Journal of Geology and Mining Research Vol. 2(3) pp.

48-59, June 2010

Available online http://www.academicjournals.org/jgmr
ISSN 2006 – 9766 © 2010 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Selection of practical bench height in open pit mining

using a multi-criteria decision making solution
Hossein Soltanmohammadi1*, Morteza Osanloo, Ali Sami2 and
Shahnam Behnam Malekzadeh1
Department of Mining Engineering, Aryakanyar Consulting Engineers (AKCE), Amirkabir University of Technology,
Tehran, Iran.
Department of Mining Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Hafez St., Enqelab Ave., Tehran, Iran.
Accepted 11 May, 2010

Determination of practical bench height is an important subject in open pit mining. This subject has
always been an issue with different and sometimes conflicting criteria that have to be precisely
considered during the mine design process. In this study a multi-expert multi-criteria decision making
approach is used to resolve these complexities. In the proposed approach, different bench heights are
firstly analyzed considering the variety of criteria such as production scheduling, dilution, costs,
practicability, safety, and equipment availability. The practicability analysis is consisted of a primary
sequencing method developed to compare total time needed for all bench height alternatives to reach
the constant annual production. Once the criteria are weighted according to judgments by expert team,
the obtained performance scores are passed to a multi-criteria model called VIKOR (multi-criteria
optimization and compromise solution) to introduce the optimum alternative. This approach was
utilized for a simple example with two alternatives, where the obtained results confirmed its efficiency.

Key words: Open pit mining, bench height, multi-criteria decision making.

INTRODUCTION

As a definition in open pit mining, bench height is the (i) Less numbers of machinery will be utilized that are
vertical distance between crest and toe of the bench larger in size and have more capacity. Larger machinery
(Fourie and Dohm, 1992). Determination of optimum means more productivity and efficiency and less volume
bench height is a major concern in most open pit mines. of traffic;
It depends on various factors, such as the cutting height (ii) Less time is required for set up and maintenance of
and the bucket capacity of the loading machines equipment;
(Hustrulid and Kutcha, 1998), capacity of drilling (iii) Supervision on all the operations will be more
machines, rock properties, geological characteristics of practical;
ore reserve, production parameters such as, hole (iv) Blasting of greater blocks is possible, and as a result;
diameter and road grade (Kose et al., 2005), necessity of more production is yielded from each level, while less
sequencing and selective extraction, total amount of number of blasts are executed.
production, and pit slope stability.
In general, some advantages of designing open pit There are also some disadvantages with utilizing higher
mines with higher benches can be mentioned as follows benches (Li, 1995):
(Li, 1995):
(i) Capability for selective extraction is decreased;
(ii) Dilution is increased;
(iii) Work space and as a result, flexibility of operation is
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. Tel: decreased for the machinery;
+98-919-4351597. (iv) Safety issues will be more serious.
Abbreviations: MRMR, Modified rock mass rating; UCS, Once the consequences of facts mentioned above are
uniaxial compressive strength; RQD, rock quality designation.
noticed well on advantages and disadvantages of greater
 Soltanmohammadi 49

Figure 1. Hierarchical structure suggested for bench height optimization criteria.

or smaller bench heights, the significance of decision production scheduling point of view, when the grade
making on optimum height for benches of an open pit variability of the produced ore from the designed push-
mine from viewpoint of multiple criteria and experts will backs is the slightest. This criterion can be expressed as
be explicitly perceived. Each one of these criteria and standard deviation for ore grade of different push-backs
experts have different performance scores and weights in of the pits designed with alternative bench heights, while
the decision making process. the other parameters such as overall stripping ratio and
This study employs the VIKOR (Vlse Kriterijumska total annual production remained constant. The standard
Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje in Serbian) method, deviation (SD) of ore grade can be calculated by
presented by Opricovic and Tzeng (2002; 2004; Equation (1). This statistical equation is famous in
2007) which is a compromise ranking method to optimize mathematics as Bessel’s correction (Reichmann, 1961):
aggregation of different criteria scores of different bench
heights simultaneously. The criteria scores and weights
will be obtained from field quantitative observations and Equation (1):
questionnaires sent to the most related experts. The
result of this approach will be a consensual bench height
alternative that has placed in the first rank of the VIKOR Where, n is the number of push-backs i=1,2,…n, Gi is the
compromise ranking solution. mean value of ore grade for push-back i, and is the
expected mean value for ore grade during mine life cycle.

Establishing bench height optimization criteria

Dilution
The criteria distinguished as most influential have been
categorized in two economical and technical clusters of The bench height also has an impact on the recovery of
the hierarchy shown in Figure 1. The following sections ore and therefore, dilution and ore loss should be
discuss how these criteria can affect the optimum bench precisely estimated for practical bench geometries. This
height. estimation can be made through conditional simulation
introduced by Glacken et al. (2000); where, the calcula-
tion of dilution and ore loss percentages for various ore-
Production scheduling zones, cut-off grades, and simulation scenarios, can
appropriately show the sensitivity of the ore-zones to
A bench height alternative is the most suitable from bench heights and cut-off grade combinations.
50 J. Geol. Min. Res.

Figure 2. Dilution versus bench height (Bozorgebrahimi et al., 2005).

Figure 3. Large block of the simple sequencing method.

In open pit mining, factors that can affect the degree of acquisition and the operating cost which consists mainly
dilution can be regarded as deposit-related or mine- of labour, maintenance and consumables like electricity,
related. The bench height is a mine-related parameter explosives, fuel, etc. However, the quantity, size, and
that can be studied using a simple geometrical model of power of the ordered machinery have to be modified as
the deposit. By changing this parameter individually, the bench geometry is changed due to different bench
while the deposit-related parameters (such as ore heights. This modification has consequently a direct
distribution, ore slope and ore thickness), and mine- impact on the capital and operating costs of the
related parameters (such as the mining method, the mine mine (Roman and Daneshmend, 2000). These costs are
geometry, the mining direction, the equipment size and considerably predictable and can be expressed as a
the skill of the operators) are kept constant, the sensitivity currency unit per tons of extracting ore.
of dilution to bench height parameter can be calculated
by the following equation (Bozorgebrahimi et al., 2005):
Practicability
Equation (2):
Taking into consideration the inevitability of oversimplifi-
cations, a method called simple sequencing, is presented
Where, D is dilution (%), W is tones of waste and O is
by the authors to evaluate practicability of alternative
tones of ore. It has been proved that, greater bench
bench heights in the final pit design. In the proposed
heights will result in poorer dilution control and reduced
method, the ore reserve is entirely considered as a
selectivity, especially for non-homogenous deposits.
hypothetical large block with constant dimensions as
Figure 2 shows that for a particular ore body where other
illustrated in Figure 3. The large block is divided into a
ore geometry parameters are constant, increasing the
number of small blocks which have equal widths, lengths
bench height results in an increase in dilution.
and heights. The large block and small blocks are equal
in length; width of the small blocks should not be more
Costs than length of a regular blasting block, and height of the
small blocks will match the considered bench height. In
The costs of a mine can be divided into two main order to extract each small block shown in Figure 3, the
portions, namely, the capital cost including equipment upper and adjacent small blocks should have been
 Soltanmohammadi 51

extracted in previous sequences to ensure minimum types of drilling, loading, and haulage machines are
required operational space. utilized being well suit for the considered bench
The minimum required time cycle for “drilling and geometry. As stated by Dhillon (2008), availability is
blasting” and “loading and haulage” operations of a defined as the probability that a piece of equipment is
regular blasting block can be measured from similar functioning satisfactorily at a specified time, when used
projects running in the area with different bench heights. according to specified conditions, where the total time
These measurements then are generalized and accepted includes operating time, logistical time, active repair time,
as identical for critical time cycles of the operations on and administrative time. Therefore, the equipment
small blocks of the simple sequencing method. In the availability AV is simply the proportion of time the
proposed method, the least cumulative critical operational equipment is able to be used for its intended purpose and
time TCritical for all the sequences i=1,2,…n, means the is expressed by Equation (7):
most practical bench height:

Equation (3): Equation (7):

Equation (4): Where, TH is the total hours and DT is the downtime

hours of equipment.
i i
Where, T D&B and T L&H are, respectively, the critical times
for “drilling and blasting” and “loading and haulage” in
sequence i. Compromise solution by the VIKOR method

The VIKOR method focuses on ranking and selecting

Safety from a set of alternatives, and determines compromise
solutions for a problem with conflicting criteria.
Every bench in open pit mines composes a slope which Opricovic (1998); Opricovic and Tzeng (2002; 2004;
its stability should be guaranteed to ensure safety of the 2007) developed VIKOR, which means multi-criteria
entire pit. Today, the factor of safety is the most common optimization and compromise solution. This method is
measure of slope stability, and there is wide experience based on the compromise programming of Multi-Criteria
in its application to all types of geological conditions Decision Making (MCDM).
(Wyllie and Mah, 2005). For open pit mines, the factor of
safety generally used is in the range of 1.2 - 1.4. The limit
equilibrium analysis is usually used to calculate the factor Decision matrix
of safety FS as Equations (5 and 6) (Wyllie and Mah,
2005): A decision matrix (F) is constructed at the first step with
the following structure:

Equation (5):

Equation (8):

Equation (6):

Where, J is the number of alternatives j, n represents the

Where, the rock is assumed to be a Mohr–Coulomb number of criteria i, fji, indicates the performance score of
material in which the shear strength is expressed in terms alternative j with respect to criterion i. The criteria can be
of the cohesion c and friction angle . p is the dip of the of cost or benefit types in the decision matrix. When a
sliding surface, A is its area, and W is the weight of the criterion is of benefit type, a larger performance is desired
block lying above the sliding surface. and conversely when a criterion is of cost type, a smaller
performance is desired.

Equipment availability

It is clear that, the bench geometry has a direct influence Normalized decision matrix
on availability of the equipment. The equipment
availability can be estimated for different alternative The normalized values rji can be calculated for benefit
bench heights of an open pit mine in which, different criteria by Equation (9):
52 J. Geol. Min. Res.

Equation (9): In this Equation, Wi refers to the group judgment on

x
weight of criterion i, W i refers to expert x’s judgment on
weight of criterion i, Wx is the normalized weight of
expert x, and X is the number of experts.
Similarly, the normalized values rji can be calculated for
cost criteria by Equation (10):
Utility measure

The utility measure (Sj) for each alternative is given as:

Equation (15):

The normalized decision matrix (R) then can be

expressed as follows: Where, Wi is the weight of the ith criterion.

Regret measure

Equation (11): The regret measure (Rj) for each alternative is given as:

Equation (16):

Ideal and non-ideal solutions

VIKOR index
*
The ideal solution A and the negative ideal
−
solution A sets are determined as follows: The VIKOR index (Qj) can be expressed as follows:

Equation (17):
Equation (12):

Where, v is the weight of the maximum group utility and

is usually set to 0.5 (Tong et al., 2007). The alternative
Equation (13): with the smallest VIKOR index value is determined to be
the best compromise solution.

Illustrative example

In this section, a simple example of selecting the practical

Criteria weighting bench height for a small iron mine, being extracted by
open pit mining method, has been taken into
A compromise weighting strategy that can be adopted for consideration, taking into account the existing equipment
VIKOR method is to obtain an aggregated set of criteria and capabilities. The purpose is to compare two pit
weights from questionnaires dispatched to the experts via schemes with 10 and 12.5 m bench heights.
using a group decision making system. There are Therefore, geological block models for the iron mine was
different ways for aggregation of individual judgments in provided for both 10 and 12.5 schemes. Total annual
group decision making (Forman and Peniwati, production estimated for this mine was 3 million tones
1998; Escobar et al., 2004). In this study, according to iron ore with average anticipated Iron (Fe) grade of 60.11
Equation (14), weighted geometric mean of individual and also average Phosphorus (P) grade of 0.17 as a
judgments is suggested to be calculated in order to reach constraint.
a consensual set of criteria weights. The project working calendar and the available
equipment at the inventory of contractor was controlled
Equation (14): following a site investigation. Then, the magnitude and
capacity required for drilling, loading and haulage
 Soltanmohammadi 53

Figure 4. A sample form of questionnaires filled in by experts.

Table 1. Aggregation of ten individual judgments into a normalized weighting set.

1 2 10 Geometric mean Normalized weights

Production scheduling 50 60 --- 50 57 0.115
Dilution 50 30 --- 50 48 0.096
Operating cost 80 70 --- 60 70 0.140
Capital cost 100 70 --- 60 81 0.162
Practicability 70 80 --- 50 67 0.134
Safety 60 50 --- 60 62 0.124
Drilling availability 40 30 --- 30 37 0.074
Loading availability 40 60 --- 40 47 0.094
Haulage availability 40 20 --- 20 30 0.060

machines was evaluated for both of the pit schemes. height alternatives had to be made including; standard
deviation of ore grade, dilution, cost estimation, etc.

DATA GATHERING
Comparison of production scheduling
Group criteria weighting
Production scheduling for 10 m bench height
A group of experts consisted of 10 decision makers was
selected and asked to judge significance of criteria shown Three push-backs were designed for this scheme with 70
in Figure 4 through scoring them from a 0 - 100 range. m intervals. Table 2, shows the different Iron (Fe) and
Subsequently, as shown in Table 1, using Equation (14), Phosphorus (P) grade of the designed push-backs. Table
weighted geometric mean of these individual judgments 2 shows the standard deviation SD of Fe and P which
was calculated and the normalized values considered as have been calculated according to Equation (1). The
the final weights of the criteria. In order to compose a geometric mean of these values has been accepted as
decision matrix associated to this problem, in the next an indicator for production scheduling criterion of 10 m
step, a number of calculations for both of the bench bench height scheme.
54 J. Geol. Min. Res.

Table 2. Calculation of mean SD value for 10 meters bench height scheme.

Push-backs Fe grade P grade SD of Fe SD of P Average SD

1 63.31 0.16 2.60 0.03 0.26
2 59.65 0.19
3 58.37 0.20

Table 3. Calculation of mean SD value for 12.5 meters bench height scheme.

Push-backs Fe grade P grade SD of Fe SD of P Average SD

1 62.78 0.18 2.43 0.02 0.23
2 61.12 0.19
3 58.19 0.19

Table 4. Calculation of dilution percentage for 10 meters bench height scheme.

Push-backs Total ore (Tons) Total waste (Tons) Dilution (%)

1 15,301,836 2,008,129 11.60
2 9,728,509 17,139,642 63.79 46.43
3 12,099,161 39,394,906 76.50

Table 5. Calculation of dilution percentage for 12.5 meters bench height scheme.

Push-backs Total ore (Tons) Total waste (Tons) Dilution (%)

1 13,379,089 4,196,302 23.88
2 11,807,858 12,589,336 51.60 50.51
3 12,945,560 43,426,749 77.04

Table 6. Cost estimation for pit schemes with two different bench heights.

Mining costs Mining activities H = 10 m H = 12.5 m

Operating costs (US$/Ton) Drilling and blasting 0.63 2.51 0.55 2.26
Loading and haulage 1.67 1.52
Miscellaneous 0.21 0.19
Capital costs (US$/Ton) Drilling and blasting 0.14 1.24 0.16 1.31
Loading 0.37 0.45
Haulage 0.74 0.70

Production scheduling for 12.5 m bench height

calculated for each push-back of two schemes using
For this scheme, three push-backs were designed Equation (2). Tables 4 and 5, show the obtained results
similarly with 70 m intervals. The SD calculation for this for this step. As it can be seen, the dilution control seems
scheme has been shown in Table 3. to be more difficult for the 12.5 m bench height scheme.

Comparison of dilution Comparison of costs

Utilizing the provided block models and the designed The operating and capital costs of mining activities for
push-backs for both of the pit schemes, the dilution was both pit schemes were estimated separately. Table 6
 Soltanmohammadi 55

Figure 5. Large block of 10 meters bench height scheme.

shows the obtained results. As can be seen, because the Practicability of 12.5 m bench height
greatest parts of waste zone were soil and extremely
fractured rock, the total cost of drilling and blasting for the Figure 6 shows that the large block of this scheme, has
considered example was far less than cost of loading and been divided to 16 small blocks with dimension of 150 ×
haulage. 25 × 12.5 which will be extracted through 14 sequences
and 2,583 h as shown in Table 7. A staggered pattern
with burden and spacing of 5.5 × 6.6 m, and total number
Comparison of practicability of 92 blast holes with average length of 14.5 m has been
considered for the small blocks. Accounting on 10 m per
The practicability of two alternative bench height hour drilling speed for the predicted drilling machine, a
schemes was evaluated through simple sequencing total time of 134 h will be needed for drilling of each small
method. The metric dimension of large block considered block. If the charging time (11 h) is added to this value,
for this reserve was 150 × 100 × 50, with average specific the total drilling and blasting time will be 145 h. Similar to
gravity of 4 tons per cubic meters to stand for 3 million the previous section, the total time needed for loading
tons of annual production. and haulage of a small block of 12.5 m bench height
scheme was estimated to be equal to 187.5 h.

Practicability of 10 m bench height

Comparison of safety
Figure 5 shows that, 20 small blocks with a 150 × 25 × 10
dimension should be extracted with the aid of predicted With regards to the geotechnical observations and
equipment for 10 m bench height scheme. Considering a Equations (5 and 6), the factor of safety (FS) for sliding
4 × 5 m burden and spacing with staggered pattern, a blocks in the slopes composed both the bench schemes
total number of 180 blast holes with 11.5 m length should (10 and 12.5 m) was calculated. The factor of safety for
be drilled in each small block. 207 h will be needed for a the most critical sliding block of each scheme was
drilling machine with 10 m per hour drilling speed, to selected as a representative factor of safety for the pit
complete drilling of one small block. When 22 h time design scheme. The most critical factors of safety were
needed for charging of 180 blast holes is added to the 1.35 for 10 m bench height and 1.18 for 12.5 m bench
time required for drilling, the total time required for drilling height.
and blasting will be 229 h. With regard to the estimated
loading-haulage time cycle for the predicted equipment,
the total time needed for loading and haulage of a small Comparison of availability
block was estimated to be equal to 250 h. Table 7 shows
that according to Equations (3 and 4), 17 sequences with The average availability AV was calculated for the
total time of 4,229 h will be needed for extraction of all predicted equipment by use of Equation (7). Data used
small blocks in this scheme. for availability calculation (average downtimes) were
56 J. Geol. Min. Res.

Table 7. Time required for reaching annual production using simple sequencing method.

Sequences Operations Blocks H = 10 m H = 12.5 m

1 D and B B1 229 145

L and H B1 250 187.5

2
D and B B2 229 145

L and H B2 250 187.5

3
D and B B3 229 145

L and H B3 250 187.5

4 D and B B4 229 145
D and B B5 229 145

L and H B4 250 187.5

5 L and H B5 250 187.5
D and B B6 229 145

L and H B6 250 187.5

6
D and B B7 229 145

L and H B7 250 187.5

7 D and B B8 229 145
D and B B9 229 145

L and H B8 250 187.5

8 L and H B9 250 187.5
D and B B10 229 145

L and H B10 250 187.5

9
D and B B11 229 145

L and H B11 250 187.5

10 D and B B12 229 145
D and B B13 229 145

L and H B12 250 187.5

11 L and H B13 250 187.5
D and B B14 229 145

L and H B14 250 187.5

12
D and B B15 229 145

L and H B15 250 187.5

13 D and B B16 229 145
D and B B17 229 ----

L and H B16 250 187.5

14 L and H B17 250 ----
D and B B18 229 ----

L and H B18 250 ----

15
D and B B19 229 ----
 Soltanmohammadi 57

Table 7. Contd.

16 L and H B19 250 ----

D and B B20 229 ----

17 L and H B20 250 ----

Total time required (h) 4,229 2,583

Figure 6. Large block of 12.5 meters bench height scheme.

Table 8. Availability of equipments for bench height schemes.

Drilling machines (%) Loading machines (%) Haulage machines (%)

H = 10 m 52 78 76
H = 12.5 m 63 65 74

obtained from field performance of similar drilling, spite of worse performance in some criteria such as
loading, and haulage machines in projects with 10 and production scheduling, operation cost, practicability, and
12.5 m bench height. Table 8 shows the average drilling availability has been distinguished as the best
availability for both of the bench height schemes. compromise solution for this problem.

Application of the VIKOR method CONCLUSION

According to Equation (8), the gathered data of previous This study introduces an approach in which the
sections (weights and performance scores) were placed advantages and disadvantages of utilizing different bench
in decision matrix shown in Table 9. These scores were heights in an open pit mine case is aggregated in a
normalized with the aid of Equations (9 and 11) and then compromising way and a practical bench height is
were placed in the normalized decision matrix shown in finally selected for the case. For this purpose, the
Table 10. Table 11 shows that, the ideal and negative effective criteria in bench height optimization, are indica-
ideal solutions have been determined according to ted and categorized in two economical and technical
Equation (12 and 13). Finally, according to Equation groups. However, this categorization is quite optional and
(15 and 17), the utility measure, regret measure, and flexible and depends on the accuracy of available data
VIKOR index were calculated. Table 12 shows that, the and also importance of each criterion. For example, a
10 m bench height alternative with VIKOR index of 0, in third group of criteria named as “geomechanical aspects”
58 J. Geol. Min. Res.

Table 9. Decision matrix.

Criteria H = 10 m H = 12.5 m Weights

Production scheduling 0.26 0.23 0.115
Dilution (%) 46.43 50.51 0.096
Operating cost (US$) 2.51 2.26 0.140
Capital cost (US$) 1.24 1.31 0.162
Practicability (h) 4,229 2,583 0.134
Safety 1.35 1.18 0.124
Drilling availability (%) 52 63 0.074
Loading availability (%) 78 65 0.094
Haulage availability (%) 76 74 0.060

Table 10. Normalized decision matrix.

Criteria H = 10 m H = 12.5 m Weights

Production scheduling 0.655 0.756 0.115
Dilution (%) 0.736 0.677 0.096
Operating cost (US$) 0.669 0.744 0.140
Capital cost (US$) 0.726 0.687 0.162
Practicability (h) 0.521 0.853 0.134
Safety 0.753 0.658 0.124
Drilling availability (%) 0.637 0.771 0.074
Loading availability (%) 0.768 0.640 0.094
Haulage availability (%) 0.716 0.698 0.060

Table 11. Ideal and negative ideal solutions.

Criteria Ideal solutions Non-ideal solutions Weights

Production scheduling 0.756 0.655 0.115
Dilution (%) 0.736 0.677 0.096
Operating cost (US$) 0.744 0.669 0.140
Capital cost (US$) 0.726 0.687 0.162
Practicability (h) 0.853 0.521 0.134
Safety 0.753 0.658 0.124
Drilling availability (%) 0.771 0.637 0.074
Loading availability (%) 0.768 0.640 0.094
Haulage availability (%) 0.716 0.698 0.060

Table 12. Calculation of the VIKOR index.

H = 10 H = 12.5
Utility measure 0.463 0.537
Regret measure 0.140 0.162
VIKOR index 0.000 1.000

could be added to the clusters of the hierarchy. In this rock mass rating (MRMR), uniaxial compressive strength
category, parameters such as safety factor, modified (UCS), rock quality designation (RQD), spacing and
 Soltanmohammadi 59

orientation of joint planes, specific weight of rock, water REFERENCES

conditions, cohesive and frictional strength and so many
Bozorgebrahimi A, Hall RA, Morin MA (2005). Equipment size effects on
other geomecanical parameters of the host rock can be open pit mining performance, Inter. J. Surface Min. Reclamation
considered. Environ. 19(1): 41-56.
In the proposed approach, quantification of some Chu M, Shyu J, Tzeng G, Khosla R (2007). Comparison among three
analytical methods for knowledge communities group-decision
criteria such as costs, dilution, safety, and equipment
analysis, Expert Syst. Appl. 33: 1011-1024.
availability were comparatively easy and therefore were Dhillon BS (2008). Mining Equipment Reliability, Maintainability, and
suggested to be estimated from the similar projects or Safety, Springer-Verlag, London, ISBN: 978-1-84800-287-6, p. 209.
previous experiences of applying different bench height Escobar MT, Aguaron J, Moreno-Jimenez JM (2004). A note on AHP
group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure,
alternatives. On the other hand, two other criteria namely; Europ. J. Oper. Res. 153: 318-322.
production scheduling and practicability were somewhat Forman E, Peniwati K (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and
tricky to be quantified. Therefore, the standard deviation priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 108:
of targeted ore grade as a quantitative parameter was 165-169.
Fourie GA, Dohm GC (1992). Mining engineering handbook, Open pit
considered to be representative for production
planning and design Chapter 13.1, 2nd Edition pp. 1274-1290.
scheduling. In order to evaluate practicability of the bench Glacken IM, Noppé M, Titley M (2000). Mining Bench Height Evaluation
height schemes, the total hours of time needed to reach for the Wallaby Resource-A Conditional Simulation Case Study, 4th
annual production was considered to be representative International Mining Geology Conference, Coolum, Qld.
Hustrulid W, Kuchta M (1998). Open Pit Mine Planning and Design (vol.
for this criterion, and a technique called the simple
1). Fundamentals. Balkema. Rotterdam p. 257.
sequencing method was presented for this purpose. In Kose H, Aksoy CO, Gönen A, Kun M, Malli T (2005). Economic
this study; evaluation of optimum bench height in quarries. The Journal of the
South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (JSAIMM) pp. 127-
135.
(i) Because of relatively small number of existing criteria, Li Z (1995). Truck-haulage economics of mining open pits by high
a simple technique namely, group scale method was bench, CIM bull. 88(993): 50-52.
used to assess significance of the criteria. However, Opricovic S (1998). Multi-criteria optimization of civil engineering
given that the number of considered criteria is absolutely systems, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Belgrade.
Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2002). Multicriteria planning of postearthquake
customizable, when there are more criteria to be sustainable reconstruction, Comput.-Aided Civil Infrastruct. Eng.17:
weighted, the advanced weighting techniques such as 211-220.
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) should be applied. Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2004). The Compromise solution by MCDM
(ii) A mathematical analysis method called VIKOR, was methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS, Eur. J.
Operat. Res. 156(2): 445-455.
used to determine the optimum bench height. There are
Opricovic S, Tzeng GH (2007). Extended VIKOR method in comparison
some additional widely applied analytical methods such with outranking methods, Eur. J. Operat. Res.178: 514-529.
as SAW, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE and ELECTRE that can Reichmann WJ (1961). Use and abuse of statistics, Methuen, Reprinted
replace VIKOR with almost the same advantages for this 1964–1970 by Pelican. Appendix 8.
Roman PA, Daneshmend L (2000). Economies of Scale In Mining-
kind of problem. The outranking methods (PROMETHEE Assessing Upper Bounds With Simulation, The Engineering
and ELECTRE) do not quite fit this problem because they Economist: J. Devot. Problems Capital Invest. 45 (4): 326-338.
only present a set of best and worst solutions. Among the Tong LI, Chen CC, Wang CH (2007). Optimization of multi-response
three ranking methods, TOPSIS and VIKOR have been processes using the VIKOR method, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol, 31:
1049-1057.
argued to have better distinguishing ability than SAW. Wyllie DC, Mah CW (2005). Rock Slope Engineering, Taylor and
However, VIKOR might be used when many people are Francis, New York p. 456.
involved in assessment, but TOPSIS is used when few
are involved (Chu et al., 2007).
(iii) The proposed approach was successfully applied on
a simple Iron ore mine with two bench height alternatives.
The results showed that, this approach can be
generalized for more intricate situations and an optimum
response can be achieved for all similar problems within
a short time.