See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318250075

Integration of mathematical models for ore mining industry

Article in International Journal of Systems Science Operations & Logistics · July 2017
DOI: 10.1080/23302674.2017.1344330

CITATIONS READS

12 353

2 authors:

Shi-Qiang (Samuel) Liu Erhan Kozan

Fuzhou University Queensland University of Technology
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,030 CITATIONS 159 PUBLICATIONS 3,710 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mining Methodology: this work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant nos. 71871064 and 18BGL003. View project

Reducing Transport Costs Through the Automation of Schedule Generation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shi-Qiang (Samuel) Liu on 31 July 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Systems Science: Operations &
Logistics

ISSN: 2330-2674 (Print) 2330-2682 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsyb20

Integration of mathematical models for ore mining

industry

Shi Qiang Liu & Erhan Kozan

To cite this article: Shi Qiang Liu & Erhan Kozan (2019) Integration of mathematical models for
ore mining industry, International Journal of Systems Science: Operations & Logistics, 6:1, 55-68,
DOI: 10.1080/23302674.2017.1344330

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23302674.2017.1344330

Published online: 05 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 122

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsyb20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE: OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS
2019, VOL. 6, NO. 1, 55–568
https://doi.org/./..

Integration of mathematical models for ore mining industry

a b
Shi Qiang Liu and Erhan Kozan
a
School of Transportation and Logistics, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu City, China; b School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper investigates the integration of planning and scheduling theory for open-pit ore mining Received  April 
industry under comprehensive mining constraints and attributes. Consequently, mine design plan- Accepted  June 
ning, mine block sequencing and mine production scheduling problems are modelled, solved, inter-
KEYWORDS
acted and integrated in a whole system. A series of interrelated mixed integer programming models Integrated mining
and hybrid solution approaches are developed. Based on a real-world case study, it is validated that optimisation; mine design
the integration of mathematical models is promising to significantly improve the overall efficiency of planning; mine block
mining management in an analytical way. sequencing; mine
production scheduling;
mixed integer programming

ABBREVIATIONS
MDP: mine design planning
at the strategic level, MBS:
mine block sequencing at
the tactical level, MPS: mine
production scheduling at the
operational level, MIP: mixed
integer programming

1. Introduction Lerchs–Grossmann approach. Underwood and Tolwin-

ski (1998) developed a dual simplex approach to solve a
Nowadays, mining activities take place all over the world
mathematical programming model of the MDP problem.
and have become a major source of a country’s natu-
Hochbaum and Chen (2000) presented a detailed study
ral wealth, especially for Australia. Modern mining is
of the so-called push-relabel network flow algorithm in
a complicated procedure that may sustain over many
comparison to the Lerchs–Grossmann approach. Topal
years and necessitate huge expenditure. This paper is
and Ramazan (2012) developed a mathematical formu-
concerned with the integration of different-level math-
lation model based on the network analysis to optimise
ematical programming models for optimising open-pit
the mine exploration plan at the strategic level.
resource extraction.

1.2. Mine block sequencing

1.1. Mine design planning
In open-pit mining, the initial vital optimisation prob-
lem type, known as mine design planning (MDP), aims
to find the optimal answer at the strategic level, that is,
what to be mined or what is the ultimate pit contour
that yields the maximum net present value based on the
estimated geological information. The leading papers on
MDP in the literature are as follows. As pioneers, Lerchs
and Grossmann (1965) presented to the mining commu-
nity the methodology known as the Lerchs–Grossmann
approach for MDP. Caccetta and Giannini (1988) pro-
posed several mathematical theorems to improve the
After the determination of the ultimate pit contour, the
next vital optimisation problem type is called mine block
sequencing (MBS). The purpose of MBS is to answer the
question at the tactical level, that is, which part of the
orebody should be selected to be mined over mid-term
periods. In the literature, the following notable papers
dealt with MBS. Caccetta and Hill (2003) proposed a
general mixed integer programming (MIP) model to
maximise the profit in certain time periods over which
the blocks are sequenced. Boland, Dumitrescu, Froyland,
and Gleixner (2009) developed a column generation
approach for solving this type MIP model, in which

CONTACT Erhan Kozan e.kozan@qut.edu.au

©  Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
56 S. Q. LIU AND E. KOZAN
blocks are aggregated for reducing the problem size.
Bley, Boland, Fricke, and Froyland (2010) improved
this MIP formulation by adding inequalities derived by
combining the precedence and production constraints.
Ramazan (2007) proposed a method to aggregate a sub-
set of blocks as branched trees, which are able to reduce
the number of integer variables and the number of con-
straints required within the MIP formulation. However,
many researchers indicated that solving the MIP model
of MBS is computationally demanding for large-size
instances (e.g. up to one million blocks), thus leading
to the development of numerous heuristic algorithms.
Kumral and Dowd (2005) developed a simulated anneal-
ing metaheuristic combined with Lagrangian relaxation.
Ferland et al. (2007) modelled the MBS problem as a
resource-constrained project scheduling problem, which
was solved by a particle swam optimisation metaheuris-
tic algorithm. Myburgh and Deb (2010) reported an
application of evolutionary algorithm in which an initial
feasible sequence of blocks represented as a chromo-
some is iteratively improved by genetic operators such
as crossover and mutation. Cullenbine, Wood, and New-
man (2011) developed a so-called sliding-time-window
heuristic for MBS under maximum production and
processing capacities. Chicoisne, Espinoza, Goycoolea,
Moreno, and Rubio (2012) developed a quick heuris-
tic algorithm based on topological sorting techniques
for solving large-size MBS instances. Lamghari, Dim-
itrakopoulos, and Ferland (2015) developed a hybrid
approach by integrating MIP and variable neighbour-
hood search for solving MBS. Mousavi, Kozan, and Liu
(2016a, 2016b) developed an extended model and new
solution approaches to optimise the short-term sequenc-
ing of mine blocks by incorporating more practical
constraints such as blending, stockpiling and processing
requirements. Liu and Kozan (2016a) developed two
cutting-edge graph-based algorithms without relying on
any MIP solver to solve large-scale benchmark instances
from MineLib (Espinoza, Goycoolea, Moreno, &
Newman, 2013).
1.3. Mine production scheduling
After the selection of blocks over mid-term periods is
determined, the operational-level question, i.e. how/when
the mining equipment units (e.g. loaders, drills and exca-
vators) are allocated to the selected blocks to perform the
mining tasks at various processing stages (e.g. drilling,
blasting and excavating) over short time intervals, will
be answered by short-term multi-resource multi-stage
mine production scheduling (MPS). According to recent
comprehensive literature review (Kozan & Liu, 2011; Liu
& Kozan, 2012a; Newman, Rubio, & Weintraub, 2010)
on the applications of operations research approaches to
mining industries, most of the research work in min-
ing optimisation focused on the long-term MDP and
mid-term MBS problems. In Australia, mining compa-
nies such as BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto are keen to
minimise the operational costs and maximise productiv-
ity of mining equipment by the adoption of advanced
operational-level MPS software. To meet the industrial
requirements, Kozan and Liu (2012, 2016a, 2016b) and
Kozan, Liu, and Wolff (2013) proposed the operational-
level MPS models for Australian ore mining industry
to optimise drilling, blasting and excavating operations
as well as the railing–stockpiling–shipping operations in
mine supply chain scheduling.
1.4. Contribution and innovation
In this paper, the main contribution is to integrate a
series of extended MDP, MBS and MPS models for estab-
lishing a better overall mining management system. A
real-world case study is reported to show the benefits of
such a systematic integration. To the best of our knowl-
edge, this study is pioneering to fill this gap in the liter-
ature. The interactive relationship among strategic-level
MDP, tactical-level MBS and operational-level MPS is
portrayed in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, the output of
MDP at the strategic level is used as the input for MBS at
the tactical level; then the output of MBS is implemented
as the input for MPS at the operational level.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows.
In Section 2, a series of extended/enhanced MDP, MBS
and MPS models are developed and integrated in a whole
management system. In Section 3, a real-world case study
based on the real-world data is reported to show the ben-
efits. Finally, we conclude the contribution and signifi-
cance of this research in the last section.
2. Mathematical models
Currently, there are many challenges facing open-pit ore
mining industry such as increasing mining costs, shrink-
ing mineable reserves, declining ore grades and enlight-
ening environmental protection awareness (Wetherelt &
Van Der Wielen, 2011). It is a tendency that most open-
pit mines become larger and larger in scale. A large-
scale open-pit mine is becoming an increasingly com-
plex and interdependent system that should be optimised
by careful coordination, management and harmonisa-
tion of its individual elements. In this section, to address
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE: OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS
Figure . Interactive relationship among MDP, MBS and MPS.
these challenges, a series of strategic-level (long-term)
MDP, tactical-level (mid-term) MBS and operational-
level (short-term) MPS models are developed and inte-
grated in a system to achieve the overall mining efficiency
improvement.
2.1. Strategic-level MDP formulation
A geometry layout of a typical open-pit mine is depicted
in Figure 2. The analysis of underlying connotations in
the geometry is important to understand the character-
istics of MDP problems. According to the SME mining
handbook (Wetherelt & Van Der Wielen, 2011), one of
the main considerations in the design of open-pit mine
geometry is to accommodate the mining equipment (e.g.
excavators and trucks) and to satisfy the slope constraints
between the blocks.
Based on Figure 2, the definitions of crucial elements
in open-pit mine geometry are presented as follows:
• A block (unit) is the smallest unit in open-pit mine
geometry, e.g. with a width of 10 metres, length of
10 metres and height of 15 metres.
• Nested pit shells (pits within pits) are usually cre-
ated by replicating the MDP process while adjusting
the values of key parameters (e.g. either ore price or
mining cost) in a specific block model.
• A pushback is an incremental expansion of a pit out-
line and regarded as an aggregation of several nested
pit shells. Pushbacks are often selected by blending
the strip ratio (the waste volume: the ore volume)
throughout the mining phases. For example, a 5:1
strip ratio implies that excavating one cubic metre
of ore requires removing five cubic metres of waste
during a mining phase.
57
• Benches are divided into working benches and inac-
tive benches. The bench levels are the important
coordination elements of mine geometry.
• A parcel is the set of blocks which are both on the
same bench and in the same nested pit shell. Usually,
each block within each parcel is allocated to the same
grade group.
• A panel is the set of one or more parcels in the same
pushback.
• Ultimate pit limit is the contour of an open pit that
maximises the long-term net present value based on
a 2D (3D) block model.
• An aggregate (a mining job at the operational level) is
a portion of a parcel or a subset of blocks on the same
bench and in the same grade group. In an aggre-
gate, it is usually assumed that the properties of all
blocks should be identical. Thus, the blocks in the
same aggregate can be sent to the same destination
at the same production rate.
To design a pit, the entire volume of an orebody is sub-
divided into blocks and the values of blocks are estimated
according to the geological and geostatistical information
from drilling samples in exploration. Precedence rela-
tionships of blocks must be satisfied because they are the
vital constraints to specify the slope requirements of the
pit and to guarantee feasibility requirements. For exam-
ple, Figure 2(e) illustrates the precedence relationship of
a 2D block model for mine design. In most real-world
cases, it is required that the pit slope cannot exceed 45
degree, which means that a block (block 1) cannot be
mined until the one (block 2) located directly above it
and its two immediate neighbours (blocks 3 and 4) have
been removed. Obviously, the 3D block model is much
more complicated than the 2D block model because of
58 S. Q. LIU AND E. KOZAN

Figure . A sample open-pit mine geometry: (a–b) side views of an open-pit mine; (c) top view of an open-pit mine; (d) a bench; (e) slope
constraints in a D block model; (f) slope constraints in a D block model.

more complicated precedence relationships. Figure 2(f)

illustrates the precedence relations of a 3D block model, ε(zi −1) ×nx + xi ≥ εi ,
in which a block (block 5) cannot be extracted until the i = 1, . . . , nb|w(zi −1) ×nx + xi >  and (1.4)
blocks (i.e. blocks 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) on the level directly 1 ≤ (zi − 1) × nx + xi ≤ nb
above and one of four blocks facing this block on the same ε(zi −1) ×nx + (xi −1) ≥ εi ,
level (i.e. one of four blocks directly under blocks 7, 8, 9 i = 1, . . . , nb|w(zi −1) ×nx + (xi −1) >  and (1.5)
and 10) have been excavated. 1 ≤ (zi − 1) × nx + (xi − 1) ≤ nb
Based on the above explanation, an enhanced long- ε(zi −1) ×nx + (xi +1) ≥ εi ,
term open-pit MDP model, which is directly imple- i = 1, . . . , nb|w(zi −1) ×nx + (xi +1) >  and (1.6)
mented in the integration process, is formulated as fol- 1 ≤ (zi − 1) × nx + (xi + 1) ≤ nb
lows.
In the model, the list of parameters include: nx is the
... An enhanced MDP model number of total x-coordination values in a matrix; nz is
Objective: the number of total z-coordination values in a matrix; nb
is the number of total blocks (nb = nx × nz ); xi is the
x-coordination value of block i; zi is the z-coordination

nb
value of block i; i is the index of a block, which is deter-
Maximise : (wi − ci )εi , (1.1)
i=1
mined by zi × nx + xi ;  is a constant negative value; wi
sub ject to is the mining value of block i; and ci is the mining cost
εi ∈ {0, 1} , (1.2) of block i. The decision variable εi is binary, i.e. equals
i = 1, . . . , nb; one if block i is selected to be mined in the ultimate pit
limit, and zero otherwise. The objective function defined
εi = 0,
(1.3) in Equation (1.1) is to maximise the total net revenue of
i = 1, . . . , nb| wi ≤ ;
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE: OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS 59

blocks to be mined and thus to determine the ultimate pit once over time periods. Equation (2.3) satisfies the prece-
limit of an open-pit mine. Equation (1.2) defines that the dence relationship of blocks. Equation (2.4) requires that
decision variable εi is binary. Equation (1.3) requires that the minimum and maximum capacities (Rmin max
rt and Rrt )
a block is not considered if its block value is not greater of resource type r are satisfied in time period t, where
than a constant negative value. Formulae (1.4–1.6) satisfy gbr is the usage of resource type r by block b. Equation
the slope constraints which imply that if a block will be (2.5) declares that xbt is a binary variable, which equals
mined, then its pre-described immediate predecessors in one if block b will be mined by period t. Equation (2.6)
the matrix should be mined beforehand. defines that each block should be ready by the start of the
first period. Equation (2.7) declares that ybdt is a semi-
continuous variable between 0 and 1, which is the por-
2.2. Tactical-level MBS formulation tion of block b delivered to destination d in time period
After a set of blocks is selected by the strategic-level t. Equation (2.8) defines that if a block is selected to
MDP model, the purpose of tactical-level MBS model be mined in a period, then the entire block should be
aims at deciding in which periods these blocks should be extracted and delivered in portions to certain destina-
extracted under specific constraints. Commonly, in most tions.
MBS formulation models, the critical decision variable For other extended versions of MBS models with the
(xbt ) is defined in such a way that it equals one if a block consideration of additional constraints such as the grade
b is mined in a period t or zero otherwise. control and blending requirements, the inventory con-
One extended MBS model in the integration system is trol of stockpiles, the rehandling of materials from stock-
described as follows. piles to processing plants and the capacities of excavators,
please refer to our previous work (Liu and Kozan, 2016a;
... An extended MBS model Mousavi et al., 2016a, 2016b).
Objective:
  2.3. Operational-level MPS formulation
Maximise : ybdt − yb,d,t−1 pbdt , (2.1)
b∈B t∈T d∈D
The operational MPS model aims to optimally allocate
the critical mining equipment units at each operational
subject to stage and determine the timetable (e.g. starting, process-
ing and completion times) of mining equipment units
in the most efficient manner. In the MPS model, a min-
xb,t−1 ≤ xbt , ∀b ∈ B; t ∈ T (2.2) ing job is an aggregate of blocks selected in a short-term
period t, which was determined by the tactical-level MBS
xbt ≤ xb t , ∀b ∈ B; b ∈ b |b ⊂ B; t ∈ T (2.3) model. In a short-term MPS period, each mining job will
  be processed at several operational stages. Based on the
rt ≤
Rmin ybdt − yb,d,t−1 pbdt gbr ≤ Rmax
rt , above analysis and the fundamental job-shop scheduling
b∈B d∈D (2.4) formulation techniques (Pan, 1997), a basic MPS model
∀t ∈ T ; r ∈ R is developed as follows.
xbt ∈ {0, 1} ∀b ∈ B; t ∈ T (2.5)
... Basic MPS model
xb0 = 0, ∀b ∈ B (2.6) Objective:

ybdt ∈ [0, 1] ∀b ∈ B; t ∈ T (2.7)

Minimise max CiK , (3.1)
 i
xbt = ybdt , ∀b ∈ B; t ∈ T (2.8)
d∈D subject to

Defined by Equation (2.1), the objective function is


Lk
to maximise the total net present value of blocks to be xiklk = 1, i = 1, . . . , I; k = 1, . . . , K; (3.2)
mined over a set of periods denoted as T . pbdt is the net lk = 1
present value of block b delivered to destination d|d ∈ D,

Lk
where D is denoted as a set of destinations such as the yii klk ≤ 1, i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; k = 1, . . . , K;
processing plants, stockpiles and waste dumps. Equation lk = 1
(2.2) ensures that each block is mined no more than (3.3)
60 S. Q. LIU AND E. KOZAN

Lk
yi iklk ≤ 1, i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; k = 1, . . . , K;
lk = 1

Lk 
Lk
yii klk + yi iklk ≤ 1,
lk = 1 lk = 1
i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; k = 1, . . . , K;
yii klk + yi iklk ≥ xiklk + xi klk − 1, i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ;
k = 1, . . . , K; lk = 1, . . . , Lk ;
⎛ ⎞

Lk
Cik ≥ Ci k + pik + ⎝ yi iklk − 1⎠ M,
lk = 1
i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; k = 1, . . . , K;

⎛ ⎞
Lk
Ci k ≥ Cik + pi k + ⎝ yii klk − 1⎠ M,
lk = 1
 
i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; k = 1, . . . , K;
Cik ≥ pik , i = 1, . . . , I; k = 1;
Cik ≥ Ci,k−1 + pik , i = 1, . . . , I; k = 2, . . . , K;
(3.10)
xiklk ∈ {0, 1},
i = 1, . . . , I; k = 1, . . . , K; lk = 1, . . . , Lk ;
(3.11)
yii klk ∈ {0, 1} , i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ;
(3.12)
k = 1, . . . , K; lk = 1, . . . , Lk ;
Here, i is the index of a mining job, i = 1, . . . , I;
K is the number of operational stages; k is the index of
an operational stage, k = 1, . . . , K; Lk is the number of
mining equipment units used at stage k; lk is the index of
a mining equipment unit at stage k, lk = 1, . . . , Lk ; pik is
the processing time of mining job i at stage k as assuming
that the mining equipment units at each stage are identi-
cal in the basic MPS model. There are three decision vari-
ables, namely, Cik that is the completion time of mining
job i at stage k; xiklk that is the assignment binary vari-
able which equals one if the lk th equipment unit is allo-
cated to mining job i at stage k; yii klk sequencing binary
variable which equals one if job i precedes job i on the
lk th equipment unit at stage k. Equation (3.1) defines
the objective function of minimising the makespan, i.e.
the maximum completion time. Equations (3.2–3.6) sat-
isfy that the sequencing relationship between each pair
of mining jobs on each assigned mining equipment unit
at each stage should be exclusive. Equations (3.7–3.8)
define the disjunctive relationship between each pair of
mining jobs on each assigned mining equipment unit at
each stage. Note that the notation M is a large enough
constant value only used in disjunctive relationship con-
(3.4) straints. Equations (3.9–3.10) restrict the timing relation-
ship under the given processing route of each mining
job. Equations (3.11–3.12) declare the assignment and
sequencing binary variables.
(3.5)
... Extended MPS models
Moreover, we developed the following extended-version
MPS models by adding or updating the parameters and
(3.6)
constraints in the basic MPS model step by step.
E. Different ready times
(3.7)
Different ready times of mining jobs may be considered
in realistic mining scenarios. In a scenario, some min-
ing jobs are required to start in a certain period due to
the grade control or stockpile management requirements.
(3.8)
In another scenario, if two MPS horizons are merged,
the ready times in the first-horizon mining jobs are dif-
(3.9) ferent from those in the second horizon. When differ-
ent ready times of mining jobs should be considered, the
basic MPS model is extended by adding a new parameter
ri and replacing Equation (3.9) with new Equation (3.13),
that is:
New parameter:
ri the specified ready time of mining job i.
New constraint:
Cik ≥ ri + pik , i = 1, . . . , I; k = 1 . (3.13)
E. Different set-up and processing times
In practice, the mining equipment unit needs to be
inspected or installed before the start of an operation. In
addition, the mining equipment units used at each stage
may be non-identical with different operating capacities.
In E2, different set-up times and processing times of dif-
ferent jobs at various operational stages are considered by
adding the following new parameters and updating the
equations; the basic MPS model is extended by adding the
following new parameter and updating Equations (3.7–
3.10).
New parameters:
sk set-up time for a mining job at stage k.
ik workload for a mining job i at stage k; for example,
at drilling stage, the workload of a drilling equip-
ment unit is the total drilling length of this mining
job, measured in metres.
θlk k operating capacity of a mining equipment unit lk at
stage k. For example, at drilling stage, the operating
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE: OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS 61

capacity of a drilling equipment unit is measured in E. Side-cut requirements

metres/hour. In E4, the prefixed side-cut precedence relationships of
certain mining jobs on the same working bench are con-
Updated constraints: sidered by adding the following new parameters and con-
straints.
⎛ ⎞ New parameter:
ik ⎝ 
Lk
Cik ≥ Ci k + sk + + yi iklk − 1⎠ M, Si the subset of mining jobs that are side-cut predeces-
θlk k
lk = 1 sors of mining job i.
i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; k = 1, . . . , K; lk = 1, . . . , Lk ;
(3.7b) New constraints:
⎛ ⎞
i k ⎝ 
Lk yi iklk ≥ xi klk + xiklk − 1,
Ci k ≥ Cik + sk + + yii klk − 1⎠ M, i = 1, . . . , I; i ∈ Si ; k = 1, . . . , K;
(3.16)
θlk k
lk = 1
xi klk = xiklk ,
i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; k = 1, . . . , K; lk = 1, . . . , Lk ; (3.17)
i = 1, . . . , I; i ∈ Si ; k = 1, . . . , K;
(3.8b)
ik E. Diverse objective function
Cik ≥ ri + sk + , In E5, the following extended MPS models can evalu-
θlk k (3.9b)
i = 1, . . . , I; k = 1; lk = 1, . . . , Lk ; ate multiple objective functions to provide more analytic
ik decisions from different perspectives.
Cik ≥ Ci,k−1 + sk + , New parameters:
θlk k
i = 1, . . . , I; k = 2, . . . , K; lk = 1, . . . , Lk . di the due date of a mining job i.
(3.10b) wi delay cost rate if a mining job i is tardy.
ωklk fuel cost rate associated with the movement time
E. Sequence-dependent movement times of equipment unit lk at stage k.
In E3, sequence-dependent movement times of mining
New objective to minimise the number of tardy mining
equipment units are considered by adding the following
jobs:
new parameters and constraints.
New parameters: 
I
Minimise f (CiK , di ) | f (CiK , di ) = 1 if CiK > di ;
ηii distance between a pair of mining jobs i and i . i=1
v ii klk movement speed of a mining equipment unit lk else, f (CiK , di ) = 0. (3.18)
at stage k from a mining job u to mining job i in
sequence. New objective to minimise the total delay cost:

New constraints: 
I
Minimise wi Max {0, CiK − di } . (3.19)
i=1
ηii 
Lk
Ci k ≥ Cik + sk + yii klk + ik /θlk k New objective to minimise the total movement cost:
v ii klk
lk = 1
Lk
 
Lk
+ yii klk − 1 M, 
i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; 
I 
I 
K 
Lk
lk = 1 yi iklk
 ηb b
lk = 1 Minimise .
v b bklk
k = 1, . . . , K; lk = 1, . . . , Lk ; i = 1|i=i i k = 1 lk = 1
(3.14) (3.20)

ηi i 
Lk
Cik ≥ Ci k + sk + yi iklk + i k /θlk k 2.4. Integrated MDP–MBS–MPS model
v i iklk
lk = 1 The motivation of proposing such an integrated MDP–
Lk
+ yi iklk − 1 M, 
i, i = 1, . . . , I|i = i ; MBS–MPS model is highlighted as follows. Based on
lk = 1 the feedback from our industrial partners, synchronisa-
k = 1, . . . , K; lk = 1, . . . , Lk . tion between determining the appropriate sizes of aggre-
(3.15) gates (mining jobs at the operational level) and allocating
62 S. Q. LIU AND E. KOZAN

the mining equipment units at each operational stage to Ruk
them is one of the critical decisions between mine plan-
ning and scheduling engineers. In execution, a tentative
multi-stage mine production timetable may be not grat- ξuk
ified for immediate use, because some inputs (e.g. the γ k
number of blocks in each aggregate) need to be adjusted γ k
in an interplayed way for several rounds between mine
planning and scheduling engineers. In this scenario, to τuk
answer such a question: ‘how to achieve the appropriate
balance between the mining workload and the mining ςγ uk
resources?’, an innovative integrated MDP–MBS–MPS
model is developed. dγ
New variables:
the maximum allowable number of mining oper-
ations to be executed by equipment unit u at stage
k.
the ready time of equipment unit u at stage k.
workload of one block on bench γ at stage k.
the weighting factor of one block on bench γ at
stage k according to its material property.
the operating capacity of equipment unit u at stage
k.
the set-up time of a mining operation on bench γ
by equipment unit u at stage k.
the due date of the blocks on bench γ , which is
determined by the ending time of a time period in
MBS.

In this integrated model, the following decision variables ... An integrated model
are defined: Objective:
θγ the number of aggregated blocks of the θth min- 
Minimise (max{0, Cθγ K − dγ })θγ ,
ing job on bench γ . (4.1)
θ∈γ γ ∈ϒ
φθγ a binary variable that equals one if the θth min-
ing job on bench γ is created. subject to
xruk a binary variable that equals one if the rth mining
operation is processed by the equipment unit u at θγ γ k γ k
Qruk ≥ Qr−1,uk + ςγ uk +
stage k.  τuk 
+M zrukγ θ + yr−1, ukγ + xr−1,uk − 3 , (4.2)
yrukγ a binary variable that equals one if the rth mining
operation by the equipment unit u at stage k is ∀ r|r > 1, u, k, γ , θ;
performed on bench γ . θγ γ k γ k
Qr u k − ςγ u k − ≥ Cθγ k
zrukγ θ a binary variable that equals one if the rth mining  τu k 
+M zrukγ θ + zr u k γ θ + xr −1,u k − 3 , (4.3)
operation by the equipment unit u at stage k is
performed for the θth mining job on bench γ . ∀r, u, k, r |r > 1, u , k , γ , θ;
Cθγ k the completion time of the θth mining job on θγ γ k γ k
Qruk − ςγ uk − ≥ ξuk
bench γ at stage k; and Qruk is the completion τuk
+ M (zrukγ θ + yrukγ − 2), (4.4)
time of the rth mining operation by the equip-
ment unit u at stage k. ∀r = 1, u, k, γ , θ;
θγ γ k γ k
New parameters: Qr u k − ςγ u k − ≥ Cθγ k
 τu k 
+M zrukγ θ + zr u k γ θ − 2 , (4.5)
The list of new parameters is defined as follows for the ∀r, u, k, r = 1, u , k , γ , θ;
integrated model:
Qruk ≥ Cθγ k + M zrukγ θ − M, ∀r, u, k, γ , θ; (4.6)
K the set of operational stages, each of which is
indexed by k|k ∈ K. Qruk ≤ Cθγ k − M zrukγ θ + M ∀r, u, k, γ , θ; (4.7)
Uk the set of available equipment units at stage k,

indexed by u| u ∈ Uk . zrukγ θ = yrukγ , ∀r, u, k, γ ; (4.8)
ϒ the set of working benches in an operational hori- θ∈γ
zon, indexed by γ |γ ∈ ϒ. 
yrukγ = xruk , ∀r, u, k ; (4.9)
γ the minimum allowable number of blocks in a
γ ∈ϒ
mining job on bench γ . 
 θγ = γ , ∀γ ;
γ the maximum allowable number of blocks in a (4.10)
θ∈γ
mining job on bench γ .
γ the number of all available blocks on bench γ . xr+1,uk ≤ xruk , ∀r|r < Ruk , u, k; (4.11)
γ the maximum allowable number of mining jobs
on bench γ , indexed by θ|θ ∈ γ . φθγ ≤ φθ−1,γ , ∀γ , θ|θ > 1; (4.12)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE: OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS 63

Table . (a) Data of mining jobs in an MPS case study.

Mining Tonnes Volume Surface Blocks Drilling Drilling Blasting Excavating
jobs (t) (m ) (m ) (units) metres (m) time (hours) time (hours) time (hours)

J , . , .   . . . .

J ,, . , . ,  . . . .
J ,, . , . ,  . . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  . . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  . . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  . . . .
J ,, . , . ,  ,. . . .
J ,, . , . ,  . . . .

3.1. Data analysis


θγ ≤ γ φθγ , ∀γ , θ;
max(θγ − γ, 0) ≥ φθγ , ∀γ , θ;

zrukγ θ = φθγ , ∀k, γ , θ;
u∈Uk r∈Ruk
φθγ , xruk , yrukγ , zrukγ θ ∈ {0, 1} ∀r, u, k, γ , θ. (4.16)
Defined by Equation (4.1), the objective function aims
to minimise the total weighted tardiness. Equations (4.1–
4.7) define the complex timing relationship of the cre-
ated mining jobs. Equations (4.8–4.11) describe the com-
plex exclusive relationship in the creation of mining jobs.
Equations (4.12–4.15) determine the size of the created
mining jobs within the allowable range. Equation (4.16)
declares four binary variables. For more details on multi-
resource multi-stage scheduling, please refer to Liu and
Kozan (2009, 2011, 2012b, 2016b, 2017).
3. Computational results
All of the above proposed mathematical models were
coded in Visual C# language and solved using IBM ILOG-
CPLEX 12.4 .NET package (IBM, 2012) which includes
dynamic link libraries and interfaces and thus is able to be
compiled under Microsoft Visual Studio 2012. Extensive
computational experiments were performed on a desktop
computer with Intel Core i7 CPU at 3.4 GHz and 8 GB
RAM under 64-bit Windows 7 operating system. In this
section, an insight-provoking case study based on real-life
mining data is conducted to validate the proposed mod-
els and illustrate how to significantly improve the perfor-
mance of open-pit mining process.
(4.13)
Due to confidentiality agreement, parts of the case study
data are given in Table 1 (a)–(c) and other parts of data
(4.14)
are briefly explained as follows. In this case study, 18 min-
ing jobs will be scheduled in an expected 18-week MPS
(4.15) horizon. Each mining job will be processed consecutively
at three main stages, that is, drilling stage, blasting stage
and excavating stage. The critical resource at the drilling
stage is the drill equipment with two available units in this
case study. At the blasting stage, the critical resource is
the mobile processing unit with two units. At the exca-
vating stage, the excavators are the critical resources dur-
ing the excavation process. In this case study, we first use
five excavators that have the same production rate of 2100
tons per hour on average. The independent set-up time
of an excavator is about 1.5 hours on average. Note that
all time elements are measured in hours. Associated with
each mining job, there are the specific (x, y, z) coordinate
values which are used to roughly determine the move-
ment distance between each pair of mining jobs at each
stage. Table 1(b) presents the operating capacity of each
mining equipment unit at each operational stage, respec-
tively, measured in metres/hour, square metres/hour and
cubic metres/hour at the drilling, blasting and excavat-
ing stages. Table 1(c) shows the release dates of each min-
ing equipment unit at each operational stage, measured
in hours.
3.2. An initial solution
Extensive computational experiment with sensitivity
analysis has been performed for identifying the key val-
ues, rationality and effects for the purpose of making
quantitative decisions on how to improve the short-term
64 S. Q. LIU AND E. KOZAN

Table . (b) Operating capacities of mining equipment units.

Stage index Stage name No. of equipment units Measurement Unit  Unit  Unit  Unit 

 Drilling  metres/hour   NA NA
 Blasting  metres /hour   NA NA
 Excavating  metres /hour    NA

NA: this equipment unit is non-available in this operational horizon.

open-pit mine production efficiency in industrial prac- 3.3. An optimised solution

tice. After running the CPLEX optimiser to solve this
When the limit of CPLEX running time is set as 1800 s, a
MPS case with the time limit of 60 s, the timetable of an
high-quality MPS schedule in this case study is obtained
initial random solution is obtained and shown in Table 2.
and given in Table 3. In comparison to the initial
In the first column (Mining Jobs), the indexes of mining
schedule, the application of such a high-quality MPS
jobs are indicated. The second column (iThUnit) gives the
schedule can result in the efficiency improvement by
index of the resource unit (i.e. the drill equipment) used
(4279.6−2953.4)/4279.6 × 100 = 30.99%. In addition,
at the drilling stage for a mining job. The starting time
it implies that the proposed scheduling methodology is
(ETime), processing time (PTime) and completion time
promising to mining management staff in the determina-
(CTime) of a mining job at the drilling stage are shown
tion of the optimised timetable of short-term mining pro-
respectively in the third, the fourth and the fifth columns.
duction in a mathematical way instead of onerous man-
The other column names are kept in the same fashion for
ual input in practice at this mine site. More importantly,
the blasting and excavating stages. The maximum com-
with the application of the proposed MPS methodology,
pletion of this initial random solution is 4279.6 hours,
mining industry practitioners are able to ensure that the
which is highlighted in bold.
mining equipment units are always deployed in a more

Table . (c) Release dates of mining equipment units.

Stage index Stage name No. of equipment units Measurement Unit  Unit  Unit  Unit 

 Drilling  Hours   NA NA
 Blasting  Hours   NA NA
 Excavating  Hours    NA

Table . An initial solution of the MPS case study.

Drilling stage Blasting stage Excavating stage
ETime PTime CTime ETime PTime CTime ETime PTime CTime
Mining jobs iThUnit (hours) (hours) (hours) iThUnit (hours) (hours) (hours) iThUnit (hours) (hours) (hours)

J  . . .  . . .  . . .

J  . . .  . . .  . . 4279.6
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE: OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS 65

Table . A high-quality solution of the MPS case study.

Drilling stage Blasting stage Excavating stage
ETime PTime CTime ETime PTime CTime ETime PTime CTime
Mining jobs iThUnit (hours) (hours) (hours) iThUnit (hours) (hours) (hours) iThUnit (hours) (hours) (hours)

J  . . .  . . .  . . .

J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . 2953.4
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .
J  . . .  . . .  . . .

effective manner and rapidly respond to changes at the
mining sites.
3.4. Bottleneck stage improvement
The proposed system is able to identify the bottleneck
stage and quantitatively evaluate the usage of mining
resource units at this stage. The identification of bottle-
neck stage is a useful decision-making tool on whether
the mining industry practitioners need to lease/assign
additional resource units to improve the production effi-
ciency or cut the redundant resource units at some non-
bottleneck stages to reduce the equipment costs. In this
case study, the bottleneck stage is identified as the exca-
vating stage. If the number of available excavators is
increased from 5 to 6, the makespan greatly declines
from 2953.42 hours to 2586.4 hours, implying the effi-
ciency improvement by (2953.4−2586.4)/2953.4 × 100 =
12.43%. As a result, it is concluded that the proposed
methodology can provide quantitative advices on how
to deploy the mining equipment in a better way for
significantly improving the short-term mine production
efficiency.
3.5. Fuel consumption reduction
In the Modular Report (2010), it is reported that ‘the aver-
age fuel consumption rate of a 240-ton mine truck is 75
litres diesel per hour under normal idling engine speed
and nearly doubles to 135 litres diesel per hours under
excessive engine speed’. As the pit’s bench level becomes
deeper and deeper, the materials will have to be hauled
across an increasingly longer distance with steeper gradi-
ent, resulting in considerable energy fuel consumption.
Thus, mining industry practitioners are keen to imple-
ment advanced engineering and management decisions
(i.e. more efficient mine excavator/truck schedule) for the
reduction of energy intensity. In this case study, in com-
parison to the initial random schedule, we analyse that
the obtained optimal MPS schedule could bring around
20 hours less of equipment movement time, which results
in the saving of over 5000 litres diesel in fuel consumption
(Energy Efficiency Opportunities, 2013). Our proposed
MPS model is promising to provide analytical techniques
for improving the energy efficiency in synchronisation of
mining operations.
3.6. Integration benefits
The integration of MDP–MBS–MPS model has bene-
fits for determining the appropriate sizes of mining jobs,
accelerating the process of all operations and increasing
the mining throughput. Our case study shows that a more
efficient schedule is obtained, resulting in a significant
decrease of 205.67 hours on the makespan or the produc-
tion efficiency improvement by 6.96%. This is reflected by
such an interactive mechanism that can mathematically
bridge the gap between the planning and scheduling deci-
sions. In practice, the decision-making process in plan-
ning and scheduling should be interactive. When a tenta-
tive schedule under the current planning information is
unsatisfied, the mine scheduling engineers may adjust the
resource capacities or production targets. However, such
feedbacks between planners and schedulers might be
manually interplayed for several runs. In comparison, the
66 S. Q. LIU AND E. KOZAN
original production targets may be still achieved with less
resource units or the overall mining throughput is fur-
ther improved, because the sizes of mining jobs defined
as decision variables are able to be optimised after the
implementation of the proposed integrated planning–
scheduling model.
4. Conclusion
This paper represents a pioneering work to develop
a whole mining management system by integrating
the strategic-level (long-term) MDP, tactical-level (mid-
term) MBS and operational-level (short-term) MPS mod-
els. With the analysis of many real-life mining constraints
in a consecutive way, a series of CPLEX-solvable mathe-
matical formulation models of MDP, MBS and MPS are
developed and integrated. Such integration was validated
by a real-world case study to bring the following practical
benefits to ore mining industry:
(1) it can provide analytical techniques on how to fur-
ther improve the overall mining efficiency in a
more systematic way;
(2) interaction between mine planning and schedul-
ing engineers is optimised through a mathemati-
cal approach rather than by a traditional manual
way;
(3) more synchronised mining schedules can be
obtained to further improve the production
throughput, because the sizes of aggregates are
defined as decision variables in an integrated way;
and
(4) the operational-level cost can be reduced due to
less idle time or less set-up time of mining equip-
ment units.
Regarding the future work, due to urgent demands,
some new mining jobs may be inserted into a partially-
completed scheduling horizon at a specific time point.
Thus, a reactive and robust rolling-horizon scheduling
methodology will be developed and included in a more
comprehensive system.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the partial support of
CRC ORE, established and supported by the Australian Gov-
ernment’s Cooperative Research Centres Programme.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Shi Qiang (Samuel) Liu is currently a pro-
fessor in the School of Transportation &
Logistics at Southwest Jiaotong University
in China. He is also the Min Jiang Scholar
(the title of a distinguished Adjunct Pro-
fessor) in the School of Economics & Man-
agement at Fuzhou University in China.
He was working in Australia for over 12
years (2005–2017) as a senior research
scientist in CRC ORE (Australian Government’s Cooperative
Research Centre for Optimising Resource Extraction) and a
research fellow in Decision Science Discipline at Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. He was awarded
the PhD degree (in Operations Research) with the Dean’s Award
for Academic Excellence from the School of Mathematical Sci-
ences at Queensland University of Technology in 2009. Due
to his academic contributions, he was awarded the New Out-
standing Researcher Medal by the Australian Society for Oper-
ations Research. He worked as a design engineer and soft-
ware engineer in Singapore for three years (2002–2005). He
obtained the Master degree in Industrial & Systems Engineer-
ing from National University of Singapore (2000–2002). He also
obtained one Master degree (in Engineering Thermophysics)
and two Bachelor degrees (in Thermal Engineering and Eco-
nomics) from Harbin Institute of Technology (one of top 9
universities in China) in six years (1993–1999). He has over
40 refereed papers, most of which were published in lead-
ing SCI-indexed journals including Transportation Science (the
foremost journal in Transportation), Decision Support Systems,
International Journal of Production Economics, Expert Systems
with Applications, Computers & Operations Research, Comput-
ers & Industrial Engineering, Journal of Heuristics, Engineer-
ing Optimisation, Journal of the Operational Research Society,
Flexible Services & Manufacturing Journal, Optimisation Let-
ters, Advances in Engineering Software, Asia-Pacific Journal of
Operational Research, etc. He has solid background in oper-
ations research, decision science, combinatorial optimisation,
train scheduling, machine scheduling, mine scheduling, hospi-
tal scheduling, robotics scheduling, network flow algorithms,
and metaheuristics.
Erhan Kozan is an adjunct professor of
operations research in the School of Math-
ematical Science, Queensland University
of Technology and an honorary professor
in the Sustainable Minerals Institute, Uni-
versity of Queensland, Australia. He has
had over 40 years industrial, managerial,
teaching, and research experience in the
areas of operations research. He has acted
as a principal investigator for over 20 competitive national and
international research grants since 1996 in the area of health,
finance, mining, car and truck production, railways, seaports
transportation, logistics, and supply chain. He is the author of
a book, ten software and over 200 refereed papers, most of
which were published in leading SCI-indexed journals. He is
the editor/associate editor of five journals and works as a ref-
eree of over 40 international journals. He has supervised over
35 postgraduate research students. He is the former president of
the Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Soci-
ety (APIEMS) and Australian Society for Operations Research
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS SCIENCE: OPERATIONS & LOGISTICS 67

(ASOR). He is an expert in disciplinary research across decision Kozan, E., & Liu, S. Q. (2012). A demand-responsive decision
science and scheduling theory. His current research focuses on support system for coal transportation. Decision Support
the area of healthcare process optimisation, train scheduling, Systems, 54(1), 665–680.
and mine optimisation Kozan, E., & Liu, S. Q. (2016a). A new open-pit multi-stage
mine production timetabling model for drilling, blasting
and excavating operations. Mining Technology, 125(1), 47–
53.
ORCID
Kozan, E., & Liu, S. Q. (2016b). An operational-level multi-stage
Shi Qiang Liu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2370-5519 mine production timetabling model for optimally synchro-
Erhan Kozan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3208-702X nising drilling, blasting and excavating operations. Interna-
tional Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 1–
18. doi:10.1080/17480930.2016.1160818
Kozan, E., Liu, S. Q., & Wolff, R. (2013). A short-term produc-
References tion scheduling methodology for open-pit mines. In Inter-
national Symposium on the 36th Applications of Computers
Bley, A., Boland, N., Fricke, C., & Froyland, G. (2010). A
and Operations Research in the Mineral Industry (the 36th
strengthened formulation and cutting planes for the open
APCOM), Brazil (pp. 465–473). Porto Alegre, Brazil: Fun-
pit mine production scheduling problem. Computers &
dacao Luiz Englert.
Operations Research, 37, 1641–1647.
Kumral, M., & Dowd, P. A. (2005). A simulated annealing
Boland, N., Dumitrescu, I., Froyland, G., & Gleixner, A. M.
approach to mine production scheduling. Journal of the
(2009). LP-based disaggregation approaches to solving the
Operational Research Society, 56, 922–930.
open pit mining production scheduling problem with block
Lamghari, A., Dimitrakopoulos, R., & Ferland, J. A. (2015).
processing selectivity. Computers & Operations Research,
A hybrid method based on linear programming and vari-
36, 1064–1089.
able neighborhood descent for scheduling production in
Caccetta, L., & Giannini, L. M. (1988). An application of dis-
open-pit mines. Journal of Global Optimization, 63(3), 555–
crete mathematics in the design of an open pit mine. Dis-
582.
crete Applied Mathematics, 21, 1–19.
Lerchs, H., & Grossmann, I. F. (1965). Optimum design of
Caccetta, L., & Hill, S. P. (2003). An application of branch and
open-pit mines. Transactions on CIM, LXVIII, 17–24.
cut to open pit mine scheduling. Journal of Global Opti-
Liu, S. Q., & Kozan, E. (2009). Scheduling a flow shop with com-
mization, 27, 349–365.
bined buffer conditions. International Journal of Production
Chicoisne, R., Espinoza, D., Goycoolea, M., Moreno, E., &
Economics, 117(2), 371–380.
Rubio, E. (2012). A new algorithm for the open-pit
Liu, S. Q., & Kozan, E. (2011). Scheduling trains with priori-
mine production scheduling problem. Operations Research,
ties: a no-wait blocking parallel-machine job-shop schedul-
60(3), 517–528.
ing model. Transportation Science, 45(2), 175–198.
Cullenbine, C., Wood, R. K., & Newman, A. (2011). A sliding
Liu, S. Q., & Kozan, E. (2012a). An interactive planning
time window heuristic for open pit mine block sequencing.
and scheduling framework for optimising pits-to-crushers
Optimization Letters, 5(3), 365–377.
operations. Industrial Engineering and Management Sys-
Energy Efficiency Opportunities: Analyses of diesel use for
tems, 11(1), 94–102.
mine haul and transport operations. (2013). Department
Liu, S. Q., & Kozan, E. (2012b). A hybrid shifting bottleneck
of resources, energy and tourism, Australian government,
procedure algorithm for the parallel-machine job-shop
public report.
scheduling problem. Journal of the Operational Research
Espinoza, D., Goycoolea, M., Moreno, E., & Newman,
Society, 63, 168–182.
A. (2013). MineLib: a library of open pit mining
Liu, S. Q., & Kozan, E. (2016a). New graph-based algorithms
problems. Annals of Operations Research, 206(1), 93–
to efficiently solve large scale open pit mining optimisation
114.
problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 43, 59–65.
Ferland, J. A., Amaya, J., & Djuimo, M. S. (2007). Application
Liu, S. Q., & Kozan, E. (2016b). Parallel-identical-machine job-
of a particle swarm algorithm to the capacitated open pit
shop scheduling with different stage-dependent buffering
mining problem. In S. C. Mukhopadhyay & G. S. Gupta
requirements. Computers & Operations Research, 74, 31–
(Eds.), Autonomous Robots and Agents. Studies in Computa-
41.
tional Intelligence (Vol. 76, pp. 127–133). Berlin, Heidelberg:
Liu, S. Q., & Kozan, E. (2017). A hybrid metaheuristic algorithm
Springer.
to optimise a real-word robotic cell. Computers & Opera-
Hochbaum, D. S., & Chen, A. (2000). Performance analysis and
tions Research, 84, 188–194.
best implementations of old and new algorithms for the
Modular Report. (2010). Reduce haul truck fuel consumption
open-pit mining problem. Operations Research, 48(6), 894–
(Working Paper No.). Brazil: Modular Mining Systems.
914.
Mousavi, A., Kozan, E., & Liu, S. Q. (2016a). Open-pit block
IBM. (2012). IBM ILOG CPLEX optimization studio 12.4:
sequencing optimization : a mathematical model and solu-
optimization model development toolkit for mathematical
tion technique. Engineering Optimization, 48(11), 1932–
and constraint programming. Retrieved from https://www-
1950. doi:10.1080/0305215X.2016.1142080
01.ibm.com/software/websphere/products/optimization/
Mousavi, A., Kozan, E., & Liu, S. Q. (2016b). Comparative
cplex-studio-community-edition/.
analysis of three metaheuristics for short-term open pit
Kozan, E., & Liu, S. Q. (2011). Operations research for mining:
block sequencing. Journal of Heuristics, 22(3), 301–329.
a classification and literature review. ASOR Bulletin, 30(1),
doi:10.1007/s10732-016-9311-z
2–23.
 68 S. Q. LIU AND E. KOZAN
Myburgh, C., & Deb, K. (2010). Evolutionary algorithms in
large-scale open pit mine scheduling. In the Proceedings of
the 12th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary
computation (pp. 1155–1162), Portland, Oregon, USA.
Newman, A. M., Rubio, E., & Weintraub, R. C. A. (2010). A
review of operations research in mine planning. Interfaces,
40(3), 222–245.
Pan, C. H. (1997). A study of integer programming formula-
tions for scheduling problems. International Journal of Sys-
tems Science, 28(1), 33–41.
Ramazan, S. (2007). The new fundamental tree algorithm for
production scheduling of open pit mines. European Journal
of Operational Research, 177, 1153–1166.
View publication stats
Topal, E., & Ramazan, S. (2012). Strategic mine planning model
using network flow model and real case application. Inter-
national Journal of Mining, Reclamation and Environment,
26, 29–37.
Underwood, R., & Tolwinski, B. (1998). A mathematical pro-
gramming viewpoint for solving the ultimate pit prob-
lem. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(1),
96–107.
Wetherelt, A., & Van Der Wielen, K. P. (2011). Introduction to
open-pit mining. In P. Darling (Ed.), SME mining engineer-
ing handbook 3rd version (pp. 857–876). Englewood, CO:
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration.