This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]

On: 06 November 2014, At: 07:06

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation

and Environment
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nsme19

Production scheduling optimization in open pit mines

a

K. Fytas , J. Hadjigeorgiou & J. L. Collins

Universite Laval , Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

Published online: 30 May 2007.

To cite this article: K. Fytas , J. Hadjigeorgiou & J. L. Collins (1993) Production scheduling optimization in open pit mines,
International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 7:1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1080/09208119308964677
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09208119308964677

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

l n ~ e r n a t i o ~ l l o uofr Surjace
~l
Mining and Reclamation 7(1993): 1-9

Production scheduling optimization in open pit mines

K.Fytas, J. Hadjigeorgiou & J. L.Collins
Universite'Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the probIems associated with production scheduling in open pit mines once the ultimate pit limits
have been defined. A computer package is presented, capable of evaluating alternative short and long range production schedules.
Simulation is employed for long range, and linear programming for short range production scheduling, the objecuve being to maximize
cash-flow over the mine life. The model is applied to a case study.
1 INTRODUCTION

Mining of mineral de sits has always aimed at maximum

profitability at ore dep%on. This has assumed even greater
importance in the last few decades with the depletion of the
most accessible high grade ore reserves. Rising fuel and
labour costs and the spectre of depressed metal prices
worldwide have also contributed to the realisation that
optimum profitability is necessary at every mining venture.
In the area of open pit mining, the sequence of ore and
waste extraction has become even more important given the
trend towards larger pits and mining equipment. Open plt
mining involves a continuous change of the open pit surface
with many feasible plans of extraction leading to the same
ultimate pit limits. Each of these lans generates a production
schedule over the entire mine lib, which may or may not be
optimal. Optimum planning of an open pit involves the
development of a production schedule which will maximize the
net present value of internal rate of return of the mining
venture.
The development of an optimal production sequence in open
pit mines is a very complex procedure, due to the very large
number of variables and constraints involved. It is this
complexity, however, that creates an ideal environment for the
appl~cationof sophisticated operations research and computer
techniques.
2 OPEN PIT PRODUCTION SCHEDULING

Open pit production scheduling is the development of a

sequence of depletion schedules leading from the initial
condition of the deposit (i.e. original t o p raphy) to the
ultimate pit limits. Based on the duration okthe scheduling
periods, production scheduling can be distinguished as long
range or short range one.
Long range production scheduling is mainly concerned with
such items as ore reserves, stripping ratios and major
investment plans usually on a year by year basis. Short range
production scheduling is the development of a sequence of
depletion schedules on a daily, weekl or monthly basis, which
complies with mtrictions imposed
the long range plans,
plant capacities, inventory restrictions, equipment availability
and existing mining situations.
There are several objectives the have to be met by a
successful open pit production schedule. These include
quantity requirements that will ensure a certain level of ore
production in tonnes per mining period and quality
considerations at the processing plant or blending bed. A
production schedule has also to be reasonable and feasible in
terms of mining practice keeping a safe worgng pit slope and
defemng waste stripping as long as possible, while ensuring
the compatibility of the schedule with future periods.
Others considerations include having sufficient exposed ore
at the beginning of each period, so as to counter the possibility
of ore tonnage and grade misestimation in the mineralization
model and minimizing the volume of preproduction stripping

cdy

Q 1993 A.A. Balkcrna PO.Box 1675,3000 BR Rotterdam. Netherlands

in order to have a certain quantity of exposed ore at the

beginning of mine Efe.
Specific equipment considerations involve the maintenance
of adequate operating room. This can be expressed either as
a minimum radius at the pit bonom or any working area or
developing access to the operating benches through the
development of haulage road. Finally the shovel moves for
each mining period should be kept at a minimum. This is
accomplished by:
- mnimizing the number of benches advanced per period
- maximizing the amount of contiguous material removed
per bench per period
- keeping the material left on a bench at the end of a
mining period must be mined if it is minimal, so that the
shovel will not have to return to the same position later.
The main objective of long and short range scheduling in an
open pit operation is to maximize the profits realized within
every mining period and through the mine life. This can be
expressed as a maximization of the internal rate of return or
a minimization of the payback period, or as a maximization of
the present value ratio.

3 SELECTION OF O.R. TECHNIQUES AND PREVIOUS

APPLICATIONS
Due to the conflicting nature of seveml of the production
scheduling optimization problem constraints there is no O.R.
technique that alone could accommodate all short and long
range scheduling restrictions. The use of a particular
technique is therefore at best a compromise.
While SIMULATION can be ideal m solving such a complex
problem, it does not guarantee the optirnality of the solution
and it imposes high requirements in computer time. There
are only a few cases of applying pure simulation to the open
pit production scheduling problem (Pana 1965, Decker et al.
1984).

LINEAR PROGRAMMING has received the greater

attention among O.R. techniques as applied in open pit
production scheduling. A major restriction, however, is that
the number of constraints must be kept small given that the
required computer time for the solution is proportional to the
cube of the number of constraints. The complexity of
multilevel open pit mining, especially the precedence
constraints, can lead to very large L.P. models that can be
expensive to solve for most practical cases. For example, for
a medium size ore deposit wlth 200000 blocks one should have
200000 precedence constraints since there is one precedence
constraint for each block.
is a less frequently used
INTEGER PROGRAMM&
technique in open pit scheduling optimization, because of the
complexity of the solution algorithms. A special group of
integer programming models is the 0-1 integer programming
model, where each variable is allowed to take values of only
0 and 1. Such a model would be ideal for a production
scheduling problem since it permits the assignment of a 0-1
variable to each block of the block model:
'

'

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

0 if the block, is to not be mined within a certain mining

period and
I if it is to be mined
However, the solution time of a 0-1 integer programming
model tends to increase ex nentially with the number of
variablcr. Although the soKtion algorithms improve with
time, there is little hope of ever being able to solve really
large problems, such as the open pit production scheduling
optimization problem.
There are quite a few references, sp far, of applications of
linear of integer programming in solving the open pit
scheduling problem. As early as 1967 a short range open pit
scheduling model was formulated and solved with linear
programming methodologies (Kim 1967). Johnson (1969) has
formulated a multi-period open pit mine production
scheduling problem as a luge scale linear programming
model, using the Dantzig-Wolfe decomposition technique to
solve it. Williams (1974), Sims (1979), and Davis & Williams
(1973) reported on a complex computer model that was
developed for ASARCO to optimize long range open pit
production schedulin . The solution technique used to solve
this model was a corntination of Linear programming (network
flow), parametric programming, integer programming and
dynamic programming.
Gangwar (1973, 1982) has reported on a binary stochastic
model for open pit production scheduling, however no solution
algorithm that can -be implemented on a computer was
proposed.
Gershon (1982) described a mixer integer
programming formulation of the mine scheduling problem
(MSO) that tries to optimize both the mine production
. sequencing and the mill blending and processing problems
simultaneously. The solution algorithm is the APEX-III
package. Kim & Kai (1990) used a zero-one suboptimation
approach where the user interactively accepts or rejects the
proposed sequence of pit pushbacks.
However, very little information is given in these references
on the practicality of the mining schedules roduced. One of
the common problems with such higRIy sophisticated
mathematical programming algorithms is that lhey are literally
"black boxesnnot allowing any interference by the model user
in order to set his own priorities and adapt the system to the
real case study. Some of these sophisticated algorithms may
produce mining schedules which are not at all practical in
terms of mining practice (Elbrond et al. 1977).
DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING is another operations
research techni ue that has been used in solving open pit
schdulinf Iprndems, e.g. Elbrond ct al. 1977. Uzotte and
Elbmnd 9 2, Roman 1973, Dowd 1976,and Yun & Yegulalp
1982. The main pmblem with this technique is the limitation
in terms of the total number of variables and constraints that
can be taken into account. Every dynamic rogramrning
model suffers from the "dimensionality cursen. 8nly a limited
number of mining periods and possible states (production
rates) can be examined each time. All the above dynamic
programming models do not take into account the detailed
mineralization of the deposit as expressed with a block model.
This
great obstacles in applying the models in red open
it sc eduline oroblems.
' The recen? 'trend
to open pit production scheduling
optimization problem is to apply a combination of simulation
and linear programming to tackle the problem (Decker et al.
1984, Graham 1983, Wilke et al. 1984).
4 STRUCTURE OF THE PACKAGE
The PITSCHFD open pit production scheduling package,
Fytas 1985, consists of the long range and short range
scheduling modules. The general flow chart of the scheduling
packafc u indicated in Figure 1. The long m g e scheduling
modu e consists of three individual computer models:
- Simulation model
Smoothing model
Cash Flow Analysis model
The short range scheduling module consists of hvo individual
computer models:
Short range scheduling model
- Linear Programming solution model

--

Slmplss

modal

Figure 1. Flow chart of the PITSCHED computer package.

4.1 Simulation model of long range scheduling
The simulation model of long range scheduling consists of a
set of subroutines that simulate the minin and waste stripping
activities of an open pit operation. The knction of the model
is to guide the long range scheduling procedure through the
mining periods, so that a final production schedule that
satisfies all defined constraints is produced.
The whole scheduling package was designed for an iron ore
deposit with two parameters taken into account: hematite (96)
and weight recovery (96). However, the model can be easily
adjusted to any deposit with up to 15 parameters. The
following constraints are built into the model for the long
range scheduling:
- Maximum are tonnage to be mined
- Minimum ore tonnage to be mined
- Maximum concentrate tonnage to be produced
- Minimum concentrate tonnage to be produced
- Minimum exposed ore tonnage a t beginning of period
- Maximum stripping capacity (m')
- Maximum number of benches to be advanced during
period
- Minimum and maximum blending targets for each
parameter under consideration.
- Minimum remnant ore tonnage on each bench
- Minimum remnant waste volume on each bench (m')
The scheduling oackage can be interfaced to most computer
packages that
calcaate the ultimate pit limits, e.g. QPIT
(Koniaris & Calder 1985). or DATAMINE (1986). Both
systems use certain financial considerations using the floating
cone technique, and place the haulage road in the pit.
At the beginning the simulation model reads the data files
created by the QPIT package with regard to ultimate pit
limits, original topography and financial parameters used to
define the ultimate pit.
At the preproduchon stripping, if required, the program
calculates the minimum amount of waste to strip in order to
expose a minimum quantity of ore for the beginning of the
first period. The pre-stripping procedure is based on waste
block priority numbers. The priority number of a certain
block is set equal to the number of benches below the waste
block that the fust ore block will be encountered (Figure 2).
In this fashion, waste blocks with the lowest priority number
will release ore fint and 9 a result they will be mined fust.
In scheduling the ore mining activities for a certam penod
the model searches for the exposed ore blocks, it ran!a them
according to profit and mines tho? which will sabsfy .the
quantity and quality constraints and give the highest revenue.
In this fashion, the model maximizes the revenues within each
mining period.
At the end of everv minine ~eriodthe orogram stri~sthe
necessary waste bloc&, so t h z sufficient expo& ore is [eft for
the beginning of next period. This exposed ore quantity
should be greater than or equal to the minimum exposed ore
requirement for next period. The model strips waste blocks
with the lowest priority so that the stripping requirements are
minimized within each mining period and deferred as long as
possible. If the available stripping capacity of a certain penod
is violated the model backtracks to the previous period and
carries out additional stripping, if there is available stripping
capacity. If there is no avdabIe strip ing capacity the model
backtracks one more period until it h d r available. stripping
capacjty. This interactive procedure eventually defines a
smppmg schedule that satisfies the minimum exposed ore
quantities for every period, Figure 3.

w =Waste block

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

Figure 2. Pre-stripping procedure.

Initialize
variables

Figure 4. Priciple of cone removal to satisfy a safe pit angle.

mines them. In this fashion, the shovel would not have to
return to the same bench at a later period to mine a small
quantity of material.
4.2 Smoothing procedures

there
capacity

1YES
T

I Increase nllnlmum /
exposed o r e by

Proceed t o

L
6
exceeded

6
Return

Figure 3. Back-tracking procedure in long-range scheduling.

Each time a block (basic block) is removed, the model
removes all blocks above it, so that the safe pit slopes are
maintained. These blocks are contained within an inverse
cone defined by the mined block (basic block) at the apex and
the maximum safe pit slopes with respect to the four azimuths
(Figure 4). The maximum safe plt slopes can be varied
through the mine life from period to period, in order to
account for different geotechnical characteristics of ore of
waste materiaI.
In order to keep the shovel moves to a minimum during the
mine life, the model accounts for minimum ore or waste
remnant quantities in each mining period. At the end of every
period the model checks the remnant ore or waste quantities
on each bench and if they are below the minimum ones it

A fr&uently encountered problem with pure mathematical

programming models whch try to optimize open pit
production scheduling is that they fail to take into account
practical mining constraints such as pit access, ramp and mad
ocation and construction, sump requirements, etc. This
means that the mathematically optimum solution is not always
feasible in terms on mining practice.
In order to produce a practically feasible production
schedule a smoothing procedure is canied out at the end of
each mining period on the pit outline produced by the
simulation model. The smoothing model is fully interactive
and incorporates gra hic displays of the pit outline and
geology for each bencR in order to facilitate and speed up tf:
smoothing process.
In smoothing the pit at the end of each mining period the
user can choose among three options:
- Removing material from certain areas
- Putting back material into certain areas
- Terminating the session and having an update on the
screen
The user defines the areas to be smoothed in a form of
closed polygons on certain benches through the graphics
terminal. Once each closed polygon (increment) has been
defined, the model gives an update on the screen of the new
pit outline, the cost or profit associated with the removal of
each increment and the tonnage and material classification
associated with the removal of each increment.
The user is free to decide whether to accept or disregard
each removal increment (closed polygon) after reviewing the
impact on the final pit geometry and pit economics. The final
smoothed schedule should satisfy or violate all or some of the
constraints. For example possible objectives could be to:
- Satisfy the ore tonnage constraint
- Satisfy the quality constraint for each parameter
- Increase the net cash flow by violating some of the
constraints
- Decrease the number of benchesaadvanced by violating
some of the constraints.
As soon as the smoothing procedures are terminated by the
user the model produces the following output data:
- Classification of all material eventually removed during
the mining period (ore, waste)
- New pit status at the end of period
- Total number of ore blocks mined
- Total number of waste block of each category stripped

Total
Total
Total
Final

ore tonnage mined

waste volume of each classification stripped
concentrate tonnage roduced
blending of ore m i n J

4.3 Cash flow analysis model

The cash flow analysis model of the package cames out a

detailed cash flow analysis on a period by period basis. This
analysis eventually defines the profitability of the whole
minlng venture. This model is based on the following input
data, Table 1, and calculates and produces the following
output data:
1. Time distribution of profits before tax, taxes (federal and
provincial)
2. Time distribution of net cash flow
3. Present value of the whole mining enterprise
4. Present value ratio of mining enterprise
5. Internal rate of return of whole project
6. Payback period of whole project

4.4 Short range production scheduling model

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

shovels and trucks, may result in optimal solutions which are

practically non-feasible.
- Accessibility of blocks to be mined. It may happen that
the final optimal solution includes blocks (ore or waste)
which are not accessible by the shovels during a particular
short mining period.
- Minimum working bench width. A minimum space is
required for the operation of shovels and trucks ~n front
of the mining face.
An interactive smoothing process follows at the end of each
short mining priod in order to overcome the practicality
problem. Dunng this procedure the model user interactively
specifies, through the graphics terminal, those regions which
are not mineable during a particular period. Then the
program reduces the priorities of the corresponding blocks
(ore or waste) and a new optimal solution is calculated by the
SIMPLEX model. The whole process is iterative, and in each
iteration the priorities of the non-mineable blocks are further
reduced. Finally, after a few iterations, a practical optimal
solution is found and the model produces a productivity
report.
As soon as a practical optimal soIution is calculated, the
SIMPLEX model carries out a sensjtivi analysis that defines
the allowable range of the upper an lower limits of the
constraints, so that the same optimal solution is obtained.

The short range production scheduling model calculates the

optimum production schedule for a certain number of short
periods (eg. months) that .satisfies the following set of
constraints for each short mining period:
- Minimum ore tonnage to be mined
- Maximum ore tonnage to be mined
- Minimum concentrate tonnage to be produced
- Maximum concentrate. tonnage to be produced
- Maximum waste stripping capacity (m )
- Minimum waste volume to'be removed (m')
- Minimum - Maximum quality targets of ore to be
produced for each of the following parameters: Hematite
(%), Weight Recovery (46)
The model schedules the removal of partial block within a
certain number of shovel regions defined by the model user.
These shovel regions are groups of material blocks (ore or
waste) that are selected interactively through a graphics
terminal by the user as candidates of small mining regions for
the future short mining periods. These blocks consist of the
candidate blocks among which the algorithm (SIMPLEX
model) will select the best combination in order to satisfy the
constraints of each shon mining period.
Each shovel ngion is assigned a priority number according
to the specific mining conditions. In defining the shovel
regions and assigning the priority numbers, the model user
takes the following considerations into account:
- Material quantity and quality within each region
- Accessibility of each candidate shovel region
- Maximum number of benches to be advanced
- Compatibility with the long range production schedule
The overall objective in the short range production
scheduling optimization is to maximize the revenues within the
range of short periods under consideration. The linear
programming model of short range scheduling is described in
A pendix 1.
%c optimal solution derived by the S Y L E X m+el may
not be feasible in terms of plining prachce. Manly two
problems, related to the parucular mmmg conditions with

5 APPLICATION
MODEL

AREAS

OF THE

SCHEDULING

Experience with the model so far has shown that very realistic
and practical production schedules are obtained (Fytas et al.
1987). The model can provide fast answers to the following
basic questions related to open pit long and shon range
production scheduling:
When each ore and waste block should be mined for the
best results in terms of the fastest payback period, or the
highest net present value, or the highest present value ratio or
tbe highest internal rate of return?
- What is the effect of different demand levels, in terms of
ore quantity and quality, on the overall profitability of the
mining operation?
- At what time p o d s should the processing plant be
prepared for di ferent ore quality?
- How should equipment capacities develop with time?
- What is the effect of cost of capital variations on the
overall profitability of the mineral venture?
- What is the effect of equipment price and wages increase
on the profitability of the mining venture?

6 A CASE STUDY
In order to illustrate one potential area of application, a
case study follows that involves the evaluation of the longrange stripping strategy of a typical iron ore open pit mine, In
Canada.
Stripping strategy
A very im rtant aspect of long-range, open pit mine
planning is
development of a stripping strategy. . With
completion of an economic pit design the relationship between
the over-all stripping ratio and the possible variations in

Table 1. Input data for the cash analysis model.

Preproduction capital
expenditures

Capital expenditure and

costs during production
years

Exploration expenses
Mine development cost
Mine plant and machinery
cost
Mill facilities cost
Infrastructure cost
Working capital amount

Concentrate transportation
costs '
Smelting charges
Exploration expenditures
Development expenditures
Mining equipment
expenditures
Wlling equipment
expenditures

Data for federal tax

calculations

Data for provincial

corporate income

Depreciation method
Province

Depreciation
method

tax

Cost of capital (%)

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

operating stripping ratio is very much dependent on the ore

body configuration. At one extreme is the steeply dipping ore
body which has little internal waste but which requires both
footwall and hanging-wall stripping to achieve the ultimate
depth. At the other extreme is the "porphy copper" type ore
body where much of the waste originates Yrom below grade
blocks which are internal to the ore zone.
The development of a stripping strategy is of more
importance in the former type of ore body, decreasing in
importance as the alternative flexibility decreases. The
generally accepted strategies are as follows:
1. To follow a series of expanding shells of waste removal.
As the ore previously liberated is mined, a new shell of
waste is removed to free additional reserves. The actual
operating stri ping ratios are dependent on the geometric
constraints oPthese ph-.
2. To follow bell-shaped cumulative stripping curve with low
stripping at the early mine life, high stripping at midlife,
and minimal stripping at the end of operations. This
strategy allows fast capital recovery and gradual winddown capabilities as reserves are exhausted.
3. To operate on a "minimum stripped reserve" basis where
a combination of such factors as blending requirements
and management philosophy determine this minimum.
The adoption of the proper stripping strategy has become
more crucial as mineral commodity prices have been reduced
through international competition and which the increase in
interest rates on new project debt financing. Revised stripping
strategies have been considered in light of alternate materials
handl~ng systems such as in-pit crushing and conveying. In
fact, many North American producers of ?mmodities such as
iron and copper have been forced into survival" strategies
with. the hope that prices and markets will improve before
permanent reserve loss is brought about.
Developing an optimum strategy isvirtually impossible using
manual methods as the task is very labour intensive. Using
the c o m p u t e d model (long-range scheduling model)
described in this paper two stripping alternatives were
developed as a case study to demonstrate the impact that
stripping philosophy can have on an operation.

The following stripping constraints were developed:

Alternative 1
To minimize the initial stripping to the limit of what could
be considered as valid operating practice; this was made
possible by allowing multiple ore and waste benches to
operate at the same time. One operating restraint was that
after the initial two benches accessible above grade in year
one were established, a maximum of one sinking cut per year
be permitted. Also, if a large stripping requirement should
arise for a one or two year period that it be spread forward to
rationalize the peak operating volume.
Alternative 2
That the main ore production be allowed on only two
operating benches and that waste removal should lag behind
the main ore production by only two benches; this was
considered to be the most aggressive waste removal philosophy
one would reasonably adopt, even if alternate materials
handling systems were being considered. For this reason the
initial stripping ratio would have to be above the high ratio of
the waste on the top 6 benches as compared to the ore on the
top 8 benches. This ration of 0.615 would, therefore, be a
mlnimum during this first 9 years of operation.
Analysis of results
The results of the two alternatives considered in this case
study can now be compared in terms of the following
parameters.
Production volumes

Case study constraints

Table 3 gives the results of the two alternatives in terms of

the annual waste requirement and the deferment of
Alternative 1 over Alternative 2. Figure 5 shows graphically
the stripping ratio by year and Figure 6, the combined o n and
waste requirement m m3. As can be seen, Alternative 1 has
a reduced stripping requirement for the first seven years of
operation and this deferment reaches 9 by 10d m3 by year 7.

The case study is based on an iron ore property where the

use of a floating cone algorithm and road design program has
produced an economic pit design with reserves as outlined in
Table 2.

Table 3. Waste volumes per year for the investigated

alternative..
Waste production (m3)

Table 2. Ore and waste reserves by bench.

Bench

Ore Tonnes

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

0
10458185
14029382
18 433 104
19 362 944
19 786 752
21456560
20 645 456
19 272 832
19 231 872
16170189
14 528 102
11 004 488
8086581
7 765 497
3181448
220349216

Total

Stripping Ratio
waste/m3 ore

Operating

946 400
5146400
3757600
4 351 200
3 595 200
4 765 600
2189600
2 419 200
1 366 400
1 288 Oao
644000
1013 600
369 600
1064000
224 000
677600

1.67
0.925
0.811
0.637
0.805
0.339
0.393
0.238
0.224
0.135
0.237
0.116
0.457
0.164
0.746

2
3

33818400

0.520

Waste m3

year
1

The total ore reserve of 220 349 216 tonnes is spread over
16 benches. The upper benches have a high stripping ratio
with an overall ratio of 0.520 m3 waster per m3 of ore. The
production level Was Set at approximately 13.5 by lo6 tOnnes
per year for an operating life of 17 years. Two parameters
were taken into account during scheduling: hemahte content
(%) and weight recovery (%).

5
6 .
7
8
9
10

11

12
13
14
15
16
17

Waste
deferment

Alternative
1

AIternative
2

(Alt.2-Alt. 1)

369 000
1 534 000
868 000
1265600
2 206 400
2324000
2514000
2 945 600
3136000
2 704 800
2 923 200
2 822 400
2 839 200
1960000
1282400
1321 600
1489600 ,

2 912000
2 850 400
2 928 800
2917600
2 979 200
3018400
2604000
2 844 800
2251200
1 640 800
1 724 800
1 024 800
1 265 600
924 000
1047200
1019200
851200

2 543 000
1 316 400
2 060 800
1 652 000
772 800
694 400
89 600
(100 800)
(884 800)
(1 064 000)
(1 198 400)
(1 797 600)
(1 573 600)
(1 036 000)
(235 200)
(302 400)
(638 400)

This is then txanslaled into an increased waste requirement for

the remaining years. Figure 7 shows the cumulative stripping
curve for the two alternatives. Alternative 1 has the more
standard bell-shaped curve, while Alternative 2 has only the
one inflection point as the stripping requirement begins to
drop.

c.-0

.6-,mbd,
,
-Average

LT

.4-

rd

/
-\,

Alt 2

.-Ca. -

I
\

-'-?

.@ 2 -

'

'

A ;

'
'l'o1&'1'o'~6';8
Operating Year

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

Figure 5. Stripping ratio variation of the two alternatives.

operating Year

Figure 8. Weight recovery variation for the two alternatives.

The ability to assess properly the blending parameters in
relation to the savings in stripping costs would allow the
evaluation of increased capital costs for a more flexible
concentrator or for a blending facility to permit taking
advantage of these savings.
Equipment requirements

Operating Year
Figure 6. Combined ore and waste requirments of the two
alternatives.
Ore grade
Ore blending parameters can influence the optimum
stripping strategy. In this case study there is a lower grade
zone at an intermediate depth in the ore body, Figure 8 shows
how the grade parameters of "weight recovery" varies more
widely in Altemative 2. Even though it has more front-end
stripp~ng, the variation through this low-grade zone is
increased as only two benches are being mined simultaneously.
Altemative 1 wth multiple benches produces more effective
blending.
This of course, would be the opposite if the grade
pruameters varied in a zonal manner from the centre to the
extremities of the orebody. In this case, the "contact-tocontact" mining of Altemahve 2 would produce the optimum
blend.

The equipment selected must possess the productive capacity

to meet mine schedufing requirements, at minimal projected
unit cost. At the same time the influence of geology on
optimum excavator use, which was relevant to the equipment
selection phase of mine design, assumes further importance at
.the operations stage, where tactical decisions on machine
deployment are made. To complement the production
schedulling studies it is necessary to determine the capability
of excavating equipment, both stripping and loading to work
in the different environments.
Ground characterisation permits the assignment of
quantifiable values to rock mass characteristics by using
standardised procedures to determine the material properties.
This allows the rationalization of the use of excavating
equipment in different geological environments. Several such
systems have been proposed in the last twenty years as a
means to determine the ease of excavation and the need for
blasting. Until1 now, however, no single system enjoys
universal acceptance. Reasons include: lack of awareness of
the different schemes; difficulties in determining input
parameters; and applicability limitations to specific geolog~cal
environments, th~s includes problems associated with a
weighting of the factors to introduce their dative degree of
influence upon final performance.
Hadjigtorgiou & Scoble (1990) developed such a system.
The system can define the ease of excavation and
consequently the appropriate choice of equipment. Provided
the excavating equipment can operate efficiently in the existing
conditions produchon scheduling is then implemented based
on the already defined resmints.
Given the empirical nature of this process several &le-based
knowled e based expert systems have been developed, (Fytas
et al. l d 8 . Hadjigeorgiou 1988). It is envisaged that systems
could be linked to the O.R. package to permit a complete
surface mining strategy.
In the investigated case study PITSCHED indicated that the
deferred stripping of Alternative 1 would allow some delay in
equipment purchases.
Shovels
At peak combined production, three operating shovels of 10
m3 capacity are required with four in the fleet. The purchase
of the fourth shovel, at a cost of $2,750,000,can be delayed
until the sixth year of production in Alternative I.
Trucks

Operating Year

Figure 7. Cumulative stripping curve of the two alternatives.

Table 4 shows the requirement of 107 tonnes (120 ton)

trucks for the two alternatives. This is assuming 75%
availability and replacement every 50 000 operating hours

Table 4. Truck requirements by alternative.

Alternative 1

Alternative 2
Purchases

1
2
3
4
5

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

7
8
9
.lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

TOTAL

6
7
6
7
8
8
10
10
11
10
11
11
11

9
9
10
7

8
9
9
10

10
11
13
14
14
14
14
.14
14
12
12
12
10

8
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
7

8
1
0
0
0
1
2
5
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0

10
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
10

'

10
2
0
1
0
1
0
6
6
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
29

23

(with some extension of this near the end of mine life), every
7-8 years at 6500 hours per year.
As can be seen the truck requirements in Alternative 1
increase somewhat faster than anticipated as the deeper
benches are reached earlier. Also, Alternative 2 has high
requirements near the end of the mine life as all production
comes from the bottom benches.

It can be seen that the present value of the cost of the

aggressive stripping pro ram of Alternative 2 is between $20.3
by 10" and $32.4 by lb depending on the tax status of the
project.

Drills

The need to optimize the stripping stmtegy for an open

mining o p t i o n bas become even more rmportant with
recent drop in commodity prices and the ever escalating costs
for financing new projects.
This paper described a
computerized scheduling system that is capable of generating
alternate scheduling strategies. These can then be evaluated
in terms of equipment and manpower requirements, grade
fluctuations, and the economics of the project.
A case study has been presented, in which a significant cost
advantage was realised in favour of the delayed stripping
strategy. While this was site specific it demonstrares the the
necess~tyof employing production schedulling optimization as
a tool m the overall mine design and operation decisionmaking process.

The increase in the size of the drill fleet can also be delayed
in Alternative 2. One drill is considered to be capable of
drilling 2 250 000 m3 per year using a 30.5 cm diameter hole.
This means that two active drills, three fleet drills, can meet
the requirements of Alternative 1 until year 5. For
Altemahve 2, four drills will be purchased at start-up.
Auxiliary Equipment
The use of auxiliary equipment will be increased for
Alternative 1 due to the increased number of benches in
operation. Two tracked dozers, 3 graders and 3 rubber-tired
dozers are included, with one less grader and rubber-tiled
dozer in Alternative 2.
Cost comparison
The ultimate equipment fleet and the total cost of moving
the waste is the same in both alternatives of this case study.
The only absolute saving occurs in reduced equipment
replacement due to the delay in purchasing the initial units.
The major savings occur from the delays in expenditures
through waste deferment and the time value of this delay.
These savings are dependent on the cost of capital (interest
rate) of a particular company. For this case study, a 15% cost
of capital is used.
Another aspect of evaluating the capital and operating cost
deferments is the effect of income taxes. If the project is a
new one, taxed on an individual basis, the rapid depreciation
of the total pre-production costs would defer the tax savings
due to the extra mine equipment and increased stripping cost
of Alternative 2. In the case of a large profitable corporation,
these tax benefits would be available immediately against
corporate profits.
For this reason, the evaluation method used in this case
study is to calculate the present value of the mine equipment
capital costs and the operating cost of the stripping program.
Other costs are deemed to be similar for both alternatives.
This calculation is done on a before-tax and after-tax basis.
For the after-tax basis, a depreciation of 30% declining
balance is assumed with an effective tax rate of 40%. The
results of this analysis are given in Table 5. The cost of
stripping comes from the scheduling program and includes
increased haulage cost for a deeper waste.

7 CONCLUSIONS

d
i

REFERENCES
Datamine. User's Manual, 1986.
Davis, R.E. & C.E. Williams 1973. Optimization Procedures
for Open Pit Mines Scheduling. Proceedin s of the 11th
International Symposium on Application of Computers in
the Mineral Industries, University of Arizona, Tuscon,
Arizona.. DO. Cl-CIS.
--Decker, J., 0. Garg & J. Setele 1984. Production Planning
Systems at the Hanna Mining Company. P r e p ~ tNO. 84372. S.M.E.of A.I.M.E.
Dowd, P. 1976. Application of Dynamic and Stochastic
Programming to Optimize Cutoff Grades and Production
Rates. Transactions of Institute of Mining and Metallurgy,
Section A (Mining Industry), Volume 85, pp. A22-A31.
Elbrond, J., J. Dubois & G. Daoust 1977. Rate of Production
and Cutoff Grade - a Program for Teaching and
Experimentation. Proceedings of 15th International
Symposium on Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mneral Industry, Brisbane, Ausmha, pp. 13Z'

- -

19

F&, K., P. Calder & C. Pelley 1987. Optimization of Open

Pit Short and Long Range hoduction Scheduling. C.I.M.
Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 904, pp. 55-61.
Fytas, K., J.L. Collins, R.K. Singhal & A. Galibois 1988.
Potential Applications of Knowledge-based systems in
Mining. C.I.M. Bulletin, Vol. 81, no. 916, pp. 38-44.
Fytas, K. 1985. A Computerized Model of Open Pit Long and
Short Term Production Scheduling. Ph.D. Thesis, Queen's
University.

Table 5. Cash flow characteristics of the two alternatives.

Strippinn Costs

Capital Costs

Total Costs

Before
Tax

After
Tax

Before
Tax

After
Tax

Before
Tax

After
Tax

Alternative 1
Alternative 2

35.47
41.66

27.60
32.20

61.52
87.74

36.91
52.64

96.99
129.40

64.51
84.84

Extra cost of Alternative 2

6.19

4.6

26.22

15.73

32.41

20.33

Present value of capital and stripping costs

($ x 106,
Ganwar, A. 1973. A General Binary Stochastic Model for
Optimum Pit Production Scheduling. Ph.D. Thesis, School of
Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University.
Gangwar, A. 1982. Us~ngGeostatistical Ore Block Variances
in Production Plannine by Integer Programming. 17th
Symposium on Applicahon of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mineral Industrv. Colorado School of
Mines, pp. 443-460.
Gershon. M.E. 1982. A linear Proerammine A~oroachto Mine
scheduling Optimization. proc&ings gf lfth International
Symposium on Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the M i n e d Industty, Colorado School of
Mines, 1982, pp. 483-493.
Gershon, M.E. 1982. Mine Scheduling Optimization with
Mixed Integer Programming. S.M.E. of A.I.M.E. heprint
NO. 82-324.
Graham, D. 1983. Computer Ap lications for the Mining
Industry. Mining Magazine, pp. f65-369.
Hadjigeorgiou, J. & M.J. Scoble 1990. Ground
Characterization for Assessment of ease of Excavation.
Second International Svmwsium on Mine Plannine and
in &-face Mining, Calgary, ~aikema.

Yun, Q. & T. Yegulalp 1982. Optimum Scheduling of

Overburden Removal in Open Pit Mines. C.I.M. Bulletin,
Volume 75, No. 848, pp.. 80-83.

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

A Knowledge-Based System to Aid

Selection of Excavating Equipment. National . Research
Council Canada, Div. Mech. Eng., TR-SYS-018, NRC No.
29529, p . 44.
Johnson, q.8. 1969. Optimum Open Pit Mine Production
Scheduling. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Dept. of
Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, Berkeley.
Kim, Y.C. 1967. Mathematical Programming Analysis of Mine
Planning Problems. Ph.D. Thesis, the PennsyIvania State
University, Dept. of Minin Engineering, University Park.
Kim, Y.C. dr W.L. Kai 199%. Long Range Mine Sequencing
with 0-1 Programming. Proceedings of the 22nd International
APCOM, Berlin, Germany, Volume 1, pp. 131-145.
Koniaris, E. & P.N. Calder 1985. The QPIT Computerized
Open Pit Mine Design Package. Presented at the 87th
General Meetin of C.I.M.,Vancouver.
Limtte, Y. k J. ~ k m n d1982. Choice of Mine-Mill Capacities
and Production Schedules usin Open-Ended Dynamic
Programming. C.I.M.Bullrtin, vofume 75, No. 839, pp. 154163.
P&YM.T. 1965. The Simulation Approach to Open Pit
Design. Proceedings of 5th Internahonal Symposium on
Computer Ap lications in the Mineral Industry, Tuscon,
Ariiona.
1965, pp. 221-2224.
Roman, R.J. 1973. The use of Dynamic Programming for
Determinin Mine-Mill Production Schedules. Proceedings
of 10th bternationd Symposium on Application of
Comouter Methods in the Mineral Industrv. Johannesbure.
SOU& Africa, pp. 165-169.
Sims, D.E. 1979. Open Pit long Range Mine Planning usin
O.R.E. Computer Methods for the 80's in the M i n e d .
Industry, Soc~etyof Mining Engineers of A.I.M.E. ,pp. 359-

MA

.,

"r

370.
- . -.

Wilke, F.L.,K. Mueller & E. Wright 1984. Ultimate Pit and

Production Scheduling Optimization. Proceedings of 18th
Symposium on Application of Computers and Operations
Research in the Mineral IndusW.
.. ~ublished by I.M.M.
London, England, pp. 29-38.
Williams, C.E. 1974. Computerized Year by Year Open Pit
Mine Scheduling. Society of Mining Engineers of A.I.M.E.
Transactions, pp. 309-317.

Assuming N blocks for scheduling in the next M periods the

Linear Programming model will be defined by the:
OBJECTIVE FUNCTION:

where: Xij

is the fraction (decimal) of block i (ore or

waste) that is scheduled in period j
is the priority number assigned to block i by the
Pi
user (subjective)
VA, is the economic value (positive for ore blocks
and negative for waste blocks) assigned to each
block according to its metal content.

Subject to:
BLOCK CAPAClTY CONSTRAINTS:
Xii
M

1 for every block i and for every period j, and

1 Xii 5

mi for every block i

where: m i is the total fraction (decimal) of block i

remaining from previous periods
ORE TONNAGE CONSTRAINTS:

C1 Xij x Ti < UTj for every period

j, and

C Xux T, n LTj for every period

where: UTj is the upper limit of ore production in period j

LTj is the lower limit of ore production in fen+ j
Ti is the total ore tonnage contained in b ock 1

N
Xii x V 5 UVj for every period j, and
1

N
1

Xil x V 2 LVj for every period j

where: UVj is the upper limit of waste volume removed in

period j
LVj is the lower limit of waste volume removed in
period j
V
IS the volume of each block (all blocks of block
model have equal volume)
The upper and lower waste volumes to be removed are a
function of the stripping ratio target of each short period.
QUALITY CONSTRAINTS:

for every period j and for every parameter

where: Ti

Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 07:06 06 November 2014

fi

Ui, Lj

is the total ore tonnage contained in block i

is the grade of block i in terms of each
parameter (in our w e hematite and weight
recovery)
the upper and lower limits of ore quality in
terms of each parameter (hematite and weight
recovery) for each mining period.

CONCENTRATE CONSTRAINTS:

C X" x Ci S

UCj for every period j

N
$' X" x Ci B LCi for every period j
1

where: UCj is the upper limit of concentrate production in

period j
LCj 1s the lower limit of concentrate production in
period j
Ci
IS the total concentrate tonnage contained in
block i.