|
| Author(s) | Year | Characteristics | Drawbacks |
|
| Peele, Church | 1941 | Uses broad descriptions of thickness, dip, and strength of ore and strength of rock | Only used when there are similar situations in popular methods |
| Morrison | 1976 | The criteria for selecting a mining method are overall descriptors of ore size, type of rock support, and buildup of strain energy | The preference for one method over another is determined by various combinations of ground conditions |
| Nicholas | 1981 | Numerically rates the characteristics of ore deposit based on lithological and geomechanical properties of ore and host rocks | The chosen mining method is the result of combining evaluation and high ranking |
| Laubscher | 1981 | Based on a rock mass classification system that takes into account expected mining effects on rock mass strength | The preferred method is solely determined by the rock mass classification system |
| Hartman | 1987 | The decision is made based on the lithological and geomechanical characteristics of ore deposits | A flow chart must be created to define the mining method |
| Loubscher | 1990 | If the area available for undercutting is large enough, this method can be modified to include the hydraulic radius, making it feasible for more competent rock | The classification must be altered in order to link rock mass rating to hydraulic radius |
| Nicholas | 1993 | Altering the selection procedure by incorporating a weighting factor [28] | |
| Miller, Pakalnis, and Poulin | 1995 | The Nicholas approach has been modified to demonstrate more emphasis on stoping methods, better portraying typical Canadian mining design practices | Insufficient and inadequate for conducting accurate and robust MMS process |
|
