Pit limits

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The size and shape of the pit depends upon economic factors and design/production constraints. With an increase in
price the pit would expand in size assuming all other factors remained constant. The inverse is obviously also true.
The pit existing at the end of mining is called the ‘final’ or the ‘ultimate’ pit. In between the birth and the death of an
open-pit mine, there are a series of ‘intermediate’ pits. This chapter will present a series of procedures based upon:

(1) Hand methods,

(2) Floating cone method

Within the pit are found materials of differing value. Economic criteria are applied to assign destinations for these
materials based on their value (i.e. mill, waste dump, leach dump, stock pile, etc.). These criteria will be discussed.
Once the pit limits have been determined and rules established for classifying the in-pit materials, then
the ore reserves (tonnage and grade) can be calculated. In Chapter 6, the steps required to go from the ore reserve to
production rate, mine life, etc. will be presented. Figure given below shows a vertical section of a pit.

HAND METHODS

The basic concept

Figure 5.2 shows an idealized cross-section through an orebody which outcrops at the surface and dips to the left at
45◦. There are distinct physical boundaries separating the ore from the over- and under-lying waste. The known ore
extends to considerable depth down dip and this will be recovered later by underground techniques. It is desired to
know how large the open-pit will be. The final pit in this greatly simplified case will appear as in Figure 5.3.
The slope angle of the left wall is 45◦. As can be seen a wedge of waste (area A) has been removed to uncover the
ore (area B). The location of the final pit wall is determined by examining a series of slices such as shown in
Figure5.4.
For this example the width of the slice has been selected as 1.4 units (u) and the thickness of the section as 1 unit.
Beginning with strip 1 the volumes of waste (Vw) and ore (Vo) are calculated. The volumes are:
Strip 1:
Vw1 = 7.5u3
Vo1 = 5.0u3
The instantaneous stripping ratio (ISR) is defined as

ISR1 (instantaneous) = Vw1/Vo1

Hence
ISR1 = 1.50
Assuming that the net value from selling one unit volume of ore (that money remaining after all expenses have been
paid) is $1.90 and the cost for mining and disposing of the waste is $1/unit volume, the net value for strip 1 is

NV1 = 5.0 × $1.90 − 7.5 × $1 = $2.00

If the process is now repeated for strips 2, 3 and 4, the results are as given below:

Strip 2:
Vw2 = 8.4u3
Vo2 = 5.0u3
ISR2 = 1.68
NV2 = 5.0 × $1.90 − 8.4 × $1 = $1.10

Strip 3:
Vw3 = 9.45u3
Vo3 = 5.0u3
ISR3 = 1.89
NV3 = 5.0 × $1.90 − 9.45 × $1 = $0.05∼=$0

Strip 4:
Vw4 = 10.5u3
Vo4 = 5.0u3
ISR4 = 2.10
NV4 = 5.0 × $1.90 − 10.5 × $1 = −$1.00

As can be seen, the net value changes from (+) to (−) as the pit is expanded. For strip 3, the net value is just about
zero. This pit position is termed ‘breakeven’ since the costs involved in mining the strip just equal the revenues. It is
the location of the final pit wall. The breakeven stripping ratio which is strictly applied at the wall is

SR3 = 1.9

Since the net value of 1 unit of ore is $1.90 and the cost for 1 unit of waste is $1, one can
mine 1.9 units of waste to recover 1 unit of ore (Fig. 5.5).
The overall stripping ratio (OSR) for this section is calculated as :

OSR = waste area / ore area

In this case, let

Waste area = A = 50u3

Ore area = B = 62u3
Hence

OSR∼=0.8

This is compared to the instantaneous stripping ratio at the pit boundary

ISR (pit limit) = 1.9

The OSR must always be less than the ISR (pit limit). The net value for the section (assuming unit thickness) is

NV = Ore area × Net ore value −Waste area ×Waste removal cost

= B × $1.90 − A × $1 = 62 × $1.90 − 50 × $1 = $68

STEPS CONSIERING :

1.) The usual method of hand (manual) design starts with three types of vertical section :
a.) Cross section spaced at regular interval parallel to each other and normal to long axis of the ore body.
b.) Longitudinal section along the long axis of the ore body to help define the pit limit at the end of the ore body.
c.) Radial sections help define the pit limits at the end of the ore body. Fig given below shows different vertical
sections:

2.) Each section should show ore grades, surface topography, geology, and structural control and any other
information that will limit the pit.

3.) The Stripping Ratio is used to set the pit limit on each section.

4.) The pit limit are placed on the section at a point where the grade of the ore can pay for mining the waste above
it.
5.) When the line for the pit limit has been drawn on the sections, the grade of the ore along the line is calculated
and the lenth of ore and waste are measured.

6.) The ratio of the waste and ore is calculated and compared to the breakeven stripping for the grade of ore along
the pit limit.
a.) If the calculated SR is less than allowable SR the pit is expanded.
b.) If the calculated SR is greater the pit limit is contracted.

5.) This process continues on the section until the pit limit is set at a point where the calculated SR and breakeven
SR are equal.
THE FLOATING CONE TECHNIQUE :

In the section on manual techniques for determining the final pit limits, it was shown that for a single pit wall, the
line having the slope angle defining the wall was moved back and forth until the actual grade and stripping ratio
matched a point on the SR-grade curve. For the case when both walls and the pit bottom were in ore, a geometric
figure in the shape of the minimum pit was constructed and moved around on the section (vertically and
horizontally) until the stripping ratios and grades measured along the periphery matched that from the curve. For the
case of 45◦ slopes and a 100 ft minimum pit bottom width, the figure to be ‘floated’ is as shown in Figure 5.32. If
this figure is revolved around the axis, the solid generated is called the frustum of a cone. Had the minimum pit
width been zero, then the figure would simply be a cone.With sections it was most convenient to use two-
dimensional representation and not consider the effect of adjacent sections. This was at least partially
done later through the smoothing on plan. Although there are other techniques for determining the final pit
configuration, currently the most popular is through the use of this ‘floating cone’. Several changes in the manual
process are necessary to accommodate the computer. In the manual process, a net value – grade curve was
developed. Knowing the cost of waste removal, this curve was changed into a SR – grade curve. The user then
simply evaluated stripping ratio (normally by measuring lengths of ore and waste) and calculated the weighted
average grade. Through the use of the SR-grade ‘nomograph’ one could examine pit expansion.
When using the computer, it is more convenient to use the net values of the blocks directly. Figure 5.33 shows the
type of net value-grade curve which is actually used. Consider the simple example shown in Figure 5.34. This case
will be examined using both the manual method based upon grades and stripping ratios, and that in which net values
are assigned to the blocks. Three potential pit limits have been superimposed on the grade block model of
Figure 5.35. A pit slope of 45◦ is assumed. The average ore grades and stripping ratios are given. The final pit is
represented by case 3.

Using Figure 5.33, the grade block model of Figure 5.34 can be converted into an economic block model. The result
is shown in Figure 5.36. By examining the net values of the blocks involved in a particular mining sequence, final
pit limits can be determined. Mining is stopped when the net value is negative. The net values for the three cases
examined in Figure 5.35 are given in Figure 5.37
.
Slice 3 has a NV=0 and would define the final pit on this section. As can be seen the
manual and economic block approaches give equivalent results. The net value approach is
by far the easiest to program, particularly when considering a three dimensional array of
blocks.
Explaning with the help of an exam,ple :figureb(5.38) given below is a block model for which we have to consider
a economic pit limit.

The following steps are used:

Step 1. The cone is ‘floated’ from left to right along the top row of blocks in the section. If there is a positive block it
is removed.

Step 2. After traversing the first row, the apex of the cone is moved to the second row. Starting from the left hand
side it ‘floats’ from left to right stopping when it encounters the first positive block. If the sum of all the blocks
falling within the cone is positive (or zero), these blocks are removed (mined). If the sum is negative the blocks are
left, and the cone floats to the next positive block on this row. The summing and mining or leaving process is
repeated.

Step 3. This floating cone process moving from left to right and top to bottom of the section continues until no more
blocks can be removed.

Step 4. The profitability for this section is found by summing the values of the blocks removed.

Step 5. The overall stripping ratio can be determined from the numbers of positive (+) and negative (−) blocks.
These rules can nowbe applied to the section shown in Figure 5.38. There are four positive blocks in the model
hence there are four corresponding cones which must be evaluated. Using a top–down rule, the block at row
1/column 6 would initiate the search. Since there are no overlying blocks, the value of the cone is the value of the
block: 1. The value is positive, so the block is mined (Fig. 5.40).

The next incremental cone is that defined by the block at row 2/column 4. The value of
this cone is

−1 − 1 − 1 + 4 = +1

Since this value is positive, the cone is mined (Fig. 5.41). For the incremental cone defined
by the block at row 3/column 3, its value is

−1 − 1 − 2 − 2 + 7 = +1
Again, since the value is positive, this cone is mined (Fig. 5.42). Finally, the value of the
incremental cone defined by the block at row 3/column 4 is

−2 + 1 = −1

The value of this cone is negative; therefore, the cone is not mined (Fig. 5.43). Figure 5.44
depicts the overall final ultimate pit. The total value of this pit is
−1 − 1 − 1 − 1 − 1 + 1 − 2 − 2 + 4 + 7 = +3
The overall stripping ratio is

SR (overall) = 7/3

In this simple situation, the final pit is ‘optimal’. The ‘optimum’ might be defined for example, as the one yielding
one of the following,
– maximum profit,
– maximum net present value,
– maximum extraction.