Macdonald Mining Method Selection - University of Alberta - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

This tool was created for the University of Alberta Dean's Research Award under supervision of Wei Victor Liu, published in 2023.
The following is based off the paper: Nicholas, D.E. 1981. Method selection—A numerical approach. In Design and Operation of Caving and Sublevel Stoping Mines. Edited by D. Stewart. New York: SME-AIME.
The tool allows for ease of calculation of a ranked list of mining methods from the geological properties of a deposit and the depiction of the orebody from given parameters.Some underlined text contains tooltips for further explanation on definitions

Inputs

---

---

Orebody Geometry and Grade Distribution

Rock Mass Rating (RMR)

Shape: Massive Tabular / Platy Irregular Thickness: Narrow (<10 m) Intermediate (10-30 m) Thick (30-100 m) Very Thick (>100 m) Plunge: Flat (<20°) Intermediate (20°-55°) Steep (>55°) Grade Distribution: Uniform Gradational Erratic

Rock Substance Strength Fracture Spacing Fracture Strength Ore Weak (<8) Moderate (8-15) Strong (>15) Very Close (>16/m or 0-20% RQD) Close (10-16/m or 20-30% RQD) Wide (3-10/m or 40-70% RQD) Very Wide (<3/m or 70-100% RQD) Weak Moderate Strong Hanging Wall Weak (<8) Moderate (8-15) Strong (>15) Very Close (>16/m or 0-20% RQD) Close (10-16/m or 20-30% RQD) Wide (3-10/m or 40-70% RQD) Very Wide (<3/m or 70-100% RQD) Weak Moderate Strong Footwall Weak (<8) Moderate (8-15) Strong (>15) Very Close (>16/m or 0-20% RQD) Close (10-16/m or 20-30% RQD) Wide (3-10/m or 40-70% RQD) Very Wide (<3/m or 70-100% RQD) Weak Moderate Strong

Rankings and Visualization

Rank Score Method 1 8 Best Method 2 7 2nd Best Method 3 6 3rd Best Method 4 ... ... 5 ... ... 6 ... ... 7 ... ... 8 ... ...