosluicing, dredging,
solution—at depth
Shallow Moderate Cast Scoop, dig, light blast Open cast (strip)—area, contour,
mountain top
Inclined Moderate Moderate (remove Need highwall Auger Auger
hanging wall)
Haul (to waste dump) Blast Open pit
Deep High (remove both Haul (to waste dump) — Open pit
hanging wall and
footwalls)
Saw, jet pierce (joints) Quarry
Massive Full range Depends on depth Haul (to waste dump) — Open pit; glory hole
Note: In-situ mining is always possible.
352 SMe Mining engineering handbook

Table 6.2-10 Structural components located and described for underground mining
Component (time dependent) location/(Material) loaded by Supported by Comments
Roof (can deteriorate, slough, Back and hanging wall Main roof—all, especially Pillars and fill, also arched Spans ~3 m (10 ft) for coal to
slake—dry and crumble) (envelope) overburden (cap rock) (1/5) 30.5 m (100 ft) for rock
Immediate roof—body Artificial supports can remove Spans ~3.1 m (10 ft)
(stand-up time)
Pillars and walls (can Sides, deposit and waste All—especially overburden Floor Critical:
deteriorate—slough, slake) (horses mainly deposit) 1. Stiffness: (slenderness ratio:
approximately 10/1 [coal] to
1/3 [rock])
2. Strength (material)
3. Percentage recovery
Floor (can settle and heave) Footwall (envelope) All—through pillar watch Country rock can be Critical:
water compacted, removed, drained 1. Stiffness
2. Strength (bearing capacity
especially if water)
3. Heave (deep-seated)
Fill (for permanent stability) Crushed waste, sand, water All—especially as pillars Footwall and floor Good mainly to support hanging
are removed wall. Requires greater than
angle of slide and confinement.
Artificial support (limited time) External: Timber (props, sets, Mainly immediate roof Floor Deterioration (chemical and
cribs, stulls, posts); concrete stress)
gunite (mesh)
Internal: Bolts (headers), Mainly immediate roof Anchorage in roof, etc. Anchorage a concern
trusses, cables, grout,
cementation

hoisting. Glory hole mining utilizes a single large-diameter ground Control

raise located in the lowest point of the pit, down which all Ground control requires knowledge of the structure (opening),
blasted material is dumped. The bottom of the hole feeds material (rock), and loads (pressures). Structural components
into crushers and a conveying system, which transports the are detailed in Table 6.2-10. Earlier tables detailed the deposit
material to the surface through a horizontal or inclined drift by its depth and detailed rocks by strength (Tables 6.2-5 and
(Darling 1989). 6.2-7, respectively). From the point of view of support, the
In contrast to the underground classification, the surface roof, pillars, and fill are of primary concern.
one is not formed into a matrix. This is because depth and
therefore the excavating technique, waste handling, and strip- Main Roof
ping ratio are all functionally related to the deposit geometry, The main roof (sometimes the hanging wall) is distinguished
particularly the seam inclination. No preceding classification from the immediate roof by being the critical load transferring
recognizes this relationship (Hartman 1987; Lewis and Clark element between the overburden and pillars. The immediate
1964; Morrison and Russell 1973; Stout 1980; Thomas 1973). roof can be removed (mined out) or supported artificially and
lightly. The main roof is defined as the first close-in, compe-
ClASSifying unDeRgRounD Mining MeThoDS tent (strong) seam. If it is only marginally competent, heavy
Normally, two major independent parameters will be consid- artificial support may keep it stable; if not, then caving can be
ered that form a matrix, unlike for surface methods. These two expected. For a flat seam, the vertical (perpendicular) loads on
parameters are (1) the basic deposit geometry, as for surface the main roof are largely due to the overburden and its own
methods, and (2) the support requirement necessary to mine body load. Horizontal (tangential) loads or pressures will tend
stable stopes, or to produce caving, a ground control prob- to be uniformly distributed, resulting in a low stress concentra-
lem (Boshkov and Wright 1973; Hamrin 1980; Hartman 1987; tion. If bed separation occurs above the main roof, this stress
Lewis and Clark 1964; Thomas 1973). uniformity is enhanced; but at depth, overburden loading tends
to decrease separation. Body loads are invariant, whereas
Deposit geometry edge loads—particularly those due to the overburden—
Deposit geometry employs the same cutoff points for tabular can be shifted (pressure arching). The main roof is often suf-
deposits as in the surface classification, but for different rea- ficiently thick so that it can be arched below 1/5 (i.e., at less
sons. Flat deposits require machine handling of the bulk solid than 1 horizontally and 5 vertically) to increase stability. A
at or near the face; steep ones can exploit gravity (Table 6.2-2), guideline for coal is that stable spans are usually less than
with an intermediate inclination recognized. If stopes are 3 m (10 ft), whereas for hard rock they are generally less than
developed on-strike in steep seams as “large tunnel sections” 30 m (98 ft).
or “step rooms” (Hamrin 1980), machine handling can still be For an inclined seam, the main roof is the hanging wall,
used. The resulting stepped configuration causes either dilu- and the results are similar to a flat seam. Pressures perpen-
tion or decreased recovery, or both. Because this face can also dicular to it are more significant then tangential ones, and bed
be benched, stope mining simply reproduces tunneling. separation due to gravity is less likely.
 Mining Methods Classification System 353

Table 6.2-11 Deposit and structural components related to underground mining methods
Structural Main Components Rated
Deposit geometry Roof and floor (pillars, walls)* underground Mining Methods Type
Tabular
Flat (and inclined) Good Good Room-and-pillar (spans ≤6 m [20 ft]); Self-supported
stope-and-pillar (spans ≤31 m [100 ft])
Good Poor Room-and-pillar; stope-and-pillar Supported
Poor (roof collapses about Good Longwall; pillaring Caved
free-standing pillars)
Poor Poor Immediately above Caved
Steep Good Good Sublevel stoping (spans 6–31 m [20–100 ft]); Self-supported then filled
large tunnel section
Good Poor Hydraulicking—coal (spans 6–21-m [20–70-ft] arch); Supported then filled
shrinkage
Poor Good Cut-and-fill
Poor Poor Sublevel caving and top slice spans ≥6 m (20 ft) Caved
(for gravity flow)
Massive Good Good Vertical slices† Self-supported
Good Poor Vertical slices Supported then filled
Poor (cap rock) Poor Block caving (spans ~34 m [110 ft] active—
end stope used)
*Rated as to strength (and stiffness of pillar).
†Horizontal slices can introduce the many problems associated with multiple-seam mining.

Pillars mining. Because of settlement and shrinkage away from a flat

Pillars serve to support the main roof and its loads, primar- back, it is marginally useful for flat deposits.
ily the overburden acting over a tributary area. Pillar material When timbering is densely placed, especially with square
consists mainly of the seam itself and sometimes waste incor- sets, it rivals pillars. It, too, is usually filled as stoping pro-
porated within the seam. Pillars must not only be sufficiently gresses (overhand mining). These relationships are summa-
strong but also must be sufficiently stiff, a frequently over- rized in Table 6.2-11 and lead into the formal classification.
looked requirement. If pillars are not adequately stiff, but still
adequately strong, the roof will collapse about the still free- underground Mining Classification System
standing pillars, especially when differential pillar (and floor) Based on an understanding of bulk handling and ground
deflection occurs. The minimum slenderness ratio for pillars to control, the underground classification system shown in
avoid this crippling is inversely proportional to the recovery. Table 6.2-12 closely follows previous ones. The primary dif-
The mining of flat, thick seams of coal dramatically reflects ference is that sometimes shrinkage stoping is considered
this relationship and is a factor in classifying seam thicknesses self-supported rather than supported. However, although the
(Table 6.2-4). For massive deposits, even in strong rock, this broken mineral provides a working floor, it is still supporting
makes freestanding pillars of doubtful value. Upper slender- the hanging wall (roof). On the other hand, when the stope
ness ratios range from about 10/1 for coal to 1/3 for rock. is drawn empty, it remains substantially self-supported until
Continuous vertical pillars are used to separate vertical stopes fill is introduced. The disadvantages of the shrinkage method
in hard rock that employ steep, tabular stoping methods. Even are unique: (1) an uncertain working floor, (2) dilution due
with stable ground, these are usually filled soon after mining to sloughing and falls of rock, (3) possibly adverse chemical
for long-term stability. When massive deposits along with effects, and (4) tying up about two-thirds of the mineral until
their cap rock are weak, caving is necessitated, usually per- the stope is drawn.
formed as horizontal lifts or as block caving. Caving always Vertical crater retreat mining is included in the classifica-
requires a sufficient span 9 m (30 ft), good draw control, and tion between sublevel and shrinkage stoping (Hamrin 1980).
also risks dilution and/or poor recovery. Soft or nonuniform
floors (footwalls) act the same as do soft and irregular pillars. oTheR fACToRS
While subordinated, there are additional factors that must be
Fill closely evaluated. These deal with the broad impacts on the
Fill, often a sandy slurry consisting of crushed waste, cement, environment, health and safety, costs, output rate, and oth-
and water, can be readily introduced into confined (plugged), ers. They are usually evaluated on a relative basis, although
inclined, and steep tabular stopes. When drained and dried, numbers may also be employed (Table 6.2-13) (Boshkov
this hardened slurry provides permanent resistance to ground and Wright 1973; Hartman 1987). An example of where
movement, especially for the walls or pillars. It is widely used the environmental considerations on the surface are begin-
in all but the caving methods. It is either run in progressively ning to affect mining methods is in the use of high-density
as a stope is mined out or done all at once at the end of stope paste backfilling in order to return most of the tailings back
354 SMe Mining engineering handbook

Table 6.2-12 Classification of underground mining methods based on deposit geometry and support
Degree of Support
Deposit Shape, Attitude (dip) unsupported (open stopes) Supported Caved
Tabular
Flat (mobile bulk handling) Room-and-pillar; stope-and-pillar Some degree of artificial support for Longwall (shortwall); pillaring (especially
room-and-pillar and stope-and-pillar room-and-pillar)
Inclined (mixed bulk handling) Above with scrapers Above with scrapers Longwall (difficult)
Large tunnel section (on-strike) Large tunnel section with artificial
support
Steep (gravity bulk handling) Coal hydraulicking Shrinkage stoping; cut-and-fill stoping Sublevel caving
Sublevel stoping Timbered stoping (square sets, stulls, Top slicing (control dilution-and-recovery)
gravity)
Ver tical crater retreat Fill as needed
Shrinkage stoping Gravity fill as needed
Massive Immediately above mine in vertical slices. Immediately above in horizontal lifts
Fill—gravity placement. block caving (bulk mining)
To remove pillars, can mine and then fill horizontal lifts.*
*For ground control problems, especially those associated with coal, treat as if they were to be extracted by thick-seam and/or multiple-seam mining.
As pressure increases (especially with depth), or as rock strength decreases, shift right for suitable method (toward supported and caved).

Table 6.2-13 Secondary factors to be considered when selecting a mining method

output (t/h) and
Relative flexibility/ % Recovery/ Productivity
Method Cost Selectivity % Dilution environment Safety and health (t/employee) Miscellaneous
Surface Mining
Placers and 0.05 Low/high High/low High impact, and water Fair Moderate Need water; impact of
dredging pollution weather
Open-cast 0.10 Moderate/ High/low Blasting can lead to frequent Fair High Flat topography and
moderate claims and water pollution impact of weather
Open-pit 0.10 Moderate/ High/low Ground disturbance, waste Slope stability (slides) High Impact of weather
moderate piles, and some water
problems
Quarry 1.00 Low/high High/high Ground disturbance and Slope stability Very low Skilled workers and
waste piles impact of weather
underground Mining
Room-and-pillar 0.30 High/high 50–80/20 Subsidence and water Ground control and High Pillaring common
(coal) pollution ventilation
Stope-and-pillar 0.30 High/high 75/15 Good Ground control and High Benching common
ventilation
Sublevel stope 0.40 Low/low 75/15 Fill to avoid subsidence Less, blast from long Moderate Fill common
holes
Shrinkage 0.50 Moderate/ 80/10 Fill to avoid subsidence Poor floor (collapse) Low Tie up 2⁄3 of ore
moderate plucking and stored broken
during draw mineral*
Cut-and-fill 0.60 Moderate/ 100/0 Fill to avoid subsidence Some Low Sort in stope
high
Timbered 1.00 Moderate/ 100/0 Fill to avoid subsidence Smolder, and fall (of Very low Sort in stope
square set high personnel)
Longwall 0.20 Low/low 80/10 Subsidence and water Good Very high High capital ≤12° dip
pollution ≤2.4 m (8 ft) thick
Sublevel caving 0.50 Low/low 90/20 Severe subsidence disruption Fair and stored broken High Cave width ≥9.2 m
(top slicing) mineral* (30 ft)
Block caving 0.20 Low/low 90/20 Severe subsidence disruption Air blasts and stored High Tie up mineral
broken mineral*
*Can pack (cement), oxidize, and smolder.
 Mining Methods Classification System 355

underground (in order to obtain mining permits from environ- Hamrin, H. 1980. Guide to Underground Mining. Stockholm:
mental agencies). Atlas Copco. pp. 12–31.
In addition, innovation is always occurring and some Hartman, H.L. 1987. Introductory Mining Engineering. New
is currently of proven value. These include rapid excava- York: Wiley.
tion, methane drainage, underground gasification, and retort- Lewis, R.S., and Clark, G.B. 1964. Elements of Mining, 3rd
ing (Hartman 1987). Many methods are now automated and ed. New York: Wiley. pp. 378–403, 404–416.
robotized. Lineberry, G.T., and Adler, L. 1987. A procedure for mine
design. SME Preprint 87-48. Littleton, CO: SME.
ACknoWleDgMenTS Morrison, R.G.K., and Russell, P.L. 1973. Classification of
This chapter has been revised from the corresponding chapter mineral deposits and rock materials. In SME Mining
in the previous edition of this handbook. Engineering Handbook. Edited by A.B. Cummins and
I.A. Given. New York: SME-AIME. pp. 9-2–9-22.
RefeRenCeS Popov, G. 1971. The Working of Mineral Deposits. Translated
Adler, L., and Thompson, S.D. 1987. Comprehensive input by V. Shiffer. Moscow: MIR Publishers.
statement for mine design. SME Preprint 87-71. Littleton, Stefanko, R. 1983. Coal Mining Technology: Theory and
CO: SME Practice. Edited by C.J. Bise. New York: SME-AIME.
Boshkov, S.H., and Wright, F.D. 1973. Basic and parametric pp. 52, 84–87.
criteria in the selection, design and development of under- Stoces, B. 1966. Atlas of Mining Methods. Prague: UNESCO.
ground mining systems. In SME Mining Engineering Stout, K. 1980. Mining Methods and Equipment. New York:
Handbook. Edited by A.B. Cummins and I.A. Given. McGraw-Hill.
New York: SME-AIME. pp. 12-2–12-13. Thomas, L.J. 1973. An Introduction to Mining. New York:
Darling, P.G. 1989. Glensanda: A “super quarry” for the Halsted Press (Wiley).
future. Int. Min. Mag. (May): 31–36.