Open-Pit Mine Optimization with Maximum Satisfiability

  • Matthew DeutschEmail author


A common casualty of modern open-pit mine optimization is the assurance that the resulting design is actually achievable. Optimized mine plans that consider value and a bare minimum of precedence constraints do not, in general, translate into practical, operational mine designs that can be used in the field. Ultimate pits may come to a sharp point at the bottom. Schedules may require taking small parcels of material from many disparate areas of the pit in a single period, and grade control polygons may be ragged, narrow, and not minable with realistic equipment. In this paper, all of these problems are addressed by encoding these three fundamental open-pit mine optimization problems as maximum satisfiability problems. Maximum satisfiability provides a useful framework for problems that are non-linear and may guarantee the optimality that metaheuristics cannot.


Mine planning Optimization Maximum satisfiability Ultimate pit Mine scheduling Mining width 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Lerchs H, Grossmann I (1965) Optimum design of open-pit mines. Oper Res 12:B59Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gilbert JW (1966) A mathematical model for the optimal design of open pit mines (doctoral dissertation). University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lipkewich MP, Borgman L (1969) Two-and three-dimensional pit design optimization techniques. A decade of digital computing in the mineral industry. pp 505–523Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen T (1976) 3d pit design with variable wall slope capabilities. Proc. of the 14th APCOMGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khalokakaie R, Dowd PA, Fowell RJ (2000) Lerchs–grossmann algorithm with variable slope angles. Min Technol 109(2):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Caccetta L, Giannini L (1988) Generation of minimum search patterns in the optimum design of open pit mines. AusIMM Bull Proc 293:57–61Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tarski A (1956) The concept of truth in formalized languages. Logic Semant Metamath 2:152–278Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shannon CE (1938) A symbolic analysis of relay and switching circuits. Electr Eng 57(12):713–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis M, Putnam H (1958) Computational methods in the propositional calculus. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, p 64Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis M, Logemann G, Loveland D (1962) A machine program for theorem-proving. Commun ACM 5(7):394–397MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Franco J, Martin J (2009) A history of satisfiability. In: Biere, Armin, Heule M, and van Maaren H (eds) Handbook of Satisfiability 185:3–74Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tseitin G (1968) On the complexity of derivation in propositional calculus. Studies in constructive mathematics and mathematical logic, pp 115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marques-Silva J (2008). Practical applications of boolean satisfiability. In: 2008 9th International Workshop on Discrete Event Systems. IEEE, pp 74–80Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berg J, Hyttinen A, Järvisalo M (2015) Applications of MaxSAT in data analysis. Pragmatics of SATGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson TB (1968) Optimum open pit mine production scheduling (tech. rep.). California Univ Berkeley Operations Research CenterGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldberg AV, Tarjan RE (1988) A new approach to the maximum-flow problem. J ACM (JACM) 35(4):921–940MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hochbaum DS (2001) A new-old algorithm for minimum-cut and maximum-flow in closure graphs. Networks 37(4):171–193MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deutsch M, Gonzalez E, Williams M (2015) Using simulation to quantify uncertainty in ultimate-pit limits and inform infrastructure placement. Min Eng 67(12):49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dagdelen K, Johnson T (1986) Optimum open pit mine production scheduling by Lagrangian parameterization. Proc. of the 19th APCOM, pp 127–142Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Newman AM, Rubio E, Caro R, Weintraub A, Eurek K (2010) A review of operations research in mine planning. Interfaces 40(3):222–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eén N, Sörensson N (2006) Translating pseudo-boolean constraints into sat. JSAT 2:1–26zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joshi S, Martins R, Manquinho V (2015) Generalized totalizer encoding for pseudo-boolean constraints. In: International conference on principles and practice of constraint programming. pp 200–209Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pourrahimian Y, Askari-Nasab H, Tannant, D (2009) Production scheduling with minimum mining width constraints using mathematical programmingGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Isaaks I, Treloar E, Elenbaas T (2014) Optimum dig lines for open pit grade control. In: Proceedings of ninth international mining geology conference. The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp 425–432Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neufeld K, Norrena C, Deustch C (2005) Guide to geostatistical grade control and dig limit determination, vol 1. p 63Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruiseco JR, Williams J, Kumral M (2016) Optimizing ore–waste dig-limits as part of operational mine planning through genetic algorithms. Nat Resour Res 25(4):473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tabesh M, Askari-Nasab H (2013) Automatic creation of mining polygons using hierarchical clustering techniques. J Min Sci 49(3):426–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Deutsch M (2017) A branch and bound algorithm for open pit grade control polygon optimization. Proc. of the 19th APCOMGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frisch AM, Giannaros PA (2010) Sat encodings of the at-most-k constraint. Some old, some new, some fast, some slow. In: Proc. of the tenth int. workshop of constraint modelling and reformulationGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Deutsch M, Kusuma N, Allen L, Godoy M (2019) Implementing optimal grade control polygons at Newmont’s mines. Presentation at the 2019 SME Conference, Denver, COGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colorado School of MinesDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations