Mud Inflow Risk Assessment in Block Caving Operation Based on AHP Comprehensive Method

  • A. HekmatEmail author
  • A. Anani
  • F. Tapia
  • I. Navia
Conference paper


Increasing the depth of mining operations becomes fundamental due to the depletion of the shallower high-grade orebodies. Besides, technological developments make deep mining operations feasible. Block and panel caving are classified into large-scale production methods applicable to deep low-grade massive deposits. When mining goes deeper, evaluating the rock mass behavior and conditions for caving becomes more complicated during mine planning and design. The limited and poor quality data, unexpected changes in conditions as well as natural variability are the source of all risks in cave mining. Mud inflow is a phenomenon that can plague caving operation with many obstacles such as fatalities, damage, dilution, production delay, or mine closure. In this research, a safety risk assessment framework is presented based on analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Thus, an extensive statistical analysis of all effective parameters in mud inflow was performed at one of the main operation sectors of el Teniente copper mine, Codelco, Chile. The statistical results were used to ranking risk effective parameters in AHP method. The results of this study introduce a robust method for prioritization of safety risk in block caving projects.


Mud inflow Risk assessment Block caving AHP 



The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Chilean Government through the CORFO project 12IDL2-15145.


  1. Aminbakhsh, S., Gunduz, M., Sonmez, R.: Safety risk assessment using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) during planning and budgeting of construction project. J. Saf. Res. 46, 99–105 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bascetin, A.: Mining technology: Transaction of the Institution of mining and metallurgy. In: Technical note: an application of the analytic hierarchy process in equipment selection at Orhanel open pit copper mine, pp. 192–199 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Bhushan, N., Rai, K.: Strategic decision making—applying the analytic hierarchy process. Springer press (2004)Google Scholar
  4. Butcher, R., Joughin, W., Stacey, T.R.: The safety in mines research advisory committee (SIMIAC). In: A booklet method of combating mudrushes in diamond and base metal mines, pp. 1–35 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. Butcher, R., Stacey, T.R., Joughin, W.C.: Mud rushes and methods of combating them. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 105, 817–824 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. Dagdeviren, M., Yüksel, I.: Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Inform. Sci. 178, 1717–1733 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrada, M.: Gravity flow under moisture conditions—control and management of drawpoint mudflow. In: Proceedings of the 35th APCOM symposium, Wollongong, NSW (2011)Google Scholar
  8. Hekmat, A., Osanloo, M., Akbarpour Shirazi, M.: A new approach for selection of waste dump site in open pit mines. J. Min. Technol. 117, 24–31 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heslop, T.G.: Block caving—controllable risk and fatal flows. In: Proceedings of MassMin, Brisbane, Australia, pp. 437–454 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. Jacubec, J., Clayton, R., Guest A.R.: Mudrush risk evaluation. In: Proceedings of MassMin, Greater Sudbury, Ontario, Canada (2012)Google Scholar
  11. Kousalya, P., Reddy, G.M., Supraja, S., Prasad, V.S.: Analytical hierarchy process approach—an application of engineering education. Math. Aeterna 2 10, 861–878 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. Laubscher, D.: International caving study. A practical manual on block caving (2000)Google Scholar
  13. Lee, M.G.: Information security risk analysis methods and risk trends: AHP and fuzzy comprehensive method. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inform. Technol. 6, 29–45 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mustafa, M.A., Al-Bahar, J.F.: Project risk assessment using the analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 38, 46–52 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. MCGrow-Hill, New York (1980)Google Scholar
  16. Saaty, T.L.: Decision making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 145, 85–91 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saaty, T.L.: How to make a decision—the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 48, 9–26 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yurdakul, M.: AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine tool selection. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 146, 365–376 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ConcepcionConcepcionChile
  2. 2.Pontifical Catholic University of ChileSantiagoChile
  3. 3.El Teniente Copper MineSewellChile

Personalised recommendations