Journal of Mining Science

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 733–744 | Cite as

A new approach to constrained open pit pushback design using dynamic cut-off grades

Mineral Mining Technology

Abstract

An integral part of open pit optimization is deciding which section of the ultimate pit to mine during a specific period. For a given period there are often operational and marketing constraints that restrict what can be removed or processed. The operational constraints arise from a number of different limitations such as safe slope of internal mining walls, mill and mining capacity. Traditional methods for pushback (phase) design that incorporate these constraints are ad-hoc and can lead to suboptimal solutions. Another important optimization decision that must be made is the cut-off grade to be used for a specific period. In this paper, a new method is presented that generates near maximal expected profit and dynamically defines the optimal cut-off grade for each mining period or pushback over the life-of-mine, thus deciding whether a block is ore or waste during the optimization process. More specifically, a method for converting a fractional linear program solution into an integral solution known as pipage rounding is applied to an integer program formulation of a pushback design optimization problem. The proposed method aims to produce a set of pushbacks in a way that the total discounted profit to be generated through production scheduling is maximized. Two case studies demonstrate the applied aspects of the proposed method.

Keywords

Pit design gap problem integer programming pipage rounding cut-off grade 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Whittle, J, A Decade of Open Pit Mine Planning and Optimisation—The Craft of Turning Algorithms into Packages, APCOM’99 Computer Applications in the Mineral Industries 28th International Symposum, Colodado School of Mines, Golden, Co, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lerchs, H and Grossman, I.F., Optimum Design of Open Pit Mines, Joint CORS and ORSA Conference, Transactions Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Montreal, 1965.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dagdelen, K. and Johnson, T.B., Optimum Open Pit Mine Production Scheduling by Lagrangian Parametrization, APCOM’86 Computer Applications in the Mineral Industries, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hochbaum, D. and Chen, A., Improved Planning for the Open Pit Mining Problem, Operations Research, 2000, vol. 48, no. 6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meagher, C. and Dimitrakopoulos, R., Optimized Open Pit Mine Design, Pushbacks and the Gap Problem, J. Min. Sci., 2014, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 508–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tachefine, B. and Soumis, F., Maximal Closure on a Graph with Resource Constraints, Computers and Operations Research, 1997, vol. 24, no. 10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dagdelen, K. and Kawahata, K., Value Creation through Strategic Mine Planning and Cut-Off Grade Optimization, Mining Engineering, 2008, vol. 60.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rendu, J.-M., Introduction to Cut-off Grade Estimation, 2nd Edition, Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, Denver, 2014.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akaike, A., Strategic Planning of Long Term Production Schedule Using 4D Network Relaxation Method, PhD Disertation, Colorado School of Mines, Eastwood, Co, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramazan, s., The New Fundamental Tree Algorithm for Production Scheduling of Open Pit Mines, European Journal of Operational Research, 2007, vol. 177, no. 2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goemans, M.X. and Williamson, D.P., A General Approximation Technique for Constrained Forest Problems, SIAM Journal on Computing, 1995, vol. 24, no. 2.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jain, K., A Factor 2-Approximation Algorithm for the Generalized Steiner Network Problem, Combinatorica, 2001, vol. 21.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raghavan, P. and Thompson, C., Randomized Rounding: A Technique for Provably Good Algorithms and Algorithmic Proofs, Combinatorica, 1987, vol. 7, no. 4.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ageev, A. and Sviridenko, M., Pipage Rounding: A New Method of Constructing Algorithms with Proven Performance Guarantee, Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 2004, vol. 8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Calinescu, G., Chekuri, C., Pál, M., and Vondráke, J., Maximizing a Submodular Set Function Subject to a Matroid Constraint, LNCS, 2007, vol. 4513.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mining Equipment Survey 2007–2009, Chile-Peru-Argentina, Minería Chilena Magazine, 2009.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dimitrakopoulos, R., Farrelly, C.T., and Godoy, M.C., Moving Forward from Traditional Optimization: Grade Uncertainty and Risk Effects in Open-Pit Design, Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy, Section A: Mining Technology, 2002, vol. 111.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dimitrakopoulos, R., Stochastic Optimization for Strategic Mine Planning: A Decade of Developments, J. Min. Sci., 2011, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.COSMO—Stochastic Mine Planning LaboratoryMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Newmont Mining CorporationDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations