mining methods mining handbook

349

CHAPTER 6.2

Mining Methods Classification System

L. Adler and S.D. Thompson

INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of a classification system for mining methods is to provide an initial guideline for the preliminary selection of a suitable method or methods. Its significance is great as this choice impinges on all future mine design decisions and, in turn, on safety, economy, and the environment.

The choice of a mining method assumes a previous but cursory knowledge of the methods themselves. It also assumes a brief understanding of ground control and of excavating and bulk handling equipment. In the formal mine design proce-dure, the choice of mining methods immediately follows geo-logical and geotechnical studies, and feeds directly into the crucial milestone diagram where regions of the property are delineated as to prospective mining methods (Lineberry and Adler 1987). This step in turn just precedes the subjective, complex, and critical layout and sequencing study.

To develop the proposed classification system adopted here, many existing ones (both domestic United States and 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).

Subsequent parts of this handbook elaborate on the selec-tion and comparison of mining methods.

INPUT STATEMENTA comprehensive statement has been developed to provide a rapid checklist of the many important input parameters (Adler and Thompson 1987). The three major areas are (1) natural conditions, (2) company capabilities, and (3) public policy (Table 6.2-1). Those parameters appearing early are gener-ally the most important. Natural conditions require that a dual thrust be maintained concerning resource potentials and engi-neering capabilities. An additional basic distinction occurs between geography and geology. For company capabilities, fiscal, engineering, and management resources must be recog-nized. This includes the scale of investment, profitability, and personnel skills and experience. Public policy must be consid-ered, particularly as to governmental regulations (especially safety, health, and environmental), tax laws, and contract status. Some of the latter input factors are held in abeyance

until near the end of the investigation, and then considered as modifying factors. This organization duplicates but tightens others (Hartman 1987).

SPATIAL DESCRIPTIONMost mineral deposits have been geometrically characterized as to an idealized shape, inclination, size, and depth. Complex or composite bodies are then composed of these elements.

Ideal shapes are either tabular or massive, with chim-neys (or pipes) being subordinated. Tabular deposits extend at least hundreds of meters (feet) along two dimensions, and substantially less along a minor dimension. Massive bodies are approximately unidimensional (cubic or spherical), being at least hundreds of meters (feet) in three dimensions. A modi-fication is recommended later to achieve closure with tabular deposits. For tabular deposits, the inclination (attitude or dip) and thickness are crucial. Inclinations range from flat to steep (Table 6.2-2) (Hamrin 1980; Popov 1971).

L. Adler, Professor, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, USA S.D. Thompson, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Illinois, USA

Table 6.2-1 Input statement categories

Primary Categories (Dependency) Secondary Categories

Natural conditions (invariant)

GeographyGeology Economic engineering

Company capabilities (variant)

Business administrationMonetary aspectsManagement aspects

Public policy (semivariant)

RegulationsTaxesContractsIncentives

State of the art (mining engineering)

Salient distinctions Total systems (design/control) Encumbered (and regulated) space Full-spectrum practice (manage/evaluate) Professionalism

350 SME Mining Engineering Handbook

In surface mining, the inclination limits the advanta-geous possibility of being able to cast waste material nearby, as opposed to hauling it a distance and then storing it. For flat deposits, especially when fairly shallow, an area can be suc-cessively opened up and the waste can then be cast into the previously mined-out strips, a substantial economic advan-tage. Casting, in its normal sense, is not restricted to the use of rotating excavators; broadly, it means relatively short-distance hauling of waste, which can also be done with mobile loaders and/or trucks or with mobile bridge conveyors. For steeper (and deeper) deposits, stable pit slopes become important (Table 6.2-3) (Hartman 1987; Popov 1971). Where the deposit inclination exceeds that of the stable slope, both the hanging wall and footwall must be excavated and the increased waste then handled and placed.

For both surface and underground mining methods, the inclination cutoff values nearly coincide (one for pit slopes, the other for face bulk handling mechanisms, whether mechanical or by gravity). While not identical, they are close enough to use similar values (20° and 45°; see Table 6.2-2).

The thickness of a tabular deposit is also important (Table 6.2-4), with reference primarily to underground work (Popov 1971). When three or more benches are required, the

deposit tends to be treated as massive. Primarily in flat under-ground deposits, thickness governs the possible equipment height (low profile), and in steep ones its narrowness. Also, 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 of these concerns is reached (e.g., benching, equipment size, and pillar bulk), closure with massive deposits occurs for all practical purposes. Pillar size vs. recovery can dictate caving except where pillar sizes may be decreased because backfill-ing is used, such as in postpillar cut-and-fill.

Finally, the depth below the ground surface is impor-tant (Table 6.2-5) (Popov 1971; Stefanko 1983). For surface deposits, even flat ones, this can obviate casting and require increased waste haulage and expanded dump sites. For under-ground mining, earth pressures usually increase with depth, consequently raising the support needs. The ground surface location above a deposit must be clearly identified to evaluate other parameters (see “Input Statement” section previously).

CORRELATING DEPOSIT TYPESThe inclination (dip) can be roughly related to the deposit type (Table 6.2-6). Rocks can also be related to strength (Table 6.2-7) (Hartman 1987). The strength of the deposit and its envelope of country rock can then be related to its type (Table 6.2-8). For determining pit slopes, (surface mining) and support requirements (underground mining), these rela-tionships become important. Some variations are noted, espe-cially for veins and disseminated deposits.

Table 6.2-2 Tabular deposits classified by attitude and related to bulk handling and rock strength

ClassAttitude or Dip Bulk Handling Mode Rock Strength

Flat ≤20° Use mobile equipment (and conveyors)

Weak rock (surficial)

Inclined 20–45° Use slashers (metal plate can also vibrate—as gravity slides)

Average rock

Steep ≥45° Gravity flow of bulk solids Strong rock (at depth)

Table 6.2-3 Surface pit slopes related to rock strength and time

Rock

Maximum Pit Slope

Short Term Long Term

Strong 41°–45°(–70°)* 18°–20°Average 30°–40° 15°–18°Weak (soils also) 15°–30° 10°–15°

*Infrequently up to 70°.

Table 6.2-4 Underground deposits classified by thickness

Class

Deposit Thickness

CommentsCoal Ore

Tabular Thin 0.9–1.2 m

(3–4 ft)0.9–1.8 m (3–6 ft)

Low profile or narrow mine equipment

Medium 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft)

1.8–4.6 m (6–15 ft)

Post and stulls ≤3.1 m (10 ft)

Thick 2.4–4.6 m (8–15 ft) pillar problems

4.6–15.3 m (15–50 ft) can cave (steep dip)

Small surface equipment; crib problems

Massive ≥4.6 m (15 ft)

≥5.3 m (50 ft)

Pillar problems or poor recovery; benching necessary; caving considered

Table 6.2-5 Deposits classified by depth

Class

Deposit Depth

Underground (a measure of overburden pressure)

SurfaceCoal Ore

Shallow ≤61 m (200 ft) slope entries possible

≤305 m (1,000 ft)

≤61 m(200 ft)

Moderate 122–244 m (400–800 ft) pillar problems

305–457 m (1,000–1,500 ft)

61–305 m(200–1,000 ft)

Deep ≥915 m (3,000 ft) bumps, burst, closure

≥1,830 m (6,000 ft)

≥305–915 m (1,000–3,000 ft) open pit

Table 6.2-6 Deposit classified by geometry and type

Geometric Class Deposit Type Comments

Tabular Alluvium (placer) Near surface—weak Flat and

inclinedCoal (folded too) Weak country rock—an

erosion surfaceEvaporites (domes too)Sedimentary Good country rock, thickerMetamorphic (folded too)

Steep Veins Can be weakened or rehealed (gouge and alteration)

Massive Igneous (magmatic) StrongDisseminated ores Can be weakened

Mining Methods Classification System 351

CLASSIFYING SURFACE MINING METHODSDepth Related to InclinationThe surface mining classification, although based on the cru-cial ability to cast waste material rather than to haul it, has other features. These are primarily based on the depth of the deposit being a function of its inclination. Flat seams tend to be shallow, and casting is possible; steep and massive deposits trend to depth. From this, a number of relationships result.

Depth Related to Excavating Technique and Stripping RatioBecause of the effects of weathering and stress release, exca-vating becomes more difficult and expensive with depth, following a continuum from hydraulic action and scooping through to blasting (Hartman 1987).

As a matter of definition, the stripping ratio (ratio of waste to mineral) usually increases with depth. However, 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 allows greater pit depths and, along with the mineral value, also influences this ratio.

Surface Mining Classification SystemBased on the foregoing factors, a surface mining classification has been developed (Table 6.2-9). The classification incorpo-rates information dependent on the intrinsic characteristics of the geometry of the deposit. Quarrying appears to be anoma-lous because of (1) relatively steeper pit slopes, (2) special-ized means of excavating and handling, and (3) less critical amount of overburden. “Glory hole” mining or its equivalent is making a comeback in very deep open pits using inclined

Table 6.2-7 Rocks classified by strength

Class Compressive Strength Examples

Weak ≤41.3 MPa (6,000 psi) Coal, weathered rock, alluvium

Moderate 41.3–137.9 MPa (6,000–20,000 psi)

Shale, sandstone, limestone, schistEvaporites, disseminated deposit

Strong 137.9–206.8 MPa (20,000–30,000 psi)

Metamorphic, igneous, veins, marble, slate

Very strong ≥206.8 MPa (30,000 psi) Quartzite, basalt, diabase

Table 6.2-8 Deposits related to geometry, genesis, and strength (in order of induration)

Deposits Type Geometry GenesisStrength and Stiffness, Deposit/Country Rock Examples

Alluvium (placers) Tabular-flat Surface-stream action deposition (fans, deltas, meanders, braids)

Poor/poor Sand and gravel; precious metals and stones (tin)

Erosion surface (swamps) Tabular-flat and thin (possible folding)

Swamps (possible dynamic metamorphism)

Poor/poor to good Coal

Disseminated Massive Underground channels and multifaceted advance

Poor/poor Hydrothermal ores (porphyry coppers and sulfides)

Vein (can be rehealed) Tabular-inclined (pipes, chimney shoots)

Major underground channels (fissures), gouge, alteration (reheal)

Poor to good/good Hydrothermal ores (porphyry coppers and sulfides)

Evaporites Tabular-flat-thick Interior drainage Good/good Salt, phosphatesSedimentary (bedded) Tabular-flat-thick Shallow seas Good/good Limestone, sandstoneMetamorphic Tabular-flat-thick Dynamic and/or thermal Good/good Marble, slateIgneous (magnetic) Massive Plutonic emplacement Good/good Granite, basalt, diabase

Table 6.2-9 Classification of surface mining methods

Shape, Attitude (dip)

Deposit Characteristics Stripping Ratio

Excavation

Mining MethodWaste Handling Excavation

Tabular Flat Near surface Low Onsite Hydraulic, scoop, dig Placers—hydrosluicing, dredging,

solution—at depthShallow Moderate Cast Scoop, dig, light blast Open cast (strip)—area, contour,

mountain top Inclined Moderate Moderate (remove

hanging wall)Need highwall Auger Auger

Haul (to waste dump) Blast Open pitDeep High (remove both

hanging wall and footwalls)

Haul (to waste dump) — Open pit

Saw, jet pierce (joints) QuarryMassive Full range Depends on depth Haul (to waste dump) — Open pit; glory hole

Note: In-situ mining is always possible.


hoisting. Glory hole mining utilizes a single large-diameter raise located in the lowest point of the pit, down which all blasted material is dumped. The bottom of the hole feeds into crushers and a conveying system, which transports the material to the surface through a horizontal or inclined drift (Darling 1989).

In contrast to the underground classification, the surface one is not formed into a matrix. This is because depth and therefore the excavating technique, waste handling, and strip-ping ratio are all functionally related to the deposit geometry, particularly the seam inclination. No preceding classification recognizes this relationship (Hartman 1987; Lewis and Clark 1964; Morrison and Russell 1973; Stout 1980; Thomas 1973).

CLASSIFYING UNDERGROUND MINING METHODSNormally, two major independent parameters will be consid-ered that form a matrix, unlike for surface methods. These two parameters are (1) the basic deposit geometry, as for surface methods, and (2) the support requirement necessary to mine stable stopes, or to produce caving, a ground control prob-lem (Boshkov and Wright 1973; Hamrin 1980; Hartman 1987; Lewis and Clark 1964; Thomas 1973).

Deposit GeometryDeposit geometry employs the same cutoff points for tabular deposits as in the surface classification, but for different rea-sons. Flat deposits require machine handling of the bulk solid at or near the face; steep ones can exploit gravity (Table 6.2-2), with an intermediate inclination recognized. If stopes are developed on-strike in steep seams as “large tunnel sections” or “step rooms” (Hamrin 1980), machine handling can still be used. The resulting stepped configuration causes either dilu-tion or decreased recovery, or both. Because this face can also be benched, stope mining simply reproduces tunneling.

Ground ControlGround control requires knowledge of the structure (opening), material (rock), and loads (pressures). Structural components are detailed in Table 6.2-10. Earlier tables detailed the deposit by its depth and detailed rocks by strength (Tables 6.2-5 and 6.2-7, respectively). From the point of view of support, the roof, pillars, and fill are of primary concern.

Main RoofThe main roof (sometimes the hanging wall) is distinguished from the immediate roof by being the critical load transferring element between the overburden and pillars. The immediate roof can be removed (mined out) or supported artificially and lightly. The main roof is defined as the first close-in, compe-tent (strong) seam. If it is only marginally competent, heavy artificial support may keep it stable; if not, then caving can be expected. For a flat seam, the vertical (perpendicular) loads on the main roof are largely due to the overburden and its own body load. Horizontal (tangential) loads or pressures will tend to be uniformly distributed, resulting in a low stress concentra-tion. If bed separation occurs above the main roof, this stress uniformity is enhanced; but at depth, overburden loading tends to decrease separation. Body loads are invariant, whereas edge loads—particularly those due to the overburden— can be shifted (pressure arching). The main roof is often suf-ficiently thick so that it can be arched below 1/5 (i.e., at less than 1 horizontally and 5 vertically) to increase stability. A guideline for coal is that stable spans are usually less than 3 m (10 ft), whereas for hard rock they are generally less than 30 m (98 ft).

For an inclined seam, the main roof is the hanging wall, and the results are similar to a flat seam. Pressures perpen-dicular to it are more significant then tangential ones, and bed separation due to gravity is less likely.

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, slake—dry and crumble)

Back and hanging wall (envelope)

Main roof—all, especially overburden (cap rock)

Pillars and fill, also arched (1/5)

Spans ~3 m (10 ft) for coal to 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 deteriorate—slough, slake)

Sides, deposit and waste (horses mainly deposit)

All—especially overburden Floor Critical: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 water

Country rock can be compacted, removed, drained

Critical:1. Stiffness2. Strength (bearing capacity

especially if water)3. Heave (deep-seated)

Fill (for permanent stability) Crushed waste, sand, water All—especially as pillars are removed

Footwall and floor Good mainly to support hanging wall. Requires greater than angle of slide and confinement.

Artificial support (limited time) External: Timber (props, sets, cribs, stulls, posts); concrete gunite (mesh)

Mainly immediate roof Floor Deterioration (chemical and stress)

Internal: Bolts (headers), trusses, cables, grout, cementation

Mainly immediate roof Anchorage in roof, etc. Anchorage a concern


PillarsPillars serve to support the main roof and its loads, primar-ily the overburden acting over a tributary area. Pillar material consists mainly of the seam itself and sometimes waste incor-porated within the seam. Pillars must not only be sufficiently strong but also must be sufficiently stiff, a frequently over-looked requirement. If pillars are not adequately stiff, but still adequately strong, the roof will collapse about the still free-standing pillars, especially when differential pillar (and floor) deflection occurs. The minimum slenderness ratio for pillars to avoid this crippling is inversely proportional to the recovery. The mining of flat, thick seams of coal dramatically reflects this relationship and is a factor in classifying seam thicknesses (Table 6.2-4). For massive deposits, even in strong rock, this makes freestanding pillars of doubtful value. Upper slender-ness ratios range from about 10/1 for coal to 1/3 for rock. Continuous vertical pillars are used to separate vertical stopes in hard rock that employ steep, tabular stoping methods. Even with stable ground, these are usually filled soon after mining for long-term stability. When massive deposits along with their cap rock are weak, caving is necessitated, usually per-formed as horizontal lifts or as block caving. Caving always requires a sufficient span 9 m (30 ft), good draw control, and also risks dilution and/or poor recovery. Soft or nonuniform floors (footwalls) act the same as do soft and irregular pillars.

FillFill, often a sandy slurry consisting of crushed waste, cement, and water, can be readily introduced into confined (plugged), inclined, and steep tabular stopes. When drained and dried, this hardened slurry provides permanent resistance to ground movement, especially for the walls or pillars. It is widely used in all but the caving methods. It is either run in progressively as a stope is mined out or done all at once at the end of stope

mining. Because of settlement and shrinkage away from a flat back, it is marginally useful for flat deposits.

When timbering is densely placed, especially with square sets, it rivals pillars. It, too, is usually filled as stoping pro-gresses (overhand mining). These relationships are summa-rized in Table 6.2-11 and lead into the formal classification.

Underground Mining Classification SystemBased on an understanding of bulk handling and ground control, the underground classification system shown in Table 6.2-12 closely follows previous ones. The primary dif-ference is that sometimes shrinkage stoping is considered self-supported rather than supported. However, although the broken mineral provides a working floor, it is still supporting the hanging wall (roof). On the other hand, when the stope is drawn empty, it remains substantially self-supported until fill is introduced. The disadvantages of the shrinkage method are unique: (1) an uncertain working floor, (2) dilution due to sloughing and falls of rock, (3) possibly adverse chemical effects, and (4) tying up about two-thirds of the mineral until the stope is drawn.

Vertical crater retreat mining is included in the classifica-tion between sublevel and shrinkage stoping (Hamrin 1980).

OTHER FACTORSWhile subordinated, there are additional factors that must be closely evaluated. These deal with the broad impacts on the environment, health and safety, costs, output rate, and oth-ers. They are usually evaluated on a relative basis, although numbers may also be employed (Table 6.2-13) (Boshkov and Wright 1973; Hartman 1987). An example of where the environmental considerations on the surface are begin-ning to affect mining methods is in the use of high-density paste backfilling in order to return most of the tailings back

Table 6.2-11 Deposit and structural components related to underground mining methods

Deposit GeometryStructural Main Roof and Floor

Components Rated (pillars, walls)* Underground Mining Methods Type

Tabular Flat (and inclined) Good Good Room-and-pillar (spans ≤6 m [20 ft]);

stope-and-pillar (spans ≤31 m [100 ft])Self-supported

Good Poor Room-and-pillar; stope-and-pillar SupportedPoor (roof collapses about free-standing pillars)

Good Longwall; pillaring Caved

Poor Poor Immediately above Caved Steep Good Good Sublevel stoping (spans 6–31 m [20–100 ft]);

large tunnel sectionSelf-supported then filled

Good Poor Hydraulicking—coal (spans 6–21-m [20–70-ft] arch); shrinkage

Supported then filled

Poor Good Cut-and-fillPoor Poor Sublevel caving and top slice spans ≥6 m (20 ft)

(for gravity flow)Caved

Massive Good Good Vertical slices† Self-supportedGood Poor Vertical slices Supported then filledPoor (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.


Table 6.2-12 Classification of underground mining methods based on deposit geometry and support

Deposit Shape, Attitude (dip)

Degree of Support

Unsupported (open stopes) Supported Caved

Tabular Flat (mobile bulk handling) Room-and-pillar; stope-and-pillar Some degree of artificial support for

room-and-pillar and stope-and-pillarLongwall (shortwall); pillaring (especially 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, gravity)

Top slicing (control dilution-and-recovery)

Vertical crater retreat Fill as neededShrinkage stoping Gravity fill as needed

Massive Immediately above mine in vertical slices.Fill—gravity placement.

To remove pillars, can mine and then fill horizontal lifts.*

Immediately above in horizontal lifts block caving (bulk mining)

* 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

MethodRelative Cost

Flexibility/ Selectivity

% Recovery/ % Dilution Environment Safety and Health

Output (t/h) and Productivity (t/employee) Miscellaneous

Surface Mining

Placers and dredging

0.05 Low/high High/low High impact, and water pollution

Fair Moderate Need water; impact of weather

Open-cast 0.10 Moderate/ moderate

High/low Blasting can lead to frequent claims and water pollution

Fair High Flat topography and impact of weather

Open-pit 0.10 Moderate/ moderate

High/low Ground disturbance, waste piles, and some water problems

Slope stability (slides) High Impact of weather

Quarry 1.00 Low/high High/high Ground disturbance and waste piles

Slope stability Very low Skilled workers and impact of weather

Underground Mining

Room-and-pillar (coal)

0.30 High/high 50–80/20 Subsidence and water pollution

Ground control and ventilation

High Pillaring common

Stope-and-pillar 0.30 High/high 75/15 Good Ground control and ventilation

High Benching common

Sublevel stope 0.40 Low/low 75/15 Fill to avoid subsidence Less, blast from long holes

Moderate Fill common

Shrinkage 0.50 Moderate/ moderate

80/10 plucking during draw

Fill to avoid subsidence Poor floor (collapse) and stored broken mineral*

Low Tie up 2⁄3 of ore

Cut-and-fill 0.60 Moderate/ high

100/0 Fill to avoid subsidence Some Low Sort in stope

Timbered square set

1.00 Moderate/ high

100/0 Fill to avoid subsidence Smolder, and fall (of personnel)

Very low Sort in stope

Longwall 0.20 Low/low 80/10 Subsidence and water pollution

Good Very high High capital ≤12° dip ≤2.4 m (8 ft) thick

Sublevel caving (top slicing)

0.50 Low/low 90/20 Severe subsidence disruption Fair and stored broken mineral*

High Cave width ≥9.2 m (30 ft)

Block caving 0.20 Low/low 90/20 Severe subsidence disruption Air blasts and stored broken mineral*

High Tie up mineral

*Can pack (cement), oxidize, and smolder.


underground (in order to obtain mining permits from environ-mental agencies).

In addition, innovation is always occurring and some is currently of proven value. These include rapid excava-tion, methane drainage, underground gasification, and retort-ing (Hartman 1987). Many methods are now automated and robotized.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis chapter has been revised from the corresponding chapter in the previous edition of this handbook.

REFERENCESAdler, L., and Thompson, S.D. 1987. Comprehensive input

statement for mine design. SME Preprint 87-71. Littleton, CO: SME

Boshkov, S.H., and Wright, F.D. 1973. Basic and parametric criteria in the selection, design and development of under-ground mining systems. In SME Mining Engineering Handbook. Edited by A.B. Cummins and I.A. Given. New York: SME-AIME. pp. 12-2–12-13.

Darling, P.G. 1989. Glensanda: A “super quarry” for the future. Int. Min. Mag. (May): 31–36.

Hamrin, H. 1980. Guide to Underground Mining. Stockholm: Atlas Copco. pp. 12–31.

Hartman, H.L. 1987. Introductory Mining Engineering. New York: Wiley.

Lewis, R.S., and Clark, G.B. 1964. Elements of Mining, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley. pp. 378–403, 404–416.

Lineberry, G.T., and Adler, L. 1987. A procedure for mine design. SME Preprint 87-48. Littleton, CO: SME.

Morrison, R.G.K., and Russell, P.L. 1973. Classification of mineral deposits and rock materials. In SME Mining Engineering Handbook. Edited by A.B. Cummins and I.A. Given. New York: SME-AIME. pp. 9-2–9-22.

Popov, G. 1971. The Working of Mineral Deposits. Translated by V. Shiffer. Moscow: MIR Publishers.

Stefanko, R. 1983. Coal Mining Technology: Theory and Practice. Edited by C.J. Bise. New York: SME-AIME. pp. 52, 84–87.

Stoces, B. 1966. Atlas of Mining Methods. Prague: UNESCO.Stout, K. 1980. Mining Methods and Equipment. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Thomas, L.J. 1973. An Introduction to Mining. New York:

Halsted Press (Wiley).

mining methods mining handbook

Documents