Review

A Review of Models and Algorithms for Surface-Underground

Mining Options and Transitions Optimization: Some Lessons
Learnt and the Way Forward
Bright Oppong Afum and Eugene Ben-Awuah *

Mining Optimization Laboratory (MOL), Bharti School of Engineering, Laurentian University,

Sudbury, ON P3E 2C6, Canada; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: It is important that the strategic mine plan makes optimum use of available resources
and provides continuous quality ore to drive sustainable mining and profitability. This requires the
development of a well-integrated strategy of mining options for surface and/or underground mining
and their interactions. Understanding the current tools and methodologies used in the mining
industry for surface and underground mining options and transitions planning are essential to
dealing with complex and deep-seated deposits that are amenable to both open pit and underground
mining. In this study, extensive literature review and a gap analysis matrix are used to identify
the limitations and opportunities for further research in surface-underground mining options and
transitions optimization for comprehensive resource development planning.






Keywords: strategic mining options optimization; mathematical programming models; transition
Citation: Afum, B.O.; Ben-Awuah, E.
depth; open pit-underground mining; resource development planning
A Review of Models and Algorithms
for Surface-Underground Mining
Options and Transitions
Optimization: Some Lessons Learnt
and the Way Forward. Mining 2021, 1, 1. Introduction
112–134. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Surface mining is known to be relatively highly productive, very economic, and safer
mining1010008 for workers compared to underground mining for most suitable deposits. However, recent
evolution in environmental regulations and societal expectations may result in the devel-
Academic Editor: opment of small, high-grade deposits by shallow open pits (OP) or in the establishment of
Mostafa Benzaazoua
high-grade underground (UG) mines in place of extensive OP operations [1]. Optimizing
the extraction of a mineral deposit in the presence of both surface mining methods and
Received: 25 March 2021
UG mining methods result in the most economic decision generated by identifying the
Accepted: 30 April 2021
best mining option for the deposit. In resource development planning, optimizing resource
Published: 10 May 2021
exploitation depends largely on the mining option used in the extraction. The term mining
options optimization has been used by researchers and professionals to refer to the initia-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
tives or choices undertaken in the extractive industry to expand, change, defer, abandon,
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
or adopt strategies for a mining method(s) and sometimes investment opportunities; based
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
on changing economics, technology, or market conditions [2–10]. For mineral deposits with
orebodies that extend from near surface to several depths, such orebodies are amenable to
different variations of either open pit mining, underground mining, or both.
Some studies have been conducted to solve the surface-underground mining options
and transitions optimization (SUMOTO) problem. These studies have focused on determin-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
ing the transition depth and the resulting production schedules for the OP and UG mining
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
operations using simplified optimization frameworks. These models do not extensively
This article is an open access article
address the multi-objective optimization nature of the SUMOTO problem, and do not
distributed under the terms and
formulate the problem with a complete description of the practical mining environment.
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
Specifically, the existing models do not incorporate essential developmental infrastructure
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
such as primary and secondary mine accesses, ventilation requirement, and geotechnical
4.0/). support and reinforcement in the optimization framework. Results from these models

Mining 2021, 1, 112–134. https://doi.org/10.3390/mining1010008 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mining

Mining 2021, 1 113

often lead to localized optimal solutions or biased solutions that are usually impractical to
implement in the mining environment [2,3,11–24].
Existing optimization algorithms used in attempting the mining options problem
include the Lerchs-Grossman (LG) algorithm, Seymour algorithm, floating cone tech-
nique, network flows, dynamic programming, neural network, theory of graphs, and
mathematical formulations [25]. Some authors have studied the surface-underground
mining options and transitions optimization problem with available commercial software
packages including Surpac Vision, Datamine’s NPV Scheduler, Whittle Four-X, Geovia
MineSched, integrated 3D CAD systems of Datamine, Vulcan, MineScape, MineSight, Isatis,
XPAC, Mineable Reserve Optimizer (MRO), Blasor pit optimization tool, COMET cut-off
grade and schedule optimizer, and Datamine Studio 3 [7,9,17,26,27]. The techniques used
by these authors are not generic but mostly scenario based and often lead to localized
optimization solutions.
Although Bakhtavar, Shahriar, and Oraee [3] employed a heuristic algorithm to com-
pare economic block values computed for both open pit and underground mining on a
depth flow basis to solve the SUMOTO problem, results from the heuristic algorithm do not
offer a measure of optimality as it is the case in mathematical programming optimization.
Notable authors that used mathematical programming to solve the mining transition prob-
lem limit their model to the determination of transition depth and block extraction sequence
for the open pit and underground mining operations [2,4,8,9,11–15,17–19,24,25,28,29]. Sim-
ilarly, other authors have developed stochastic mathematical programming models to
solve the surface-underground mining options and transitions optimization problem. They
focused on determination of the transition depth in 2D environment, and do not incor-
porate other essential underground mining constraints such as primary and secondary
development, ventilation shaft development, and geotechnical requirements for the devel-
opment openings and stopes in the optimization framework [7,20,30,31]. This is because
the optimization of underground mines is computationally complex [32] and integrating it
with open pit mining makes it more challenging [33].
The positioning of the required crown pillar thickness in the SUMOTO problem is key
to the operations of such mines. Some authors pre-selected the depth of the crown pillar
(transition depth) before evaluating portions above the crown pillar for open pit mining
and portions below the crown pillar for underground mining [4,18,25,27,28]. This may lead
to suboptimal solutions and will require evaluating multiple crown pillar locations in a
scenario-based approach. A few authors have attempted to incorporate the positioning
of the crown pillar in the optimization process [14,24,30,31,34,35]. Their models were
good improvements over previous works but were missing some constraints such as the
ventilation requirement and rock strength properties required for practical implementation.
The transition from OP to UG mining is a complicated geomechanical process which
requires the consideration of rock mass properties [36,37].
Bakhtavar [12] reviewed the combined open pit with underground mining methods
for the past decade and noticed that the transition problem has been implemented in either
simultaneous or non-simultaneous modes. He asserts that non-simultaneous mode of
combined mining is more acceptable because large-scale underground caving methods with
high productivity and low costs can be used. However, in simultaneous mode, horizontal
and vertical slices underhand cut and fill with cemented backfill is more feasible to be used
with OP mining. Afum, Ben-Awuah, and Askari-Nasab [35] implemented a mathematical
programming model that allows the optimization approach to decide whether the mineral
deposit should be exploited with either simultaneous, non-simultaneous, sequential, or
any of these combinations thereof.
Most existing models in general do not include the requirements of essential under-
ground mining infrastructure such main access to the underground mine (shaft or decline
or adit development), ventilation development, operational development (levels, ore and
waste drives, crosscuts), and necessary vertical development (ore passes, raises). Equally,
these existing models do not incorporate rock strength properties in the SUMOTO problem.
Mining 2021, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 3

or adit development), ventilation development, operational development (levels, ore and

Mining 2021, 1 114
waste drives, crosscuts), and necessary vertical development (ore passes, raises). Equally,
these existing models do not incorporate rock strength properties in the SUMOTO prob-
lem. Although these essential infrastructure and geotechnical characteristics of the rock
formationthese
Although are significant to underground
essential infrastructure and mining operations,
geotechnical their added
characteristics of thecomplexities
rock forma-
makeare
tion it difficult
significant to to
be underground
included in the SUMOTO
mining models.their
operations, According to Bullock [38],
added complexities makemineit
planningtoisbeanincluded
difficult iterativeinprocess that requires
the SUMOTO models.looking
Accordingat many options
to Bullock and
[38], determining
mine planning
which,
is in the process
an iterative long run, provides
that requiresthe optimum
looking results.
at many Using
options such
and iterative process
determining which, incould
the
lead to
long some
run, inferior
provides theoroptimum
sub-optimal solution(s)
results. that iterative
Using such do not constitute the global
process could optimal
lead to some
solution.or sub-optimal solution(s) that do not constitute the global optimal solution.
inferior
In summary, this this paper
paperreviews
reviewsrelevant
relevantliterature
literature onon algorithms
algorithms andand models
models for for
the
the SUMOTO,
SUMOTO, identifies
identifies gapsgaps
andand opportunities
opportunities thatthat
can can be explored
be explored for further
for further research
research and
and implementation
implementation in thein mining
the mining industry,
industry, and and further
further introduces
introduces the significance
the significance of em- of
employing mathematical
ploying mathematical programming
programming forfor planningresources
planning resourcesamenable
amenableto to both
both options.
Figure 1 is is aa schematic
schematic representation
representation of of the
the surface–underground
surface–underground mining mining options
options and
and
transitions planning problem for deposits amenable to both mining
problem for deposits amenable to both mining options. options.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic
Schematicrepresentation
representationofofthe surface–underground
the surface–underground mining
miningoptions andand
options transitions
transitions
planning problem. (A) illustrates evaluation of an orebody to generate maximum net
planning problem. (A) illustrates evaluation of an orebody to generate maximum net present present value
value (NPV) depending on how each mining block is extracted; either through open pit mining,
(NPV) depending on how each mining block is extracted; either through open pit mining, open
open stope extraction, or both. (B,C) demonstrate the extraction of a mineral resource by open pit
stope extraction, or both. (B,C) demonstrate the extraction of a mineral resource by open pit (OP),
(OP), underground (UG), or both open pit and underground (OPUG) mining for optimum re-
underground (UG), planning.
source development or both open pit and underground
((A)—Ben-Awuah, (OPUG)
Otto, Tarrant, andmining
Yasharfor[4];optimum
(B)—Afum,resource
Ben-
development planning. ((A)—Ben-Awuah,
Awuah, and Askari-Nasab [34]). Otto, Tarrant, and Yashar [4]; (B)—Afum, Ben-Awuah,
and Askari-Nasab [34]).
1.1. Classification of Mining Methods (Mining Options)
1.1. Classification of Mining Methods (Mining Options)
Mining is
Mining is defined
defined asas the
the process
process of
of exploiting
exploiting aa valuable
valuable mineral
mineral resource
resource naturally
naturally
occurring in the earth crust [39,40]. The extraction of mineral resources
occurring in the earth crust [39,40]. The extraction of mineral resources from the from the earth
earth
crust is classified broadly into two; surface mining and UG mining.
crust is classified broadly into two; surface mining and UG mining. In surface mining,In surface mining, all
the the
all extraction operations
extraction operationsare exposed to thetoatmosphere
are exposed the atmosphere while while
in UG in mining, all the op-
UG mining, all
erations are conducted in the bosom of the earth crust. The main
the operations are conducted in the bosom of the earth crust. The main objective objective of a mineral
of
aproject
mineral development is the maximization
project development of investment
is the maximization of returns; the “golden
investment returns; rule” of min-
the “golden
ing orofthe
rule” investor’s
mining or the“law of conservation”
investor’s [41]. Therefore,
“law of conservation” [41].adopting
Therefore, the best mining
adopting op-
the best
tion that maximizes the project’s value is a requirement to the establishment
mining option that maximizes the project’s value is a requirement to the establishment of a of a success-
ful mine. Planning
successful a surface
mine. Planning mine ismine
a surface oftenis simpler compared
often simpler to an to
compared underground
an undergroundmine
because
mine there there
because are broad similarities
are broad between
similarities different
between variations
different of surface
variations mining
of surface as op-
mining as
posed to the variations of underground mining. Thus, planning an
opposed to the variations of underground mining. Thus, planning an underground mine underground mine is
is necessarily complicated by the availability of many different types and variations of
mining systems [37]. These surface and underground mining variations are also generally
 Mining 2021, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 4
Mining 2021, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 4
Mining 2021, 1 115

necessarily complicated by the availability of many different types and variations of min-
necessarily complicated by the availability of many different types and variations of min-
ing systems [37]. These surface and underground mining variations are also generally re-
ing systems
referred [37]. These surfacemethods.
and underground mining of
variations are also generally re-
ferred totoas
asclasses
classes of mining
of mining The classification
methods. The classification of surface
surface mining
miningmethods
methodsand
and
ferred to
underground as classes of mining methods. The classification of surface mining methods and
undergroundminingminingmethods
methodsarearerespectively
respectivelyillustrated
illustratedininFigures
Figures2 2and
and3.3.
underground mining methods are respectively illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure2.2.Classification
Figure Classificationofofsurface
surfacemining
miningmethods.
methods.
Figure 2. Classification of surface mining methods.

Figure 3. Classification of underground mining methods.

Figure3.3.Classification
Figure Classificationof
ofunderground
undergroundmining
miningmethods.
methods.
Surface mining methods are broadly classified into mechanical and aqueous extrac-
Surfacemining
Surface miningmethods
methods arearebroadly
broadlyclassified
classifiedinto intomechanical
mechanical andand aqueous
aqueous extrac-
extrac-
tion methods (Figure 2). Mechanical surface mining methods include open pit mining,
tion methods
tion methods (Figure
(Figure2).2). Mechanical
Mechanical surface
surface mining
mining methods
methods include
include open
open pit
pit mining,
mining,
quarrying, strip mining, and auger mining, while aqueous surface mining methods in-
quarrying,strip
quarrying, stripmining,
mining, andand auger
auger mining,
mining, whilewhile aqueous
aqueous surface
surface mining
mining methods
methods in-
include
clude placer mining and solution mining. Placer mining includes dredging and hydraulic
placer
clude mining and solution
placer mining mining.mining.
and solution Placer mining includesincludes
Placer mining dredging and hydraulic
dredging mining
and hydraulic
mining while solution mining includes surface techniques such as in-situ leaching and
while
mining solution
while mining
solutionincludes
mining surface
includestechniques such as in-situ
surface techniques such leaching
as in-situand evaporite
leaching and
evaporite processing. Based on the rock formation strength, UG mining methods are
processing. Based on the
evaporite processing. rock formation
Based on the rock strength,
formation UG mining
strength,methods
UG miningare broadly
methodsclassi-
are
broadly classified into naturally supported methods, artificially supported methods, and
fied into naturally
broadly classified supported methods,
into naturally artificially
supported methods, supported methods,
artificially and unsupported
supported methods, and
unsupported methods (Figure 3). Naturally supported mining methods include room and
methods
unsupported (Figure 3). Naturally
methods (Figure supported
3). Naturallymining methods
supported mininginclude room
methods and pillar,
include roomsub-
and
pillar, sublevel stoping, open stoping, vertical crater retreat (VCR), and vein mining. Ar-
level stoping, open stoping, vertical crater retreat (VCR), and vein mining.
pillar, sublevel stoping, open stoping, vertical crater retreat (VCR), and vein mining. Ar- Artificially
tificially supported
supported
mining methods
mining methods
include
include stull
stull stoping,set,
stoping,
square set, cutshrinkage,
and fill, shrink-
tificially supported mining methods include stull square
stoping, squarecut and
set,fill, and
cut and fill, shrink-
age,
resuing and resuing
while while
unsupported unsupported methods
methods include include
longwall, longwall,
sublevel sublevel
caving, caving,
blockcaving, block
caving,block
and
age, and resuing while unsupported methods include longwall, sublevel
caving,
top and top slicing.toAccording
slicing. to Nelson [1], some of the factors that must be consid-
caving, andAccording Nelson [1],
top slicing. According to some
Nelsonof[1],
thesome
factorsof that must be
the factors considered
that when
must be consid-
ered when
choosing choosing
between between
surface surface or underground
or underground mining methods mining methods include:
include:
ered when choosing between surface or underground mining methods include:
1. Extent,
1.1. shape,
Extent, shape, and
shape, and depth
and depth of
depth of the
of the deposit;
the deposit;
deposit;
Extent,
2. Geological
2.2. Geological formation
Geological formation
formation andand geomechanical
and geomechanical conditions;
geomechanical conditions;
conditions;
3. Productivities and equipment capacities;
Mining 2021, 1 116

4. Availability of skilled labor;

5. Capital and operating costs requirements;
6. Ore processing recoveries and revenues;
7. Safety and injuries;
8. Environmental impacts, during and after mining;
9. Reclamation and restoration requirements and costs;
10. Societal and cultural requirements.

1.2. Mineral Projects Evaluation

When a mineral deposit is discovered, several evaluations are conducted towards the
project’s viability. The evaluation methods used are broadly grouped into two: positive
evaluation methods and normative evaluation methods [42]. Positive evaluation methods
assess the quantity and quality of the mineral project while normative evaluation methods
assess the social and ethical values of the mineral project. Positive evaluation methods deal
with investigations related to the geology of the formation, technology required to develop
the deposit, investment decisions such as net present value (NPV), internal rate of return
(IRR), and options valuations, and financial evaluation to show how funds will be raised
and repaid in future. This research focuses on positive evaluation methods for mineral
projects with the exception of how funds are raised and repaid for the project.
A mineral property could be described as being at early-stage or advanced-stage
exploration, development, defunct, dormant, or production stage [43]. Three types of
studies are undertaken according to the stage of life of the mineral project under evaluation.
These studies are scoping study, prefeasibility study, and feasibility study [44,45]. Scoping
study is a preliminary assessment of the technical and economic viability of a mineral
property while a prefeasibility study is a comprehensive study of the viability of the mineral
project subject to operational constraints at which the preferred UG mining method or
OP mining arrangement is established, including an effective mineral processing method.
Feasibility study, on the other hand, is a comprehensive study on the design and cost of the
selected mining option for developing the mineral project. Usually, the confidence level
associated with a prefeasibility study is lower than a feasibility study while the confidence
level for a scoping study is also lower than a prefeasibility study.
The outcome of a prefeasibility study on a mineral property is a mineral reserve that
is profitable. Thus, the mineral resource is technically and economically evaluated and
if it is profitable, it becomes a mineral reserve otherwise it remains a mineral resource
until prevailing factors (commonly referred to as modifying factors) become favorable [44].
The details of the evaluation studies for a mineral project depends mainly on the stage of
life of the mine and the prevailing regulatory requirements of the region. These detailed
evaluation considerations may include geological and geostatistical modeling, geotechni-
cal investigation, mining optimization studies, cost-benefit analysis, equipment selection,
rock transportation studies, rock stability and slope requirement assessment, crown pillar
location investigation, blasting and fragmentation studies, environmental baseline studies,
environmental management and impact studies, and mine closure and reclamation studies.
During prefeasibility studies, typical technical and economic considerations include geolog-
ical, geostatistical, and mining optimization investigations. These investigations primarily
define the spatial grade distribution of the deposit, and uncovers the size, shape, depth
(extent), and orientation of the deposit, and further validate the profitability associated
with the mining strategy.
Identifying the preferred mining option (whether OP or UG or both) during prefeasi-
bility studies on a mineral property involves strategic optimization analysis. This analysis
ensures much value is attained during the implementation of the resource development
plan. When the mineral resource is closer to the earth surface (sometimes with significant
outcrop), OP mining evaluation studies are outrightly conducted. When the mineral re-
source is deeply buried in the earth crust (with no significant outcrop or presence near
the earth surface), UG mining evaluation studies are conducted. However, when the
Mining 2021, 1 117

mineral deposit is significantly closer to the earth surface and, also, deeply buried in the
earth crust, the deposit becomes amenable to both OP and UG mining. In such cases, the
portion of the orebody near the earth surface is evaluated to be exploited by OP mining
method to produce early revenue, while the deeper portion is either outrightly evaluated
for UG mining or the evaluation is deferred for later years in the future [7]. In general,
OP mining methods are characterized by relatively low mining and operating costs, high
stripping ratio, and extended time in accessing the mineral ore [4,46] while UG mining
is characterized by high mining and operating costs, high-grade ore, and earlier times in
retrieving the ore [31,47–50].
In most cases, for mineral deposits amenable to OPUG mining, the UG mining evalua-
tion is not undertaken during prefeasibility studies but conducted in later years when the
OP mine stripping ratio increases towards the critical limit. The effect of this traditional
evaluation approach is an increased overall mining cost and a potential loss of financial
benefits [51,52]. Similarly, where UG mining commences at the onset of the mineral project,
and later converts or transitions to OP mining, significant financial loss can occur if the
global mining strategy was not defined for the entire mineral deposit during prefeasibility
studies. Historically, some mining companies that transitioned from OP to UG or vice
versa include Telfer, Golden Grove, and Sunrise Dam in Australia [53]; Grasberg mine in
Indonesia [54]; Akwaaba and Paboase mines of Kinross Chirano Gold Mine in Ghana [55].
In addition, Lac Des Iles mine located in Canada and Newmont Ahafo mine in Ghana both
operate OPUG mining operations.
The extraction evaluation of such mineral resources amenable to OPUG mining is
referred to in this research as mining options optimization [2,6,10,15]. The importance of
rigorously assessing the economics for a mineral deposit extraction, before deciding on
the mining option to adopt is therefore essential to mineral resource planning. This may
ensure important decisions of canceling a major OP pushback and transitioning to UG
mining or vice versa is known at the onset of the mining project [3,52].

2. Evaluation Techniques for Mining Options and Transitions Planning

The outcome of an evaluation study for a mineral deposit amenable to OPUG mining
includes the optimal mining option, strategic extraction plan, and a transition depth or
location. The variations of the mining option are independent OP mining, independent
UG mining, concurrent OP and UG mining, OP mining followed by UG mining, and UG
mining followed by OP mining. The strategic extraction plan includes the sequences of
rock extraction and the determination of life of mine and transition depth. The transi-
tion depth defines the location or position of the crown pillar. The extraction strategy
when OPUG mining is preferred could either be sequential mining or parallel mining or
both [47]. Respectively, other researchers used the terms simultaneous or non-simultaneous
or combined OPUG mining to refer to these same mining options [30].
Sequential mining is when the mineral deposit is continuously extracted by an in-
dependent OP mining method(s) until the pit limit is completely mined out before being
followed by UG mining method(s), while parallel mining is when the mineral deposit
is simultaneously or concurrently extracted by OP and UG mining in the same period
or time. Transitioning is the main challenge for OPUG mining projects due to the com-
plexity and implications of where and when to position the crown pillar (or identify the
transition depth) [7] in the presence of various mining constraints. Over the years, five
fundamental approaches have been used to determine the transition point or location of the
crown pillar [24,47,56,57]. These techniques are (1) biggest economic pit, (2) incremental
undiscounted cash flow, (3) automated scenario, (4) stripping ratio, and (5) opportunity
cost analyses.
For the biggest economic pit approach, the mineral resource is primarily evaluated
for OP mining. When the OP mining limit is obtained, the portion of the mineral resource
falling outside the OP outline is evaluated for UG mining. The biggest economic pit is the
simplest and most commonly used traditional approach for evaluating a mineral resource
Mining 2021, 1 118

amenable to OPUG mining options. For the biggest economic pit, the pit usually terminates
when the marginal cost of waste stripping outweighs the marginal revenue obtained from
processing additional amounts of ore.
In the case of the incremental undiscounted cash flow approach, the marginal OP
profit from the mineral project per depth is evaluated and compared to the marginal UG
profit. Due to increasing cost of stripping waste per depth, there is a point where the
marginal OP profit is lower than the marginal UG profit. This depth is the transition point
which then acts as the crown pillar during transition. This transition depth is typically
shallower compared to the largest economic pit [47]. This method assumes that UG mining
profits do not depend on the depth of operation, therefore, there will be a point where the
marginal profits from UG mining operation will exceed that from OP mining operation.
The automated scenario analysis approach accounts for discounting unlike the incre-
mental undiscounted cash flow approach. It is based on the premise that, per an equivalent
unit of throughput, UG mines are characterized by high cut-off grades and therefore have
higher cash flow compared to OP mines for the same throughput. The approach is imple-
mented by compiling schedules for OP and UG mining and comparing the computed NPV
for each potential transition point. Thus, a set of transition points are evaluated and the
OPUG mining arrangements that offers the highest NPV is selected for further analysis
and design [47]. This method is time consuming and complex.
The stripping ratio analysis features the use of allowable stripping ratio (ASR) planned
by mine management for the OP mine and overall stripping ratio (OSR) computed per
depth for the OP mine to determine the transition depth [56,57]. The stripping ratio is
expressed by this relation with emphasis on exploitation cost of 1 tonne of ore in UG mining
and in OP mining, as well as, removal cost of waste in relation to 1 tonne of ore extracted
by OP mining. As OP mining deepens, the stripping ratio usually increases, increasing the
overall mining cost. An OSR is calculated and used to determine the breakeven point of
the OP mine relative to its depth. The OP mine transitions to UG mine when OSR is equal
to the ASR established by management of the mining project.
The opportunity cost technique is an extension of the LG algorithm that optimizes the
OP ultimal pit while considering the value of the next best alternative UG mining option.
This approach also employs the strength of the undiscounted cashflow technique and
assumes that rock materal in the transition zone will be mined by UG method if not mined
by OP method [24]. The methodology ensures that a minimum opportunity cost is achieved
for the selected optimal mining option at the expense of the unselected mining option.
An evaluation technique that seeks to leverage the advantages of all these five funda-
mental approaches were recently introduced by Afum and Ben-Awuah [33]. This approach
is referred to as the competitive economic evaluation (CEE) technique. The CEE process
evaluates each block of the mineral deposit and economically decides: (a) blocks suitable
for OP mining, (b) blocks suitable for UG mining, (c) unmined blocks, and (d) unmined
crown pillar simultaneously. The CEE optimization strategy is an unbiased approach that
provides fair opportunity to each mining block for selection by a mining option.

2.1. Notable Research on Mining Options and Transitions Planning Optimization

Historically, a cash flow and NPV based algorithm was introduced in 1982 to examine
the open pit-underground (OP-UG) transition interface [21]. Subsequently, in 1992, Nilsson
reviewed the previous 1982 algorithm and produced a new algorithm that considers
the transition depth as a critical input for evaluating deposits amenable to OP and UG
extraction [22]. An algorithm for determining the depth of transition was thereafter
introduced by Camus [58]. This algorithm was presented based on the economic block
values for OP and UG extraction methods. The technique involves the implementation
of the OP extraction algorithm taking into consideration an alternate cost due to UG
exploitation. In 1997, a model was developed by Shinobe [10] that enables the mine
operator to determine the optimum time of conversion based on discounted cash flow
(DCF) techniques, and cost estimation equations according to O’Hara and Suboleski [59].
Mining 2021, 1 119

The model assumed that the underground resources were confined, and their extraction is
technically feasible. Whittle Programming Pty developed an applied approach referred to
as quantified operational scenarios for interfacing OP-UG mining methods in the OP to
UG transition problem [60].
In 2001 and 2003, an evaluation technique based on allowable stripping ratio with
a mathematical form for the objective function was introduced by Chen, Li, Luo, and
Guo [57] and Chen, Guo, and Li [56]. Volumes of ore and waste within the final pit limit
were assumed to be a function of depth for determining the transition point. A heuristic
algorithm based on economic block values of a two-dimensional block model that compares
the total value when using OP mining for extracting a particular level to UG mining of
the same level was developed for the mining options problem [15]. The algorithm was
based on the fact that typical ore deposits showing significant outcrops can be potentially
exploited by OP mining followed by UG mining. Thus, mining is completed at the initial
levels by OP extraction methods while transitioning to UG mining as the operation deepens
from the middle levels.
Until 2009, only a few available algorithms could solve the optimal transition depth
problem with some limitations. Bakhtavar, Shahriar, and Oraee [2] developed a model
for solving the transition depth problem by modifying Nilsson’s algorithm. The model
generated two different mining schedules for OPUG mining. Each mining method is
employed to extract mining blocks on the same level in series. The incremental NPVs of
the extraction for each level blocks are compared and if the incremental NPV of the OP
mine is larger than that of the UG mine, the algorithm transcends by adding the next series
of level blocks to the previously optimized mining schedule; and the incremental NPV of
the OPUG mine is compared again. Evaluation results from the first level to the last level is
monitored to identify the optimal transition depth (level) for the establishment of a crown
pillar. The remaining portions of ore below the crown pillar were evaluated and extracted
utilizing UG stoping method(s).
Another heuristic model based on the economic block values of OPUG extraction
was developed by Bakhtavar, Shahriar, and Mirhassani [14]. This new model was an
improvement over the previous model by factoring in the NPV achieved through the
mining process. Thus, for any level of the block model, the computed NPV from OP
mining operation is compared to the NPV derived from UG mining operation for the
same level. Although the model solves the transition problem using some technical and
economic parameters, it does not consider mining and processing capacities (equipment
requirements), and uncertainties in the geological and geotechnical characteristics of the
orebody. Uncertainties of ore grades were considered in subsequent mathematical pro-
gramming frameworks for the transition problem [20,30]. However, the implementation
of these existing models has always assumed the mining options and transitions plan-
ning scheme to be a stepwise process and hence implements their solution strategy as
OP mining followed by UG mining either in parallel (simultaneous) modes or sequential
(non-simultaneous) modes [4,18,20,24,30]. The challenge to this assumption also forms the
basis of this research. Table 1 shows a matrix comparison of notable research on the OP-UG
mining options optimization problem in the last decade.
Mining 2021, 1 120

Table 1. Notable research on the open pits (OP)-underground (UG) mining options optimization problem for the past decade.

MacNeil &
Whittle Ben-Awuah De Carli & de Ordin & Dagdelen & Opoku & Bakhtavar
Name of Author(s) Dimi- King et al. Roberts et al.
et al. et al. Lemos Vasil’ev Traore Musingwini et al.
trakopoulos
Year 2018 2017 2016 2016 2015 2014 2014 2013 2013 2012
Transition
Transition Transition Assessment of Transition Transition Assessment of Transition
depth & Transition Transition
Research Focus Depth- Depth- Transition Depth- Depth- Transition Depth-
production Depth Depth
Instances Instances Problem Instances Dynamic Problem Dynamic
schedule
MILP-
Modification Mixed
Mixed Integer Dynamic OptiMine®
of maximum Stochastic Integer
Linear Programming- used to MILP-OP & (0–1) Integer
Model/Algorithm graph Integer Linear Pro-
Programming lag, trend, optimize the UG Programming
closure Model gramming
(MILP) nonlinear transition
method (MILP)
problem
Approach Used
Blasor for OP Whittle for OP
optimization; optimization;
OptiMine,
Studio 3 & COMET for XPAC for OP
Software Whittle,
Evaluator NPV OP schedule; schedule;
Application Studio 5D
Scheduler Evaluator for Datamine’s
and EPS
UG MRO for UG
optimization optimization
Mining 2021, 1 121

Table 1. Cont.

MacNeil &
Whittle Ben-Awuah De Carli & de Ordin & Dagdelen & Opoku & Bakhtavar
Name of Author(s) Dimi- King et al. Roberts et al.
et al. et al. Lemos Vasil’ev Traore Musingwini et al.
trakopoulos
NPV Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
IRR Yes Yes
Mining
Yes
Recovery
Avg. ROM
Yes Yes
Grade
Metal Price
Yes
to Cost Ratio
Outputs/Performance/
Transition Indicators Production
Yes Yes Yes
Rate
Stripping
Yes Yes Yes
Ratio
Mine Life Yes Yes Yes Yes
Revenue Yes
Mining Cost Yes
Production OP, UG & Standalone for Standalone
OP & UG
Schedule OPUG OP & UG for OP & UG
Coal mining– Gold-4
Gold-silver-
Commodity Gold Confidential Gold kimberlite Gold Iron different Hypothetical
copper
pipe deposits
NPV
Mining compared to Optimality
Deterministic
Notable Remarks sequence not determinis- gap not
not good
considered tic improved
model
Mining 2021, 1 122

As seen in Table 1, previous research on the mining options and transitions problems
mainly focuses on the determination of transition depth before optimizing the production
schedule for the mining arrangement. Formulating a model that allows the optimizer to
select the most suitable extraction strategy, including independent OP, independent UG,
simultaneous OPUG, sequential OPUG, or combinations of simultaneous and sequential
OPUG, to exploit any deposit under consideration will be a major addition to the mining
industry. It is important to note that in general previous research employed NPV and
feasible production schedule as major performance indicators for the developed models
and algorithms.

2.2. Factors Influencing Mining Options and Transitions Planning

The factors influencing mining options and transitions planning are also referred to as
transition indicators. These transition indicators mostly depend on the shape and size of
the mineral deposit and quantity of high-grade ore present in the selective mining units.
These indicators usually vary for different orebodies and commodities, and the philosophy
of mine management. The indicators can be broadly grouped into geologic, operational,
geotechnical, economic, and mine management strategy on global business economic
outlook [7,61]. These transition indicators are key to the identification and development of
the set of constraints required for optimizing the OP-UG mining options and transitions
planning problem [4,9,25].
Some of the indicators to consider in OP-UG transition optimization are mining recov-
ery, commodity price, mineral grade, cost of extracting ore and stripping waste, mining
and processing capacities, and UG dilution [62]. Subsequent research highlighted some
additional important parameters that must be considered during transition planning [19].
These include workforce requirement, shape and size of the orebody, and geotechnical
properties of the rock formation. Economic parameters such as discounting rate of expected
cash flows and OPUG mining costs, and primary factors including the competence of mine
management, characteristics of the geology of the orebody, stripping ratio, productivity
rate, and capital cost requirements for the UG mining option will affect the decision for
OP-UG transition as well [9,63].
The OP-UG mining options and transitions planning problem becomes complex
when critical indicators such as crown pillar positioning and other essential underground
mining constraints including primary and secondary access development, ventilation
development, and geotechnical requirements for the development openings and stopes
are integrated into the optimization framework. These essential UG mining developments
were previously not considered in the optimization process because of computational
complexities and the difficulty of integrating them with open pit mining operations [32].
The importance of incorporating crown pillar positioning, geotechnical support activity
sequencing, underground infrastructure development, and mine management strategy
in OP-UG mining options optimization studies are essential to attaining realistic mine
plans [9,30].
When investigating OP-UG mining options, it is important to model all constraints
and factors that have direct and remote impact on the economic and technical feasibility
of the project. The strategic production plan is generally subject to several constraints
that enforce the extraction sequence, blending requirements, and mining and processing
capacity requirements for practical implementation.

2.3. Crown Pillar and Rock Strength Considerations in Mining Options and Transitions Planning
A crown pillar is the horizontal part of a rock formation between the first upper stope
of an underground mine and an open pit excavation. A crown pillar is often provided to
prevent the inflow of water from the OP floor to the UG workings, while reducing surface
subsidence and caving. Finding the most suitable location of the crown pillar in a combined
mining method of OPUG operations is one of the most interesting problems for mining
engineers today, especially when crown pillar must collapse [14]. It is however worthy to
Mining 2021, 1 123

note that crown pillar usage in the OPUG mine is not universal as sometimes it is desirable
for the crown pillar to collapse during the life of mine [24].
The positioning of the required crown pillar in the surface-underground mining
options and transitions planning problem is key to the operations of such mines. Some
researchers pre-selected the depth of the crown pillar (transition depth) before evaluating
portions above the crown pillar for OP mining and portions below the crown pillar for
underground mining [4,18,25,27,28]. This may lead to suboptimal solutions and will require
evaluating multiple crown pillar locations in a scenario-based approach. A few authors
have attempted to incorporate the positioning of the crown pillar in the optimization
process [24,33,34]. Their models were good improvements over previous works but were
missing some constraints such as the ventilation requirement and rock strength properties
required for practical implementation. The transition from open pit to underground mining
is a complicated geomechanical process which requires the consideration of rock mass
properties [35,36].
In OP to UG transition, the challenge of deformation, displacement, and rock for-
mation stability need to be meticulously investigated. These will ensure their effect on
production, worker and equipment safety, and the working environment of the UG opera-
tion are highly secured [64]. When the crown pillar thickness is large, considerable quantity
of mineral deposit is lost but when the pillar is undersized and thin, the probability of pillar
failure and instability of the mine is eminent [65]. According to Ma, Zhao, Zhang, Guo,
Wei, Wu, and Zhang [35], ground movement and deformation study of OP mines such as
geometrical, geomechanical, and analytical analyses are important in the transition study.
Optimizing the crown pillar dimensions and positioning is particularly significant in
UG mining operations. Estimation of the optimum crown pillar thickness is a complicated
study which involves the experience of the engineer and the use of numerical and empirical
techniques [65]. Several parameters influence crown pillar stability. These parameters
are broadly grouped into mining and geological [5]. The mining parameters include the
crown pillar geometry; stope surroundings; supporting methods employed (including
backfilling); sequence of mining operations and stress redistribution resulting from material
extraction. The geological parameters include the strength and deformation characteristics,
and inclination of the hanging wall, footwall, and orebody in general; geometry of the
mineral deposits; virgin stress conditions and properties of the contact regions between the
ore and country rock.
Crown pillar placement invariably defines the interface of the OP to UG transition.
Appropriately defining a suitable location of the crown pillar is fundamental to the min-
ing options optimization problem. Leaving an appropriate crown pillar thickness will
minimize the destructive interference between the OP and UG mining operations, while
maximizing ore recovery. The assumption of a uniform crown pillar of known height below
the optimized pit bottom is common [14]. Subsequently, an ad-hoc branch-and-bound
technique to exhaustively search the appropriate locations for crown and sill pillar place-
ments before computing the relaxed linear programming (LP) model for the OPUG mining
problem was developed by King, Goycoolea, and Newman [18]. A rounding heuristic was
used to transform the relaxed LP solution into integer programming (IP) solution using
satisfactory values of the objective function. The IP solution was used to terminate the
several potential crown and sill pillar placements and hence decrease the computational
time required. The researchers further concluded that, only 40 out of the over 3500 crown
and sill pillar placement options had a relaxed LP objective function value greater than the
best-known IP objective function value.
In a recent research, MacNeil and Dimitrakopoulos [20] pre-determined four possible
crown pillar positions while evaluating a gold deposit for OPUG mining. Their approach
resulted in four distinct transition points acting as potential candidates for a crown pillar.
The size of the crown pillar however remained the same for each candidate, as the location is
varied. This assumption does not support the geotechnical variability of the rock formation.
According to King, Goycoolea, and Newman [18], the crown pillar is usually positioned by
Mining 2021, 1 124

industrial experts based on: (1) the optimal OP mining limit, or (2) the largest undiscounted
profit resulting from the extraction technique for each 3-D discretization of the orebody
and country rock. This is conducted after a detailed geotechnical assessment of the rock
formation in the immediate vicinity of the crown pillar.
The stability and placement of the crown pillar or transition interface significantly
affects the NPV of a mining project. Numerical simulation and machine learning are
among the most effective techniques for studying the crown pillar stability [66–68]. The
Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC) software based on numerical modeling
and a hybrid support vector regression (v-SVR) analysis based on supervised machine
learning algorithm are used to examine deformation characteristics of surrounding rocks
in complex conditions of OP to UG mining transition. These analyses can provide ap-
proximation of rock strength properties to be incorporated in the transitions planning
optimization problem.

2.4. Existing Evaluation Tools for Mining Options and Transitions Planning Crown
Most of the existing optimization models and algorithms for evaluating OP-UG mining
options and transitions planning have been incorporated into software packages for easy
implementation. These are mostly based on the fundamental evaluation techniques dis-
cussed in Section 2.3. Modeling techniques for optimization problems have been discussed
in Appendix A. Some of the models and algorithms are Lerchs-Grossman algorithm, Sey-
mour algorithm, floating cone technique, dynamic programming, neural network, theory
of graphs, and network flow algorithm. These models and algorithms are used in software
packages including NPV Scheduler, Whittle Four-X, MineSched, Vulcan, MineScape, and
MineSight [25,26].
GEOVIA Whittle® software which is based on the Lerchs–Grossman algorithm [69] is
commonly used to optimize the OP limit prior to assessing the remaining mineral resource
outside the pit boundary for underground extraction [7]. Similarly, Blasor pit optimization
software which is developed based on a combinatorial mathematical programming model
is also used to identify the independent OP mining outline before UG extraction evaluation
for remaining mineral resources [9]. Mathematical programming frameworks based on IP,
mixed integer linear programming (MILP), and dynamic programming models have been
formulated and implemented with commercial optimization solvers for the transitions
planning problem [4,17,20,30].
After obtaining the OP outline and thereafter knowing the extent of the UG mining
limits, production schedules are generated for each mining option. Software packages
based on heuristics and mathematical programming models including GEOVIA Whittle,
OptiMine® , and COMET® have been used to produce strategic production schedules for
the OP portion of the mine [4,7,17]. Similarly, software packages including Snowden’s
Evaluator, XPAC® , and OptiMine® have been used to produce the strategic production
schedule for the UG portion of the mine [4,7,9,17,18,30].

2.5. Limitations of Current Models and Algorithms for OP-UG Mining Options and
Transitions Planning
Primary challenges to the mining options optimization problem include the optimiza-
tion approach used, the exhaustive consideration of contributing variables to the models
and algorithms, and geotechnical considerations in defining the transition interface and
its contribution to the mining operation. Progressively integrating geotechnical models in
strategic mine plans at the prefeasibility stage similar to how geologic models are incor-
porated will improve the reliability of the mine plan [70,71]. However, the information
required to produce a detailed geotechnical model at the prefeasibility stage is limited and
therefore difficult to model. Some of the limitations with current models and algorithms
for OP-UG mining options optimization include one or more of the following:
1. Consideration of rock support and reinforcement in the optimization process;
2. Consideration of essential infrastructural development in the optimization process;
Mining 2021, 1 125

3. Consideration of stochastic variables;

4. Comprehensiveness and efficiency of models;
5. Optimality assessment.

2.5.1. Consideration of Rock Support and Reinforcement in the Optimization Process

Rock support and reinforcement are essential to the stability of openings during the
development of an underground mine. The term support generally refers to the various
types of geotechnical rock support used to protect underground workers and may include
steel mesh, shotcrete, fibrecrete, and a variety of types of steel straps. Reinforcement on
other hand refers to the various types of rock reinforcement to help prevent rock movement
and may include a variety of types of rockbolts, cablebolts, rebar, and dowel. Cablebolting
in stope development can particularly be very costly and may introduce considerable time
delays. Most cablebolts need 30 days for the Portland cement grout to properly set for the
cablebolts to be fully functional.
Several authors have acknowledged the importance of incorporating geotechnical
constraints to the OP-UG transition problem [9,14,15,20,25,47,72]. To verify the impact
of geotechnical constraints on the optimal solution, Roberts, Elkington, van Olden, and
Maulen [9] recommended that, such constraints need to be incorporated in subsequent
studies. Moving beyond determining transition depth and incorporating geotechnical pa-
rameters in locating and sizing the transition zone will have direct impact on the feasibility
and sustainability of the OP-UG mining project.
These existing models do not integrate the geomechanical classification of the rock
formation in the surface-underground mining option and transition problem. Although
the geotechnical characteristics of the rock formation are significant to underground min-
ing operations, their added complexities make it difficult to be included in the surface-
underground mining option and transition optimization models. According to Bullock [37],
mine planning is an iterative process that requires looking at many options and determin-
ing which, in the long run, provide the optimum results. Using such iterative process could
lead to some inferior solution(s) or sub optimal solution(s) that do not constitute the global
optimal solution.
Rock support and reinforcement in the development openings and stopes will increase
the operational costs and time (delay the mine life), and further affect the quantity and
sequence of rock material extracted from the stopes to the processing plants. To incorporate
the rock formation’s strength into the formulation, rock mass classification systems [73,74]
such as the Geological Strength Index (GSI), Rock Structure Rating (RSR), Rock Mass
Rating (RMR), and Q system are determined to characterize the rock formation, and then
Kriging applied to populate the block model. According to Abbas and Konietzky [73],
these classification systems could be grouped as qualitative or descriptive (e.g., GSI)
and quantitative (e.g., Q system, RMR, and RSR) with RMR being more applicable to
tunnels and mines. According to Kaiser and Cai [74], data obtained from the geology and
geomechanics of the rock formation are fundamental to mine planning and development
designs. This is because the behavior of the rock formation varies in the mine and therefore
rock mass domaining based on stress data, and geology and geometric data becomes
essential. Knowledge of the strength of the rock mass and its behavior are important for
the engineering design of all kinds of support for underground excavations [75,76].

2.5.2. Consideration of Essential Infrastructural Development in the Optimization Process

The typical UG mine is interspersed with important infrastructure development that
ensures the facilitations of the UG mining operations. These infrastructures include but
not limited to primary access development, secondary access development, ventilation
development, ore pass development, sumps, maintenance and refuge chambers, and fuel
station bays. Primary access developments are usually the main development that links
the entire UG mine to the surface and could be vertical or inclined shaft(s), decline(s) or
adit(s), or tunnel(s). The shaft(s) are often equipped with facilities to transport humans
Mining 2021, 1 126

(workers) and materials for the UG operations. Secondary access development includes the
construction of lateral openings such as levels, ore and waste drives, or crosscuts, to link
the UG operational activities to the primary access(es) while ventilation development often
incorporates a series of bored raises and lateral drive development, and the construction of
ventilation controls. Ventilation controls are a range of objects such as regulators, doors,
and walls which need considerable time and money to create. Ore pass development
entails the construction of vertical or near vertical openings to link the various UG levels to
the main ore hoisting station. Similarly, sumps, maintenance and refuge chambers, and
fuel station bays are constructed to enable the removal of water being used for the UG
operations and the provision of several essential services to operating equipment UG rather
than being transported to the surface for such services.

2.5.3. Consideration of Stochastic Variables

In recent studies, the industrial practice has been that the production for OP mine and
UG mine are independently scheduled and merged into one for the OPUG mine. According
to King, Goycoolea, and Newman [18], this approach creates a myopic solution. However,
the discussions of the approach were limited to open stoping and extraction sequence. No
stochastic variables such as grade and price uncertainty, were included in their model.
King, Goycoolea, and Newman [18] further acknowledged that, their methodology in
handling the transition problem require further work to handle the applicability, accuracy,
and reduction of the optimality gap. Grade uncertainty has been identified to have a
significant impact on the determination of the transition point [16].
Although MacNeil and Dimitrakopoulos [20] incorporated grade uncertainty in their
work, they further identified some important notable geological uncertainties such as the rock
formation, metal content, and relevant rock properties and their impact on the strategic long
term planning of a mining project. MacNeil and Dimitrakopoulos [20] further recommended
that, financial uncertainty should be incorporated into future studies to improve on their
solution method. Ben-Awuah, Otto, Tarrant, and Yashar [4] did not consider uncertainty in
their model formulation and further recommended that pre-production capital expenditure
(CAPEX) and geological uncertainties should be added to the mining options evaluation. By
considering stochastic variables in a risk-based mining options optimization framework, mine
plans that can stand the test of time can be generated.

2.5.4. Comprehensiveness and Efficiency of Models

Comprehensiveness and efficiency of the models relates to the ability of the opti-
mization framework to exhaustively formulate various scenarios of the OP-UG mining
options problem and deliver practical results in a reasonable time frame. Such models are
exhaustive and are applicable in a wide range of mining systems. Stacey and Terbrugge [77]
indicated that a complete model for handling the transition problem remained a challenge
they further reckoned that the transition study for a mine should start at the onset of the
mine life and not be deferred to latter years since the planning and implementation could
sometimes take up to 20 years for completion. Shinobe [10] developed a software based on
a mathematical programming model for this challenge but assumed that the existence of
underground reserves have been confined and that their extraction is technically feasible.
He later recommended that the results of the program should be viewed only as a prelimi-
nary level indication of the economics of underground conversion. No final decision to
proceed with the conversion should be taken, solely based on the program’s output.
Majority of the current work on the transition problem lack some constraints and
solution to a more general problem. This includes consideration of the design capacities
and depth as primary indicators for transition in the joint evaluation problem [25]. The
approach however was limited in scope in relation to a more generic framework. NPV
curves and transition depth for OP to UG mining for the Botuobinskaya pipe deposit were
generated to solve the transition problem. From their results, the total NPV of the OPUG
mining operation was higher than the standalone NPVs of OP and UG mines for the same
Mining 2021, 1 127

mining depth. In subsequent research, re-handling cost proved to be insignificant when

incorporated into the transition model [18]. Additionally, it was observed that there exist
undesirable fluctuations in the OPUG production schedules that must be smoothened to
achieve a more practical solution. In their work, MacNeil and Dimitrakopoulos [20] incor-
porated the constraints for mining, processing, metal content, and precedence relationships
in their model. According to the constraints affecting the transition problem identified in
the works of Opoku and Musingwini [7], those constraints considered are not exhaustive
since UG mining capital expenditures were not considered in the model application.

2.5.5. Optimality Assessment

Optimality assessment is a real challenge to current heuristic and meta-heuristic mod-
els and algorithms for OP-UG mining options optimization. The underlying optimization
approach fundamentally affects the optimality of the resource evaluation. Unless additional
steps are put in place to define an upper bound, the extent of optimality of the solution from
these models is unknown. Some of the current models can solve the transition problem,
usually producing near optimal solutions [14,47]. These existing models and algorithms
assume open pit mining operations must surely be an option in the evaluation process
and usually precedes the underground mining. Similarly, few models assess the resource
with the assumption that underground mining could precede open pit mining. However, a
resource assessment that is devoid of the traditional arrangement of the mining options but
allows the optimization process to decide the choice and sequence of the mining option(s)
is key to achieving global optimal solution. Bakhtavar, Shahriar, and Oraee [2] noted
that, few methods (algorithms) have some disadvantages and deficiencies in finding the
optimal transition depth. According to Askari-Nasab et al. [78], heuristic algorithms may
not produce optimal solutions. This could lead to loss of huge financial benefits resulting
from implementing sub-optimal mine plans.
Finch [47] also highlighted that, the effort of producing OPUG mining schedules for
the possible candidates of transition interface for all the various mining and processing
capacities could be time consuming and costly. The process commonly leads to the genera-
tion of sub-optimal solutions since the problem is not thoroughly investigated. According
to Richard and Stefan [79], designs optimized for deterministic cases are often sub-optimal
when uncertainties are recognized and their effects understood. By applying mathematical
programming models with current high computing resources [31], optimal or near opti-
mal solutions with known optimality gap can be obtained for the OP-UG mining options
optimization problem in a practical time frame and at an acceptable computational cost.

3. Summary and Conclusions

The problem of optimizing resource exploitation depends largely on the mining
option used in the extraction. Some mineral deposits extend from the near surface to
several meters in depth. Such deposits can be amenable to both surface mining and/or
underground mining, and this leads to the surface–underground mining options and
transitions optimization. Relevant literature review on the SUMOTO problem has been
conducted and documented. Research works in this area have primarily focused on
different variations of determining the transition depth between open pit and underground
mines, and the subsequent optimization of the strategic schedule for each mining option.
Heuristics and exact solution methods have both been used in the past to attempt the
SUMOTO problem. An algorithm or model that comprehensively and simultaneously
determines an optimized open pit mine, transition interface and an underground mine
for any orebody by both surface and underground mining methods in a single run will
significantly add value to the mining industry. A matrix showing the various approaches
adopted by researchers in tackling the OP-UG transition problem in the last decade has
been developed (Table 1).
Shortfalls on previous research for mining options optimization have been discussed
and opportunities for further studies identified. Notable limitations of current models
Mining 2021, 1 128

and algorithms for the SUMOTO problem include: (1) consideration of rock support and
reinforcement in the optimization process; (2) consideration of essential infrastructural
development in the optimization process; (3) consideration of stochastic variables; (4)
comprehensiveness and efficiency of models; and (5) optimality assessment of model
solution. These identified limitations may often lead to sub-optimal global solution to
the SUMOTO problem thereby affecting the viability of the mining project. It is therefore
essential to develop a rigorous optimization framework that attempts to address some of
these deficiencies.
Although the main sources of uncertainties in mining options studies have been found
to include financial, technical, and geological, research on strategic mining options have
handled these uncertainties independently. Incorporation of geological uncertainties in
current strategic mining options studies have been applied in different forms, including,
grade and tonnage uncertainties, probability indices, and the use of algorithms to further
define these uncertainties. The incorporation of financial uncertainties together with
geological uncertainties is limited in current research on mining options studies. As
uncertainties cannot be eliminated in the mining options problem, the best strategy is
to quantify uncertainty, reduce uncertainty and manage the associated risk during the
production scheduling process.
In the last decade, different variations of mathematical programming models have
been used by researchers to solve challenges associated with the surface-underground
mining options problem. The main variations are either deterministic (linear programming
and integer and mixed-integer programming) or stochastic (dynamic programming and
stochastic programming) or combination of both.

4. Recommendations
The authors conclude by proposing further research into the formulation of an inte-
grated stochastic programming model for the mining options and transitions optimization
problem for all deposits including base and critical minerals. Figure 4 is a representation of
the recommended research considerations to solve the complexities associated with the
strategic surface-underground mining options and transitions optimization problem.
To add significant value to the mining industry, the proposed research approach in
Figure 4 will result in a stochastic mining options and transitions optimization model that
has the capacity to generate strategic mining options including: OP mining, UG mining,
simultaneous OPUG mining, OP mining followed by UG mining, and UG mining followed
by OP mining. The proposed model should be applicable at the prefeasibility stage of
mining project to guide mine planners and investors in making important decisions. Some
of the performance indicators of the model should include net present value, internal rate
of return, discounted cashflow, price to cost ratio, blending ratio, production smoothness,
stripping ratio, mine life, mining recovery, and average run-of-mine (ROM) grade. The
proposed model should have the features and capacity to:
(a) Take in simulated block models as inputs in a risk-based or stochastic framework that
considers grade, price, and cost uncertainty;
(b) Evaluate strategic mining options with exhaustive constraints for large-scale mining
projects through efficient numerical modeling and computational techniques. In
addition to standard mining and technical constraints, other notable constraints
include controls for safety, geotechnical, geological, and hydrogeological conditions
of the mining area;
(c) Integrate waste management constraints and synergies wherein waste material and
tailings from open pit mining can be used for underground backfilling; as well as
characterizing mineralized waste material as future resource;
(d) Leverage resource governance and synergies whereby open pit low grade ore can
be blended with underground high-grade ore to improve processing recovery and
extend mine life;
(e) Determine the size and capacity of the mining project using real value options approach.
Mining 2021, 1 129
Mining 2021, 1, FOR PEER REVIEW 19

Figure
Figure 4.
4. Schematic
Schematic representation
representation of
of the
the proposed
proposed research
research approach for strategic
approach for strategic OP-UG
OP-UG mining
mining options
options optimization.
optimization.

To add significant value to the mining industry, the proposed research approach in
will result in The
Author 4Contributions:
Figure research work
a stochastic miningwasoptions
completed
andbytransitions
B.O.A., under the supervision
optimization of E.B.-A.
model that
All authors
has have read
the capacity and agreed
to generate to the published
strategic mining version
optionsofincluding:
the manuscript.
OP mining, UG mining,
simultaneous
Funding: This OPUG
work wasmining, OP mining
supported followed
by the Ontario by UG
Trillium mining, and
Scholarship UG mining
Program, IAMGOLD fol-
lowed by OP mining. The proposed model should be applicable at the prefeasibility
Corporation and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [DG #: RGPIN-2016- stage
of mining
05707; CRDproject
#: CRDPJ to500546-16].
guide mine planners and investors in making important decisions.
Some of the performance indicators of the model should include net present value, inter-
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
nal rate of return, discounted cashflow, price to cost ratio, blending ratio, production
Informed Consent
smoothness, stripping ratio, Not
Statement: mineapplicable.
life, mining recovery, and average run-of-mine (ROM)
grade. The proposed model should
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing havenotthe featuresNo
applicable. and capacity
new to: created or analyzed in
data were
this study.
(a) Take Data sharing is not
in simulated applicable
block modelstoasthis article.in a risk-based or stochastic framework
inputs
that of
Conflicts considers
Interest: grade, price,declare
The authors and cost uncertainty;
no conflict of interest.
(b) Evaluate strategic mining options with exhaustive constraints for large-scale mining
projects
Appendix A.through
Modeling efficient numerical
Techniques modeling andProblems
for Optimization computational techniques. In ad-
dition to standard mining and technical constraints,
The literature review conducted on the surface-underground other notablemining
constraints include
options and
controls for safety, geotechnical, geological, and hydrogeological conditions
transitions optimization (SUMOTO) problems indicate that mining options and transitions of the
mining area;
optimization planning are modeled and solved using different evaluation techniques. Un-
(c) Integratethe
derstanding waste management
various constraints
classifications and synergies
of optimization modelswherein waste
and their material and
advantages are
tailings from open pit mining can be used for underground backfilling;
essential to the development of an optimization framework capable of handling the as notable
well as
characterizing
limitations and gapsmineralized waste
associated with thematerial as future
current models resource;
and algorithms for SUMOTO prob-
(d)
lems. These optimization models may be grouped into four open
Leverage resource governance and synergies whereby broadpit lowaccording
types grade oreto
canhowbe
well blended
they are with
able tounderground
define a givenhigh-grade
problem:ore(1) to improve processing
operational recovery
exercise models, and ex-
(2) gaming
tend mine life;
models, (3) simulation models, and (4) analytical or mathematical programming models.
(e) Determine
Simulation the size and
and analytical capacity
models of the mining
are widely used forproject
miningusing real value
optimization options due
problems ap-
proach.
to their practicality, robustness, and efficiency [80,81]. Table A1 shows classification of
certainty and uncertainty models.
Author Contributions: The research work was completed by B.O.A., under the supervision of E.B.-A.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Mining 2021, 1 130

Table A1. Classification of certainty and uncertainty models [23].

Class Strategy Evaluation Strategy Generation

Linear programming
Deterministic simulation
Network models
Econometric models
Integer and mixed integer
Certainty Systems of simultaneous
programming
equations
Nonlinear programming
Input-output models
Control theory
Monte Carlo simulation Decision theory
Econometric models Dynamic programming
Uncertainty Stochastic processes Inventory theory
Queueing theory Stochastic programming
Reliability theory Stochastic control theory

Appendix A.1. Operational Exercise Models

Operational exercise is a modeling method that relates variables to the actual en-
vironment where the study decision will be applied [23]. This method has the highest
degree of realism when compared to other techniques of modeling. It is usually prohibitive,
expensive to implement, and associated with extreme challenge when alternatives must be
assessed. This then leads to sub-optimization of the final solution. A human decision-maker
forms part of the modeling processes of operational exercises.

Appendix A.2. Gaming Models

Gaming is a modeling approach constructed to represent more simple or abstract
entities in the real world [23]. This method gives the mine planner the opportunity to
try several variations of the decisions to make. A human decision-maker is part of the
modeling processes for gaming models.

Appendix A.3. Simulation Models

Simulation models provide several ways to assess the performances of alternatives
outlined by the planner. They do not allow much interferences from human interactions
during the computational analyses stage of implementation [23]. Simulation models could
sometimes be compared to gaming models. However, they involve the application of
logical arithmetic performed in a particular sequence usually by computer programs. If
the problem is exclusively defined in an analytical form, much flexibility and realistic
results are attained. This is essential if uncertainties are critical components of the decisions
being made. A human decision-maker is external or not part of the modeling processes of
simulation and analytical models.

Appendix A.4. Analytical or Mathematical Programming Models

The fourth model category is analytical models. These models represent the problem
completely in mathematical forms, usually by means of a criterion or objective subject
to series of constraints that impact on the decision being made [23]. The mathematical
formulation helps to determine the optimal solution in the presence of the set of constraints.
Although mathematical models highly simplify the problem, they are less expensive and
easy to develop.
Mathematical programming is a significant method when decision variables must
be quantified for planning. The problem is defined with mathematical expressions in
a well-defined structure to find an optimal solution based on performance evaluation
criteria including cost, profit, and time. The optimal solution is obtained from a feasible
region of alternative results. The expressions are parameters (input data) and variables
which represent the optimization results or outcome. When multiple criteria decisions
are required for any complex problem, a multi-objective mathematical programming
Mining 2021, 1 131

model involving more than one objective function is deployed simultaneously. The main
advantages of mathematical programming models (MPMs) are: (a) comparatively simple
with high approximations of complicated problems, and (b) ability to search the feasible
solution spaces among competing variables and alternatives [82]. Common MP techniques
are stochastic programming, deterministic programming, dynamic programming, LP,
nonlinear programming, IP, and MILP.

Appendix A.4.1. Stochastic Programming

Stochastic programming is a special case of programming in which some of the
constraints or parameters depend on random variables. This type of programming is used
to solve problems that involve uncertainty and allow stochastic variables to be accounted
for [82].

Appendix A.4.2. Deterministic Programming

Deterministic programming is a form of MP that is rigorous and solves problems in
finite time. The optimization model is deterministic when the parameters considered in
the model are known constants [23]. The method is useful when global solution is required
and is extremely difficult to find a feasible solution.

Appendix A.4.3. Dynamic Programming

Dynamic programming is a form of mathematical programming used to solve multistage
complicated problems [82]. A large-scale problem is simplified by breaking it down into
simpler sub-problems in a nested recursive manner as opposed to deterministic programming.

Appendix A.4.4. Linear Programming

This is a distinct case of convex programming where the model objective and the
equality and inequality constraints are expressed as linear functions. The feasible solution
set is usually a polytope or polyhedron with connected sets of polygonal faces and convex.
The optimal solution could be a single vertex, edge or face, or even sometimes the entire
feasible region when dealing with high dimension problems. Typical LP solutions could
arrive as infeasible or unbounded [83].

Appendix A.4.5. Nonlinear Programming

Nonlinear programming is a special case of programming which could be convex
or non-convex with nonlinear objective functions or nonlinear constraints or [83]. Some
assumptions are often made on the shape and function behavior when solving nonlinear
programming problems [23]. Nonparametric and simulation-based optimization tech-
niques have been used to explicitly solve models with nonlinear constraints. However,
computational feasibility have been a major disadvantage in the development and imple-
mentation of MPMs [82].

Appendix A.4.6. Integer Programming

Integer programming (IP) is a special type of LP where some or of all the decision
variables are constrained to take on integers and therefore not continuous. If all the
variables are discrete or integers or binaries, the model is referred to as pure integer
programming. Essentially, IP problems are hard problems because they are difficult to
solve and therefore referred to as combinatorial analysis than LP [23].

Appendix A.4.7. Mixed Integer Linear Programming

This is a special form of IP in which some decision variables are constrained to take
on integers and others continuous. Continuous variables indicate that the variables could
take on fractions as part of the solution regime. Due to the strength of MILP formulations,
it is proposed as the model for solving the SUMOTO problem in this research. The MILP
Mining 2021, 1 132

formulation structure is well defined with objective function, and a set of constraints to
achieve the mining decisions that are usually made up of continuous variables and integers.

References
1. Nelson, G.M. Evaluation of mining methods and systems. In SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 3rd ed.; Darling, P., Ed.; Society
for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Englewood, CO, USA, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 341–348.
2. Bakhtavar, E.; Shahriar, K.; Oraee, K. Mining method selection and optimization of transition from open pit to underground in
combined mining. Arch. Min. Sci. 2009, 54, 481–493.
3. Bakhtavar, E.; Shahriar, K.; Oraee, K. Transition from open-pit to underground as a new optimization challenge in mining
engineering. J. Min. Sci. 2009, 45, 485–494. [CrossRef]
4. Ben-Awuah, E.; Otto, R.; Tarrant, E.; Yashar, P. Strategic mining options optimization: Open pit mining, underground mining or
both. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2016, 26, 1065–1071. [CrossRef]
5. Brady, B.H.G.; Brown, E.T. Rock mechanics and mining engineering. In Rock Mechanics for Underground Mining, 3rd ed.; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 1–16.
6. Marketwired. Libero Mining Options the Tomichi Porphyry Copper Deposit. Available online: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/
news/libero-mining-options-tomichi-porphyry-103000621.html (accessed on 7 August 2017).
7. Opoku, S.; Musingwini, C. Stochastic modelling of the open pit to underground transition interface for gold mines. Int. J. Min.
Reclam. Environ. 2013, 27, 407–424. [CrossRef]
8. Roberts, B.; Elkington, T.; van Olden, K.; Maulen, M. Optimizing a combined open pit and underground strategic plan.
In Proceedings of the Project Evaluation Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 21–22 April 2009; pp. 85–91.
9. Roberts, B.; Elkington, T.; van Olden, K.; Maulen, M. Optimising combined open pit and underground strategic plan. Min.
Technol. 2013, 122, 94–100. [CrossRef]
10. Shinobe, A. Economics of Underground Conversion in An Operating Limestone Mine. Ph.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal,
QC, Canada, 1997.
11. Bakhtavar, E. Transition from open-pit to underground in the case of Chah-Gz iron ore combined mining. J. Min. Sci. 2013, 49,
955–966. [CrossRef]
12. Bakhtavar, E. The practicable combination of open pit with underground mining methods—A decade’s experience.
In Proceedings of the 24th International Mining Congress and Exhibition of Turkey-IMCET’15, Antalya, Turkey, 14–17 April 2015;
pp. 704–709.
13. Bakhtavar, E. OP-UG TD optimizer tool based on Matlab code to find transition depth from open pit to block caving. Arch. Min.
Sci. 2015, 60, 487–495.
14. Bakhtavar, E.; Shahriar, K.; Mirhassani, A. Optimization of the transition from open-pit to underground operation in combined
mining using (0–1) integer programming. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2012, 112, 1059–1064.
15. Bakhtavar, E.; Shahriar, K.; Oraee, K. A model for determining optimal transition depth over from open-pit to underground
mining. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Mass Mining, Luleå, Sweden, 9–11 June 2008; pp. 393–400.
16. Chung, J.; Topal, E.; Erten, O. Transition from open-pit to underground—Using integer programming considering grade
uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference of the International Association for Mathematical Geosciences,
Freiberg, Germany, 5–13 September 2015; pp. 268–277.
17. Dagdelen, K.; Traore, I. Open pit transition depth determination through global analysis of open pit and underground mine
scheduling. In Proceedings of the Orebody Modelling and Strategic Mine Planning, Perth, Australia, 24–26 November 2014;
pp. 195–200.
18. King, B.; Goycoolea, M.; Newman, A. Optimizing the open pit-to-underground mining transition. Eur. J. Opt. Res. 2017, 257,
297–309. [CrossRef]
19. Luxford, J. Surface to underground—Making the transition. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mine Project
Development, Sydney, Australia, 24–26 November 1997; pp. 79–87.
20. MacNeil, J.A.L.; Dimitrakopoulos, R.G. A stochastic optimization formulation for the transition from open pit to underground
mining. Optim. Eng. 2017, 18, 793–813. [CrossRef]
21. Nilsson, D.S. Open pit or underground mining. In Underground Mining Methods Handbook; Hustulid, W.A., Ed.; Society of Mining
Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1982; pp. 70–87.
22. Nilsson, D.S. Surface vs. underground methods. In Underground Mining Methods Handbook; Society of Mining Engineers of the
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 2058–2068.
23. Orlin, J.B. Mathematical Programming: An Overview. Available online: http://web.mit.edu/15.053/www/AMP-Chapter-01.pdf
(accessed on 7 June 2020).
24. Whittle, D.; Brazil, M.; Grossman, P.A.; Rubinstein, J.H.; Thomas, D.A. Combined optimisation of an open-pit mine outline and
the transition depth to underground mining. Eur. J. Opt. Res. 2018, 268, 624–634. [CrossRef]
25. Ordin, A.A.; Vasil’ev, I.V. Optimized depth of transition from open pit to underground coal mining. J. Min. Sci. 2014, 50, 696–706.
[CrossRef]
26. Achireko, P.K. Application of Modified Conditional Simulation and Artificial Neural Networks to Open Pit Mining. Ph.D. Thesis,
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada, 1998.
Mining 2021, 1 133

27. De Carli, C.; De Lemos, P.R. Project optimization. REM Rev. Esc. Minas 2015, 68, 97–102. [CrossRef]
28. Ben-Awuah, E.; Richter, O.; Elkington, T. Mining options optimization: Concurrent open pit and underground mining production
scheduling. In Proceedings of the 37th International Symposium on the Application of Computers and Operations Research in
the Mineral Industry, Fairbanks, AK, USA, 23–27 May 2015; pp. 1061–1071.
29. Chung, J.; Topal, E.; Ghosh, A.K. Where to make the transition from open-pit to underground? Using integer programming.
J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2016, 116, 801–808. [CrossRef]
30. Bakhtavar, E.; Abdollahisharif, J.; Aminzadeh, A. A stochastic mathematical model for determination of transition time in the
non-simultaneous case of surface and underground. J. S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2017, 117, 1145–1153. [CrossRef]
31. Bakhtavar, E.; Oraee, K.; Shahriar, K. Determination of the optimum crown pillar thickness between open pit and block caving.
In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Ground Control in Mining, Morgantown, WV, USA, 27–29 July 2010;
pp. 325–332.
32. Huang, S.; Li, G.; Ben-Awuah, E.; Afum, B.O.; Hu, N. A stochastic mixed integer programming framework for underground
mining production scheduling optimization considering grade uncertainty. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 24495–24505. [CrossRef]
33. Nhleko, A.S.; Tholana, T.; Neingo, P.N. A review of underground stope boundary optimization algorithms. Resour. Policy 2018,
56, 59–69. [CrossRef]
34. Afum, B.O.; Ben-Awuah, E. Open pit and underground mining transitions planning: A MILP framework for optimal resource
extraction evaluation. In Proceedings of the Application of Computers and Operations Research (APCOM) 2019: Mining Goes
Digital, Politechnika Wroclawska, Wroclaw, Poland, 4–6 June 2019; pp. 144–157.
35. Afum, B.O.; Ben-Awuah, E.; Askari-Nasab, H. A mixed integer linear programming framework for optimising the extraction
strategy of open pit—Underground mining options and transitions. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2019, 34, 700–724. [CrossRef]
36. Fengshan, M.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, J.; Wei, A.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, Y. GPS monitoring and analysis of ground movement and
deformation induced by transition from open-pit to underground mining. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2012, 4, 82–87.
37. Yardimci, A.G.; Tutluoglu, L.; Karpuz, C. Crown pillar optimization for surface to underground mine transition in Erzin-
can/Bizmisen Iron Mine. In Proceedings of the 50th US Rock Mechanics/Geomechanics Symposium, Houston, TX, USA,
26–29 June 2016; pp. 1–10.
38. Bullock, R.L. Introduction to underground mine planning. In SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 3rd ed.; Darling, P., Ed.; Society
for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration: Englewood, CO, USA, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 1135–1141.
39. Caro, R.; Epstein, R.; Santibañez, P.; Weintraub, A. An integrated approach to the long-term planning process in the copper mining
industry. In Handbook of Operations Research in Natural Resources; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007; Volume 99, pp. 595–609.
40. Newman, A.M.; Rubio, E.; Weintraub, A.; Eurek, K. A review of operations research in mine planning. Interfaces 2010, 40, 222–245.
[CrossRef]
41. Bohnet, E. Comparison of surface mining methods. In SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 3rd ed.; Darling, P., Ed.; Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration: Englewood, CO, USA, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 405–413.
42. Torries, T.F. Evaluating Mineral Projects; Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration: Englewood, CO, USA, 1998; 188p.
43. SAMVAL. The South African Code for the Reporting of Mineral Asset Valuation (The SAMVAL Code); Southern African Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy and the Geological Society of South Africa: Marshalltown, South Africa, 2016; 34p.
44. CIMVAL. The CIMVAL Code for the Valuation of Mineral Properties; The Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum:
West Westmount, QC, Canada, 2019; 41p.
45. VALMIN. Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets (The VALMIN Code); The
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) and the Australian Institute of Geoscientists: Carlton, Australia, 2015;
42p.
46. Koushavand, B.; Askari-Nasab, H.; Deutsch, C. Mixed integer linear programming model for long-term mine planning in the
presence of grade uncertainty and stockpile. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2014, 24, 451–459. [CrossRef]
47. Finch, A. Open pit to underground. Int. Min. January 2012, 88–90.
48. Huang, S.; Li, G.; Ben-Awuah, E.; Afum, B.O.; Hu, N. A robust mixed integer linear programming framework for underground
cut-and-fill mining production scheduling. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2020, 34, 397–414. [CrossRef]
49. Pourrahimian, Y.; Askari-Nasab, H.; Tannant, D. A multi-step approach for blockcave production scheduling optimization. Int. J.
Min. Sci. Technol. 2013, 23, 739–750.
50. Terblanche, S.E.; Bley, A. An improved formulation of the underground mine scheduling optimisation problem when considering
selective mining. Orion 2015, 31, 1–16. [CrossRef]
51. Breed, M. Open Pit to Underground Transition; Minxcom Group: Johannesburg, South Africa, 2016; 3p.
52. Elkington, T. Optimising Open Pit to Underground Cut-Over: Part One. Newsletter 20 March 2018. Available online: https:
//snowdengroup.com/optimising-open-pit-to-underground-cut-over-part-one/ (accessed on 8 May 2021).
53. Mawby, M.; Rankin, W.J. Australasian mining and metallurgical operating practices: The Sir Maurice Mawby memorial volume.
In Monograph Series (Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy), 3rd ed.; Rankin, W.J., Ed.; Australasian Institute of Mining
and Metallurgy: Victoria, Australia, 2013; Volume 28, 1920p.
54. Freeport-McMoRan. Freeport-McMoRan Annual Report (Driven by Value); Freeport-McMoRan (FCX): Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2016;
135p.
Mining 2021, 1 134

55. Afum, B.O.; Caverson, D.; Ben-Awuah, E. A conceptual framework for characterizing mineralized waste rocks as future resource.
Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2019, 29, 429–435. [CrossRef]
56. Chen, J.; Guo, D.; Li, J. Optimization principle of combined surface and underground mining and its applications. J. Central South
Univ. Technol. 2003, 10, 222–225. [CrossRef]
57. Chen, J.; Li, J.; Luo, Z.; Guo, D. Development and application of optimum open-pit software for the combined mining of surface
and underground. In Proceedings of the Computer Applications in the Mineral Industries (CAMI) Symposium, Beijing, China,
25–27 April 2001; pp. 303–306.
58. Camus, J.P. Open pit optimization considering an underground alternative. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Application
of Computers and Operations Research (APCOM 1992) Symposium, Tucson, AZ, USA, 7–11 April 1992; pp. 435–441.
59. O’Hara, T.A.; Suboleski, S.C. Costs and cost estimation. In SME Mining Engineering Handbook, 2nd ed.; Hartman, H.L., Ed.; Society
for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration: Englewood, CO, USA, 1992; Volume 1, pp. 405–424.
60. Tulp, T. Open pit to underground mining. In Proceedings of the 17th Symposium on Mine Planning and Equipment Selection,
Calgary, AB, Canada, 6–9 October 1998; pp. 9–12.
61. Gabryk, W.; Lane, G.R.; Terblanche, M.; Krafft, G. How an object-oriented modelling approach for a mine option study can
increase the quality of decision: A case study. In Proceedings of the 5th International Platinum Conference: ‘A Catalyst for
Change’, Sun City, South Africa, 18–21 September 2012; pp. 593–610.
62. Musendu, F. Evaluation of Technical and Economic Criteria Involved in Changing from Surface to Underground Mining.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1995.
63. Hayes, P. Transition from open cut to underground coal mining. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mine Project
Development, Sydney, Australia, 24–26 November 1997; pp. 73–78.
64. Makarov, A.B.; Rasskazov, I.Y.; Saskin, B.G.; Livingsky, I.S.; Potapchuk, M.I. Geomechanical evaluation of roof-and-pillar
parameters in transition to underground mining. J. Min. Sci. 2016, 52, 438–447. [CrossRef]
65. Tavakoli, M. Underground Metal Mine Crown Pillar Stability Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wollongong, Wollongong,
Australia, 1994.
66. Bo-lin, X.; Zhi-qiang, Y.; Qian, G.; Ho, S. Numerical simulation on high-steep slope stability analysis in transition from open-pit to
underground mining. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2014, 19, 16869–16879.
67. Shi, X.; Huang, G.; Zhang, S. Goaf surrounding rock deformation and failure features using FLAC3D in underground mining
shifted from open-pit in complex situation. J. Central South Univ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 42, 1710–1718.
68. Wang, Y.; Zheng, X. Sensitivity analysis of model parameters and v-SVR model of slope deformation due to excavating from
open-pit to underground mining. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2010, 29, 2902–2907.
69. Lerchs, H.; Grossman, I.F. Optimum design of open-pit mines. Trans. Can. Min. Metall. Bull. 1965, 58, 17–24.
70. Jakubec, J. Updating the mining rock mass rating classification. In SRK News—Focus on Caving, SRK’s International Newsletter;
SRK Vancouver: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2001; 8p.
71. McCracken, A. MRMR modelling for Skouries gold/copper project. In SRK News—Focus on Caving, SRK’s International Newsletter;
SRK Vancouver: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2001; 8p.
72. King, B. Schedule optimization of large complex mining operations. In Proceedings of the Application of Computers and
Operations Research (APCOM), Denver, CO, USA, 20–22 October 1999; pp. 749–762.
73. Abbas, S.M.; Konietzky, H. Rock mass classification systems. In Introduction to Geomechanics; Konietzky, H., Ed.; Technical
University Freiberg: Freiberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 1–48.
74. Kaiser, P.K.; Cai, M. Design of rock support system under rockburst condition. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2012, 4, 215–227.
[CrossRef]
75. Edelbro, C. Evaluation of Rock Mass Strength Criteria. Ph.D. Thesis, Lulea University of Technolgy, Lulea, Sweden, 2004.
76. Ozturk, C.A.; Nasuf, E. Strength classification of rock material based on textual properties. Tunnell. Undergr. Spacae Technol. 2013,
37, 45–54. [CrossRef]
77. Stacey, T.R.; Terbrugge, P.J. Open pit to underground: Transition and interaction. In Proceedings of the MassMin 2000, Brisbane,
Australia, 29 October–2 November 2000; pp. 97–104.
78. Askari-Nasab, H.; Pourrahimian, Y.; Ben-Awuah, E.; Kalantari, S. Mixed integer linear programming formulations for open pit
production scheduling. J. Min. Sci. 2011, 47, 338. [CrossRef]
79. Richard, D.N.; Stefan, S. Flexibility in Engineering Design; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; 293p.
80. Ben-Awuah, E. Oil Sands Mine Planning and Waste Management Using Goal Programming. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB, Canada, 2013.
81. Maremi, A. Uncertainty-Based Mine Planning Framework for Oil Sands Production Scheduling and Waste Management.
Ph.D. Thesis, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON, Canada, 2020.
82. Chandra, C.; Grabis, J. Mathematical programming approaches. In Supply Chain Configuration: Concepts, Solutions, and Applications;
Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 151–172.
83. Nocedal, J.; Wright, S. Numerical Optimization, 2nd ed.; Springer Science+Business Media LLC: New York, NY, USA, 2006.