SURFACE MINING

PIT OPTIMISATION

By

Dr. B. Besa
The University of Zambia
School of Mines

(Thanks to Mining Education Australia (MEA) for using their

material)
 CONTENTS

Introduction
Block model
Definition of the optimal outline
Calculating block values
Block model example
Ultimate pit limit design techniques

2
INTRODUCTION

3
 INTRODUCTION
 Open pit Resource Model

optimisation Resource
Classification
Mine survey

 Position in Resource estimate Dilution &

mine planning Measured

Indicated
Inferred
ore losses

flow sheet Diluted Resource Process

Parameters

Beneficiation Economic Operating

factors Parameters Costs

Ore Reserve Model

Open pit optimisation Revenue, cost and

and design slope parameters

Potential Ore Mining production Overburden

Reserve schedule & sub-grade

4
Reserve Ore Reserve estimate Beneficiation
Classification Proved and Probable product
 INTRODUCTION
DRILL HOLES AND 3-D ORE BODY

5
 INTRODUCTION
Drill holes and Block Modeling

6
 INTRODUCTION
GEOLOGICAL BLOCK MODEL

7
 INTRODUCTION
BREAKEVEN CUT-OFF GRADE
Break even occurs when:
REVENUE = COST
A fixed COG strategy is easily modelled
over mine life.
A variable COG strategy needs a
mathematical approach (e.g. Lane) or
maximise remaining NPV in every year
as perceived by operator.
8
 BLOCK NET VALUE AND CUT-
OFF GRADE

 Dollar Value (Profit) = Revenues - Costs

9
 INTRODUCTION
Revenues can be calculated from:
1. Ore tonnages
2. Grades
3. Recoveries
4. Product price
Costs can be calculated from:
1. Mining cost
2. Milling cost
10
3. Overheads
 DEPOSIT REPRESENTATION
BLOCK MODEL

Value = (Grade * Recovery * Price-

costp) * OreTons – Tons (Ore) *
costm, if grade>cutoff
Value= Tons (Waste) * costm, else

11
 BLOCK MODEL

-2 -2 -1 -2 -5 -2
-2 -2 -3 -2
-2 -2
-1 -2 -2 -3 -4 -5-2 -2
-2 -2 -3 +8 -5 -2
-2 -2 -7 -2
-2 -2 -2 -3 -4 -5-2 -2
-2 -2 -3 -4 -5 -2
-2 -2 +4 -4 -5 -2
-1 +7
-2 -2 -3 -4-5 -5-2 -2
-2 -2 -3 -4 -5 -2
-2 -2 -3 -4 -5 -2
-2 -2 +7 -4 -5 +10
12
DEFINITION OF THE OPTIMAL OUTLINE

13
 DEFINITION OF THE OPTIMAL OUTLINE
 Any feasible outline has a Dollar Value
 In this context “feasible” means that it obeys safe
slope requirements
 The optimal outline is defined as the one with the
highest dollar value (Profit = Revenue – Costs)
 Nothing can be added to an optimal outline which
will increase the value without breaking the slope
constraints.
 Nothing can be removed from an optimal outline
which will increase the value without breaking the
slope constraints. 14
 CONT ...
 For any deposit which can be fully or partially
mined using open pit methods, there is one pit
design which will maximise the NPV of the
project at the designed mining rate.
 Several methods are available to optimise the
design of the open pit to approach this ideal.
 It should be noted that all optimisation
techniques produce a theoretical pit limit design
which then must be subject to detailed design.
15
 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE:
surface

1
2

3
4

5
bench level
100 tonnes waste 6

7
8
500 tonnes ore

(WHITTLE, 1999) 16
 PIT VALUES

Calculate the tonnages for the 8 pit outlines.

Pit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ore

Waste

Total

17
 PIT VALUE

Pit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ore 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Waste 100 400 900 1,600 2,500 3,600 4,900 6,400

Total 600 1,400 2,400 3,600 5,000 6,600 8,400 10,400

Assume that ore is worth $2.00/tonne

and waste costs $1.00/tonne
Pit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Value
18
($)
 PIT VALUE

Pit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Ore 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Waste 100 400 900 1,600 2,500 3,600 4,900 6,400

Total 600 1,400 2,400 3,600 5,000 6,600 8,400 10,400

Pit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Value 900 1600 2100 2400 2500 2400 2100 1600

($)

19
VALUE VS SIZE

20
 CALCULATING BLOCK VALUES
Value= (Metal*Recovery*Price –
Ore*CostP) – Rock*CostM
 Where....

 Metal = Ore tonnes*Grade

 Recovery = Product recovered by processing the
Ore
 Price = Selling price

 Ore = Tonnes of Ore

 CostP = Processing Cost

 Rock = Ore + Waste

21
 CostM = Mining cost of waste
 BLOCK MODEL EXAMPLE
 Calculate the net profit or loss of each block.
 % Recovery through mill and smelter = 90 %
 Value of recovered copper = $4000/ton
 Stripping and haulage to dump (level 1) =$2.5/ton
 Mining and transportation to plant level =$3/ton
 Haulage costs increase $0.50/ton per bench.

 Processing, smelting, and refining =$5/ton

 General overhead, administration, etc., (chargeable
only to ore block) =$2/ton
 Assume mill will not process material containing less
than 1 % Cu.
 Ultimate pit slope = 1:1 22
 Round all the values to nearest $.
0.00 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05

0.00 1.25 1.15 1.13 0.00

1.13 1.15 0.50

23
 CONT ...
WASTE
0.00 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 Less than 1%

0.00 1.25 1.15 1.13 0.00

1.13 1.15 0.50

 For Level 1 waste blocks....

 Block value is cost of Stripping and haulage to
dump = -$2.5
 For Level 2 waste blocks haulage cost
increases by $0.50/ton per bench = -$3.0
 For Level 3 waste block haulage cost increases 24

further $0.50/ton per bench = -$3.5

CONT ...

0.00 1.15 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05

0.00 1.25 1.15 1.13 0.00

1.13 1.15 0.50

Grade block Model

-2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5
+

-3.0 -3.0
+ + +

-3.5
+ +

25

Cost Model
CONT ...

-2.5 1.15 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5

-3.0 -3.0

-3.5

Recovery 90%
Value of Cu 4000
Stripping & Haul to Dump 2.5
Mining and Trans. to Plant 3
Processing 5
General & Admin 2

Block Value = Revenue – Costs

= [(1.15 * 0.9 * 4000) – (3+5+2)]/100 26
= [4140 – 10]/100
= 41.30
CONT ...
-2.5 41.3 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5

-3.0 44.90 41.30 40.58 -3.0

40.58 41.30 -3.5

Economic block Model

 Q2. If each block contains 10,000 tons, give the mineable
tonnage of ore and waste by bench.

ORE WASTE
Bench # 1 10000 60000
Bench # 2 30000 20000
Bench # 3 20000 10000
27
TOTAL 60000 90000
CONT ...
-2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5
Ultimate
41.3

-3.0 44.90 41.30 40.58 -3.0

pit limits 40.58 41.30 -3.5

-2.5 41.3 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5

-3.0 44.90 41.30 40.58 -3.0

40.58 41.30 -3.5

Overall Stripping ratio = ?

Overall Stripping ratio = 6/6 = 1 28
Ultimate Pit Limit Design Techniques
Manual Methods
 Certain economic design criteria must be established
before the actual design begins and the following data
needs to be available for engineers;
1. Vertical sections,

2. Horizontal sections for each level

3. Stripping curve

4. Bench height

5. Bank slope angle between levels

6. Level width

7. Roadway width

8. Pit slope angle

29
9. Minimum width of pit bottom
PIT LIMIT – HAND METHOD

Hustrulid & Kuchta, 2005 30

PIT LIMIT – HAND METHOD

Hustrulid & Kuchta, 2005 31

 PIT LIMIT – HAND METHOD
Assume that…
Width of the slice =1.4 units
Thickness of the section = 1 unit
Net selling value of Ore = $1.90/unit
Cost of mining and disposing of waste = $1/Unit

Strip 1:
V(w1) = 7.5u3
V(o1) = 5.0u3

The Instantaneous Stripping Ratio – ISR1 = 7.5/5 = 1.5 u3

Net Value of Strip 1: NV1=5x$1.9 – 7.5x$1 = $2.0

32

Hustrulid & Kuchta, 2005

 PIT LIMIT – HAND METHOD

Strip 2: V(w2) = 8.50u3

V(o2) = 5.0u3
ISR2 = 1.70
NV2 = $1.0

Strip 3: V(w3) = 9.5u3

V(o3) = 5.0u3
ISR3 = 1.9
NV3 = $0.0

Strip 4: V(w4) = 10.5u3

V(o4) = 5.0u3
ISR4 = 2.10
NV4 = -$1.0

Breakeven Stripping Ratio = 1.9 Hustrulid & Kuchta, 2005 33

 PIT LIMIT – HAND METHOD

Overall Stripping Ratio = OSR = Waste (A) / Ore (B) = 52u3/63u3 = 0.82
Hustrulid & Kuchta, 2005
34
 TECHNIQUES
1. Trial and Error;
2. Moving/Floating/Dynamic Cone;
3. LG 3-D Graph Theory Algorithm;
4. Lerchs-Grossmann 2-D Dynamic
Programming;
5. Zhao-Kim 3D Graph Theory;
6. Network Analysis Algorithm;
7. Linear Programming (integer
programming) 35
1. TRIAL AND ERROR

10

10
10
36

1000 Blocks
 TRIAL AND ERROR
 Consider a trivial model with only one
section and 10 benches of 10 blocks.
 There are 100 blocks and each can either
be mined or not mined.
 This gives 2100 or 1030 alternatives!
 Even if a computer could check out an
alternative every microsecond, it would
still take three million times the age of
the universe to check them all!
37
 TRIAL AND ERROR
 Ifwe start in any position at one end
and then go up one, down one, or stay
at the same level, then there are about
10x39, or 200,000, alternatives.
 Actually it is 156,629 as the table below
shows..

38
 TRIAL AND ERROR
Number of different ways of reaching a particular depth in each column
Depth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 5 13 35 96 267 750 2123 6046
1 1 3 8 22 61 171 483 1373 3923 11257
2 1 3 9 26 75 216 623 1800 5211 15114
3 1 3 9 27 80 236 694 2038 5980 17540
4 1 3 9 27 81 242 721 2142 6349 18782
5 1 3 9 27 81 243 727 2169 6453 19151
6 1 3 9 27 81 242 721 2142 6349 18782
7 1 3 9 27 80 236 694 2038 5980 17540
8 1 3 9 26 75 216 623 1800 5211 15114
9 1 3 8 22 61 171 483 1373 3923 11257
10 1 2 5 13 35 96 267 750 2123 6046
Total: 156629
39
 TRIAL AND ERROR
 NOTE: 156,629 can be handled by a
computer.
 If we extend the model to 10 sections,
then we have about 10x299 or 1030
alternatives and three million times the
age of the universe again, and this is still
a very small model of only one thousand
blocks.
 Conclusion - Trial and error is useless.
40
 2. FLOATING CONE METHOD
 Thefloating cone method was developed at
Kennecott Copper Corporation during the early
1960s.
 Method requires a 3-D computerised block
model of mineral deposit (see Fig. on next
Slide).
 Theprojected ultimate pit limits are developed
by using the floating cone technique.
 The technique generates a series of interlocking
frustum shaped removal increments.
 Figs.
3 and 4 show a typical removal increment, 41
as well as a series of interlocking increments.
FIGURE 1:BLOCK MODEL 42
FLOATING CONE METHOD

Figure 3

43
 FLOATING CONE METHOD

Figure 4. Floating cone pit design by removal increments 44

THE MOST COMMON ULTIMATE PIT LIMIT
(CALCULATION) METHODS

Moving Cone Algorithm (MC)

Lerchs and Grossmann’s Algorithm (LG)

45
MOVING CONE (MC) ALGORITHMS
Step 1: The cone is “floated” from left
to right along the top row of the
blocks in the section. If there is a
positive block it is removed;
Step 2: If the total value within a cone
is positive, all the blocks within that
cone is mined out;
46
 MOVING CONE (MC) ALGORITHMS

Step 3:This moving cone process

moving from the left to right and top
to bottom until no more block can be
removed;
Step 4: The profitability for this
section is found by summing the
values of the blocks;
47
 MC METHOD – EXAMPLE
+1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

-2 -2 +4 -2 -2 -2 -2 +4 -2 -2
+7 +1 -3 +7 +1 -3

If the total value within a cone is positive, all This floating cone process moving from the left
the blocks within that cone is mined out to right and top to bottom until no more block
can be removed

-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
-1 -1 -1 -2 -2
+4
-2 -2 -2 -2 -1
+7
+7 +1 -3 The profitability for this
-2 -2
section is found by summing 48
the values of the blocks
+1 -3
The value of the cone:-1-1-1+ 4= +1 The value of the cone:-1-1-2-2+ 7= +1
 EXAMPLE
Final ultimate pit

-2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1
-1
+1 -2 -2 -2 +4
-2 -2
-3 +7
+1 -3
The total value of this pit is:-1-1-1-1-1+1-2-2+4+7=+3
The value of the cone:-2+1= -1
The overall stripping ratio (SR)= 7: 3

49
FLOATING CONE TECHNIQUE

-1
-1 -1 -4 -1 -1 -1 -1 -4
+5 -4 +5 -1 -1
+5
+3 -4 +5
-1 +3
- -1 -1
-1 -1 4 +5 -1 -1 -4 -1 -1
+1
+5 -4 +5 -4 +5
+3 +3

-1 -1 -4 -1 -1 +2
+5 +5
-4
+3
50
 LIMITATIONS OF FLOATING CONE

 Mining too little  Mining too much

51
 DRAWBACKS OF MOVING CONE
METHOD

1. Misses combination of profitable blocks;

2. Extends ultimate pit beyond optimal
limits;
3. Combination of problems 1 and 2;

52
POSITIVE ASPECTS OF MOVING
CONE METHOD:
 Computerization of manual method;
 Easy to understand by engineers;
 Simplicity of computational algorithm;
 Technique can be used with generalized
slopes;
 Provides fairly good results for mine
planning
53
LERCHS-GROSSMANN GRAPH THEORY
METHOD
 In 1965 Lerchs and Grossmann gave
two different methods for open pit
optimization in the same paper;
 One works on a single section at a time;
 It only handles slopes which are one
block up or down and one across, so that
the block proportions have to be chosen
so as to create the required slopes.
 This method is easy to program and is
54
reliable in what it does;
LERCHS-GROSSMANN GRAPH THEORY
METHOD

1. A simple dynamic programming

algorithm for the two-dimensional pit
(or a single vertical section of a mine),
and
2. A more elaborate graph algorithm for
the general three-dimensional pit.

55
 LERCHS-GROSSMANN GRAPH THEORY METHOD

 Lerchs and Grossmann assumed that the

concentration of ores and impurities is known
at each point;
 The problem is to decide what the ultimate
contour of the pit will be;
 Also in what stages this contour is to be
reached.
 The objective then is to design the contour of
a pit so as to maximise the difference
between the total mine value of ore extracted
56
and the total extraction cost of ore and waste.
 LERCHS-GROSSMANN GRAPH THEORY METHOD

 With this objective, they recognized the

sole restrictions posed by the geometry of
the pit;
 the wall slope of the pit must not exceed
certain given angles that may vary with
depth of the pit or with the material.
 The method works with only two
types of information i.e. the block
values and “arcs”
57
 LERCHS-GROSSMANN GRAPH THEORY METHOD

 An arc is a relationship between two

blocks.
 An arc from block A to block B
indicates that, if A is to be mined,
then B must be mined to expose A
and the reverse is not true.
 If block B is to be mined, block A may
or may not be mined

58
LERCHS-GROSSMANN GRAPH THEORY METHOD

59
 LERCHS-GROSSMANN GRAPH THEORY METHOD

 An arc from A to B and that from B to C

ensures that C is mined if A is to be
mined despite there being no arc from A
to C

60
 LERCHS-GROSSMANN 3-D OPTIMISATION METHOD

 This method achieves its aim by manipulating

the block values and the arcs;
 It uses no other information apart from that
given by the arcs and thus it knows nothing
about the positions of the blocks or about mining;
 During the optimisation process the algorithm
flags each block that is to be mined
 These flags can be turned on and off many times.

 A block is flagged to be mined if it currently

belongs to a linked group of blocks that have a
total value that is positive. 61
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

We start with a two-dimensional model, 17 blocks long and 5 blocks high. Only
three blocks contain potential ore, and they have the values shown. All other
blocks are waste and have the value -1.0. 62
EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

Step 1: The first arc from a “flagged” block that we find

is to a block which is not flagged 63
EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

23.9 6.9 23.9

22.9
Step 2: To resolve this, we link the two blocks together.
The total value of the two-block branch is 22.9. 64
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle,
1999)

Step 3: We deal with the other two arcs from this block in the same way.
The total value of the four-block branch is 20.9.
65
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle,
1999)

Step 4: We continue in the same way along the bottom bench, and then along
the next bench. (Note that even waste blocks are flagged if they belong to a
positive branch.) 66
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle,
1999)

Step 5: The next flagged block has an arc to a block which is also flagged. We
don’t create a link for this arc or for the vertical one from the same block, because
nothing has to be resolved.
67
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle,
1999)

Step 6: The next arc from a flagged to another flagged block is

between two branches.The procedure is unchanged - we do not
insert a link.
68
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

Step 7: We continue adding links until we reach the one shown. When we add
this link, the branch total will become -0.1. Because of this ALL the blocks in
the branch have their flags turned off.
69
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

Step 8: The next arc of interest is from a flagged block to a block which is part
of a branch which is not flagged. Effectively the centre and the right-hand
branches can co-operate in paying for the mining of the common waste block,
which is circled 70
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

23.9 6.9 23.9

15.9 20.8

Step 9: The Lerchs-Grossmann method includes a procedure for combining the two
linked branches into one branch with only one total value. (Note that there is no
requirement to always branch upwards from the root.)
71
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

Step 10: The next arc of interest is from a flagged block to a waste block. Lerchs-
Grossmann detects that this extra waste will remove the ability of the centre branch
to co-operate with the right-hand branch in paying for the mining of the circled block
72
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

Step 11: Lerchs-Grossmann includes a procedure for breaking the single branch
into two branches by REMOVING a link.
73
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

23.9 6.9 23.9

-0.1 -0.1 8.9

Step 12: We continue adding links and, eventually, the total value of the left-
hand branch becomes negative. The next arc after this is again between a
positive and a negative branch
74
EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

Step 13: This is dealt with in the same way as before, and the
left and right-hand branches are combined into one, with one
total value. 75
 EXAMPLE 3-D ALGORITHM (Whittle, 1999)

Step 14: We continue adding arcs until we reach the situation shown above.
The program would then do another scan for arcs from blocks which are
flagged to blocks which are not flagged. We can see that it will find none, and
the optimization is complete
76
FINAL PIT OUTLINE

77
 FINAL PIT OUTLINE

 Lerchs and Grossmann proved that, when

no further arcs can be found that are from
a flagged block to a block that is not
flagged, then the flagged blocks constitute
the optimal pit.
 In a real optimization, we would start the
scan again, but visual inspection shows us
that this is unnecessary because it is clear
that there can be no flagged blocks with
arcs to blocks which are not flagged 78
 EXAMPLE – OPTIMUM PIT LIMIT
DETERMINATION USING 2-DIMENSIONAL
DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING

79
 2-D Block Models with $ Values

i/j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

2 -2 -2 +1 -2 +2 +1 -2 -2

3 -3 -3 +3 +4 -1 +4 -3 -3

a). Cross-section of a block model with original block

values and slope 1:1
80
 Sum Column Values, down each column

i/j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2
-3 -3 0 -3 +1 0 -3 -3
3
-6 -6 +3 +1 0 +4 -6 -6
b). Column sum values obtained from (a)
81
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 +1

2 -3 -4 -1 -4 +1 +1 +2 -1

3 -6 -9 -1 0 0 +5 -1 -4

c) Final tableau: pit value of each block and an ultimate pit limit
82
 Optimal Sectional Pit Value =
+$1,000,000
 This is equal to maximum derived
value in row 1
 Corresponds to value in block (1,8)
 The maximum derived value in row
1 is always equal to the optimal pit
value! 83
 4. Three Dimensional L-G

• Works with block values

• Works with block mining precedence

• Guarantees to find the three-

dimensional outline with the highest
possible value
84
3D. LERCHS-GROSSMANN ALGORITHM

B
Arc from A to B

A
85
 ARC CHAINING
C

86
B

A
MINIMUM ARCS PER BLOCK

87
 IN THREE DIMENSIONS:

• Of the order of 50 arcs per block will

give one degree slope accuracy

• Exact slope accuracy is not possible

because only whole blocks are mined

88
 Dynamic Programming (DP)
DP was first applied to open-pit optimisation by Lerchs & Grossman (1965) to determine
the optimal contour on sections divided into blocks. The procedure is sometimes referred to
as the Lerchs & Grossman 2-D algorithm. The algorithm which follows is from Johnson &
Sharp (1973) and includes certain modifications from the initial procedure described by
Lerchs and Grossman

It is simpler than the Graph Theory, but it is not successful as Graph Theory.

In first developed DP algorithm the deposit was divided to parallel cross-sections and then
optimisation is done for each cross-sections separately. Then these cross-sections connected
as 3D. Occasionally, during this process anomalies are formed between some cross-sections.
Smoothing needs to get rid of from these anomalies.

Johnson and Sharp (1971) and Koenigsberg (1982) were developed 3D DP algorithm to solve
this problem, but the optimisation still works with 2D cross-sections.

Wright (1987) algorithm based on similar process but he modeled the algorithm that works
faster.

Dynamic programming generates good results in 2D; however, 3D extensions produce89

erratic results.
Linear Programming (LP)
In 1969, Meyer used first Dynamic Programming technique for pit limit
optimisation. He divided the deposit to the pillars/stopes as blocks or
rectangular prisms, but in this approach some part of deposit has to be left
or some blocks need to be taken out unnecessarily. So, the optimal result
could be unrealistic.

90
Network Technique (Maximum Flow Algorithm)
This method is the fastest method in ultimate pit limit design. This method
shows its model economically in network structure. The disadvantage of the
method is uses computer memory. CPM- PERT

91
Parametrisation of the Final Pit Contour
In this method, big sized blocks determined by geostatistical methods. The
actual pit contours are determined with successive applications of a 2-D DP
which is applied to a data of small blocks converted into larger ones; 90% of
the processing time is used for converting the data base, 10% for repeated
use of the DP.

92
 Roman’s Algorithm
Roman (1974) presented an algorithm based on DP, to determine;

The sequence of block removals to maximise discounted net revenue. Defining a set
containing all positive blocks does this, then, starting with an arbitrarily selected
final block, working back to the first block to remove; intermediate sequences can be
checked on paths eliminated with a DP decision rule.
The open-pit which maximize the discounted net present revenue. Once the sequence
is determined, the last sub-sequences having negative net present values (NPV) are
dropped; the resulting sequence produces the optimal pit according to the NPV
criterion.
In theory Roman’s algorithm is the best method of determining the final pit since it
maximizes a value which subsequently used to determine projects economic worth
and produces the mining sequence. Unfortunately this sequence is restricted to an
additional constraint of a single entry point per level and the program is very time
consuming to run; anything beyond 1000 block is just about prohibitive, in
comparison to other procedures and with today’s computers. A variation of the
procedure could be conceived whereby Geostatistics are applied to create large blocks
on which Roman’s algorithm is applied; small mining unit blocks are then
regenerated, thereby approximating the effect of time value of money. A
breakthrough in this direction would certainly bring the open-pit design process in
line with the true underlying objective in our economic environment.
93
 STEPS INVOLVED IN PIT DESIGN

•To design a pit you should carry out the following steps:
- Develop a model of the orebody
- Produce a block model with blocks no smaller than
the selective mining unit.

94
 STEPS INVOLVED IN PIT DESIGN

• Carry out the sensitivity work for a range of

economic conditions. This work will sort out the
general scale of mining and hence the costing
details.
• Also decide approximately where the roads are to
go and adjust the slopes in those places to reflect
the average slope required.

95
 SUMMARY
 Deposit Representation
 Geological orebody model
 Economic orebody model
 Determination of Ultimate Pit Limit
 Moving Cone Algorithm (MC)
 Lerchs and Grossman’s Algorithm (LG)
 Determination of “Pushback” or “Phase”

96
 STEPS INVOLVED IN PIT DESIGN

• Havingfixed the economic parameters, generate a

value model.
• If necessary, reblock the model to optimise the
number of blocks.
• Carry out the optimisation using the required
slopes.

97
 STEPS INVOLVED IN PIT DESIGN

• Ifyou think that the mining sequence you propose

will significantly effect the size of the optimal pit, then
repeat steps 4, 5 and 6 with progressive reductions in
product price so as to produce a set of nested pits. Two
or three should be sufficient. Then evaluate each pit
subject to your mining sequence and select the one
with the highest value.

98
STEPS INVOLVED IN PIT DESIGN

•Do the detailed design using the highest

valued pit as your guide. Note that only one
detailed design will be done and that that is
easy because the shape and size of the pit
has been established.

99
 CONCLUSION

•Ultimate pit design techniques based on 3-d fixed

block model
• High-quality computer software is available for
pit deign
• Pit optimisation is closely linked to scheduling

100
 REFERENCES

• Australian Mining Consultants, 1997. Pit Optimisation, Technical Refs:

www.minesite.aust.com
• Barnes, M P, 1980. Computer-assisted Mineral Appraisal and Feasibility,
Society of Mining Engineers of AIME, Littleton, Colorado, 167p.
• Hustrulid, W A, Kuchta, M, 2006. Open Pit Mine Planning and Design, vol.
1 Fundamentals, (Rotterdam: Balkema), 636p.

101
 REFERENCES

• Rudenno, V, 1998. The Mining Valuation Handbook: Australian Mining and

Energy Valuation for Investors and Management, 247p,
WrightBooks:Victoria.
• Whittle Programming, 1999. Strategic Mine Planning Training Manual
(CD), ver. 1.0
•Wright, E A. 1990. Open Pit Mine Design Models, TransTech Publications,
Germany,187p.

102
 EXAMPLE
The copper grades for a particular vertical section taken through an open pit are shown in
below Figure 1.1a. Also given is a Net Value versus % Copper curve (Figure 1.1b). You are
to apply the floating cone technique to the determination of the final pit. You must first
convert the block grades into block economic values ($).

The blocks have dimensions 15 x 15 x15 m. The ore density is 2.55 t/m3. The cost to take
waste material from the pit and place on the dump is $1.00 per tonne.
a) Develop the Block Value ($) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0
versus grade (% Cu) curve 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0
from the given information.
0.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0
Carefully label your curve and
supply the axis expressed in 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0
'000's of dollars. 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0
b) On the vertical section supply
Block Economic Values and Figure 1.1a: Vertical section showing block grades (% copper)
use the Floating Cone
technique with 45 (1:1) slope
0

to determine the final pit

limits for the section.
c) What is the net value of the
optimal pit for this cross-
section?
d) What is the overall strip ratio? 103
Step1: Calculate the volume of each block = L x W x H=15x15x15=153 = 3,375 m3

Tonnes/block = block volume x density = 3,375x2.55 = 8,606 tonnes = 8.61x103 tonnes

Step 2: Calculate Block Economic Values (BEV) for2.5 each grade using the Net Value
(NV) vs. %Cu graph 2
1.5

Net Value ($/tonne)

1
a) Now, BEV = NV ($/t) x 8.61x103 (t) 0.5
0
For Waste blocks, NV =-$1.00 -0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(cost of mining waste, given) -1
-1.5
-2
-2.5 % Copper
•BEV @ 0%Cu = -$1.00 x 8.61x103
= -$8.6x103(Waste)
•BEV @ 0.1%Cu = -$1.00 x 8.61x103 = -$8.6x103 (Waste)
•BEV @ 0.2%Cu = -$1.00 x 8.61x103 = -$8.6x103 (Waste)
•BEV @ 0.3%Cu = -$1.00 x 8.61x103 = -$8.6x103 (Waste)
•BEV @ 0.4%Cu = -$0 x 8.61x103 = 0 (i.e. cut-off grade)
•BEV @ 0.5%Cu = +$0.5 x 8.61x103 = +$4.3 x 103 (Ore)
•BEV @ 0.6%Cu = +$1.0 x 8.61x103 = +$8.6 x 103 (Ore)
•BEV @ 0.7%Cu = +$1.5 x 8.61x103 = +$12.9 x 103 (Ore)
104
•BEV @ 0.8%Cu = +$2.0 x 8.61x103 = +$17.2 x 103 (Ore)
Step 3: Now, plot a graph of BEV versus % copper. The graph should look like the
one below:

Block Economic Value ($) vs. %

$20.0 Copper
$15.0

$10.0

$5.0

$0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

-$5.0

-$10.0 105
b) Enter the BEV in the block model (i.e., replace %Cu values with $ values)
and then use the floating cone technique to determine the optimal pit outline.

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0

0.0 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0
0.0 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

2 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $12.9 $12.9 $12.9 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

3 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $17.2 $17.2 $17.2 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

4 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $8.6 $17.2 $4.3 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

5 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $8.6 $12.9 $4.3 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

106
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

2 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $12.9 $12.9 $12.9 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

3 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $17.2 $17.2 $17.2 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

4 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $8.6 $17.2 $4.3 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

5 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $8.6 $12.9 $4.3 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

Block (2,3) -8.6 x 3 + 4.3 = -21.5

Block (2,4) -8.6 x 3 + 12.9 = -12.9
...
Cone 1 value based on block (3, 4) = +$4.3 x 103
Cone 2 value based on block (3, 5) = $21.5 x 103
Cone 3 value based on block (3, 6) = 0
Cone 4 value based on block (4, 5) = $17.2 x 103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

2 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $12.9 $12.9 $12.9 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

3 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $17.2 $17.2 $17.2 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

4 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $8.6 $17.2 $4.3 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

5 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $8.6 $12.9 $4.3 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

107
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

2 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $12.9 $12.9 $12.9 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

3 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $17.2 $17.2 $17.2 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

4 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $8.6 $17.2 $4.3 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

5 -$8.6 -$8.6 $4.3 $8.6 $12.9 $4.3 -$8.6 -$8.6 -$8.6

Total value of positively valued cones = (4.3 + 21.5 + 17.2)x103 = $43,000

Strip ratio = Waste within the optimal pit/Ore within the optimal pit
= # waste blocks/# ore blocks

Therefore, SR = 8/8 = 1:1

108
END

109