The purpose of this paper is to reevaluate the currently used underground mining method with the intention to verify if cut-and-fill stoping method is appropriate for deep future excavation mining levels > 800 m below the ground sur-face. Methods. Decision-making methods i.e., Analytical Hierarch Process (AHP) and Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Decision-making Methods (FMADM), and UBC selection tool are implemented. Findings. According to UBC approach six alternatives -Block Caving, Cut-and-Fill Stoping, Sub-level Caving, Sub-level Stoping, Square Set Stoping, and Top Slicing have been considered as technically feasible alternatives. Results shows that cutand-fill stoping method is the optimal mining method for deep excavation mining levels. Optimal underground mining method for Trepça mine due to the priority of this alternative (0.443) is the highest value compared with the other alternatives. Originality. This study attempts to find most suitable underground mining method among the possible alternatives based on AHP and FMADM techniques. Practical implications. In mine planning and design stage, mining method selection (MMS) for a mineral deposit is one of the most critical and challenging decision that experts have to make mainly based on geological, economical and geotechnical properties of the ore deposit.
In this paper, preliminary support design of the main underground opening (i.e., mine adit) located at the Artana lead-zinc mine, Kosovo, was examined by employing both conventional and numerical methods for safe underground excavation and design. In order to conduct field studies including discontinuity surveying and sampling for laboratory testing two empirical methods, namely rock mass rating (RMR) and geological strength index (GSI) were employed. For the purpose of determining necessary support units RMR system was utilized. However, these kind of systems can take into account for neither the depth of underground opening nor in situ field stresses. For this reason, empirical design methods (i.e., RMR system) failed to investigate the performance of rock support units; therefore, a 2D finite element analysis program was used to assess the performance of the proposed support systems. This indicated that RMR system might not be applicable for poor and very poor rock masses located in deep environment (i.e., 300 and 400 m). Moreover, this is linked to the fact that the RMR system does not consider in situ stress conditions. This study showed that when empirical methods are supported by numerical analysis, the preliminary support system design will be much more reliable.
In this paper, preliminary support design of the main underground opening (i.e., mine adit) located at the Artana lead-zinc mine, Kosovo, was examined by employing both conventional and numerical methods for safe underground excavation and design. In order to conduct field studies including discontinuity surveying and sampling for laboratory testing two empirical methods, namely rock mass rating (RMR) and geological strength index (GSI) were employed. For the purpose of determining necessary support units RMR system was utilized. However, these kind of systems can take into account for neither the depth of underground opening nor in situ field stresses. For this reason, empirical design methods (i.e., RMR system) failed to investigate the performance of rock support units; therefore, a 2D finite element analysis program was used to assess the performance of the proposed support systems. This indicated that RMR system might not be applicable for poor and very poor rock masses located in deep environment (i.e., 300 and 400 m). Moreover, this is linked to the fact that the RMR system does not consider in situ stress conditions. This study showed that when empirical methods are supported by numerical analysis, the preliminary support system design will be much more reliable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.