APPLICATION ASPECTS OF GEOSTATISTICS

Dr. B C Sarkar
Professor (HAG), Department of Applied Geology
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad

INFLUENCE OF NUGGET EFFECT ON KRIGING WEIGHTS

59
NEGATIVE KRIGING WEIGHTS
Negative weights are a peculiarity of certain data geometries of kriging systems combined with a high
degree of continuity (including a low to negligible nugget effect) in the semi-variogram model. They
are acceptable in estimations involving some data types. With topographic data, for example, negative
weights permit values that are outside the limits of the data used to make an estimate. However, with
assay data, in some cases they can lead to enormous estimation errors, particularly when relatively few
data are involved in an estimate. Negative weights create problems that can be illustrated by several
simple examples, as follow:
Example 1: Consider a block to be estimated by four data, one of which is one-third the average grade
of the others and has a weight of −0.1. Consequently, the sum of all the other weights is 1.1. Assuming
grades of 1 and 3 g/t, the average grade estimated is (−0.1 × 1) + (1.1 × 3) = 3.2 g/t, a value that is
higher than any of the data used in making the estimate. A negative weight on a low grade leads to an
overestimate.
Example 2: Consider a block to be estimated by four data, one of which is three times the other three
data and has a weight of −0.1. Consequently, the sum of all the other weights is 1.1. Assuming grades
of 1 and 3 g/t, the average grade estimated is (−0.1 × 3) + (1.1 × 1) = 0.8 g/t, a value that is less than
any of the data used in making the estimate. A negative weight on a high grade leads to an
underestimate.
Example 3: Assume the situation of Example 2, except that the negative weight applies to an outlier
grade of 75 g/t. Hence, the average grade estimated is (−0.1 × 75) + (1.1 × 1) = −6.4 g/t, an impossible
negative grade!
Example 4: Assume the situation of Example 3 except that the negative weight that applies to the
outlier is very small, for example, −0.01. Hence, the average grade estimated is (−0.01 × 75) + (1.01 ×
1) = 0.26 g/t. This low positive result could send a block of ore to waste!
It is evident from the foregoing examples that negative weights can be a serious problem. Of course,
the problems illustrated are alleviated if: (i) outliers are dealt with separately in the estimation
procedure; and (ii) negative weights are much smaller in absolute value than are those in the examples
cited. However, even small negative or positive weights present a serious estimation problem if applied
to outlier values. Negative weights resulting from kriging occur in specific situation that can generally
be avoided or the effects minimized by certain precautionary moves:
(i) Ensure that the data in the search volume are not screened by other data that are nearer the
block/point being estimated;
(ii) Use the method of positive kriging;
(iii) Check for negative weights following an initial kriging, reject those data with negative weights
and re-kriging the remaining data; and
(iv) As a safeguard, deal with outliers separately as even small negative weights applied to outlier
values can produce extreme estimates and in some cases even negative grade values.

60
(i) a1 + a2 +a3 = 1.1; a4 = - 0.1
a1 + a2 +a3 + a4 = 1;
g1 = g2 = g3 = 3 g/t; g4 = 1 g/t
G* = Σai gi = (- 0.1 x 1) + (1.1 x 3) = 3.2 g/t
A negative weight on a low grade leads to overestimation.

(ii) a1 + a2 + a3 = 1.1; a4 = - 0.1

a1 + a2 +a3 + a4 = 1;
g1 = g2 = g3 = 1 g/t; g4 = 3 g/t
G* = Σai gi = (-0.1 x 3) + (1.1 x 1) = 0.8 g/t
A negative weight on a high grade leads to underestimation.

(iii) a1 + a2 + a3 = 1.1; a4 = - 0.1

a1 + a2 +a3 + a4 = 1;
g1 = g2 = g3 = 1 g/t; g4 = 75 g/t
G* = Σai gi = (-0.1 x75) + (1.1 x 1) = - 6.4 g/t
An impossible negative grade.

(iv) a1 + a2 + a3 = 1.01; a4 = - 0.01

a1 + a2 +a3 + a4 = 1;
g1 = g2 = g3 = 1 g/t; g4 = 75 g/t
G* = Σai gi = (-0.01 x75) + (1.01 x 1) = 0.26 g/t
This low positive result could send a block of ore as waste.

61
PRACTICE OF SEMI-VARIOGRAM MODELLING
The behaviour at the origin for both nugget effect and slope plays a crucial role in fitting of a model to
an experimental semi-variogram. While the slope can be assessed from the first three or four semi-
variogram values, the nugget effect can be estimated by extrapolating back to the (h) axis. The choice
of nugget effect is extremely important since it has a very marked effect on kriging weights and in turn
on kriging variance. There are, at present, three methods for model fitting which are described below.
(i) Hand fit method

The sill (Co+C) is set at the value where experimental semi-variogram stabilizes. In theory, this should
coincide with the statistical variance. Estimate of nugget effect is achieved by joining the first three or
four semi-variogram values and projecting this line to the (h) axis. By projecting the same line until it
intercepts the sill provides 2/3rd the range. Using the estimates of Co, C and ‘a’, calculate a few points
and examine if the model curve fits the experimental semi-variogram (Fig. 5).
(h)

C
C0+C=S2

C0
h

(2/3)a a

Fig. 5. Semi-variogram modelling by Hand Fit method.

Although this method is straight forward and simple to practice, there is an element of subjectivity
involved in the estimation of model parameters.
(ii) Non-linear least squares fit method
Like any curve fitting technique, this method uses the principle of polynomial fit by least squares to fit
a model with sum of the deviations squared of the estimated values from the real values being minimum.
Unfortunately, polynomials obtained by least squares do not guarantee the positive definite function
(otherwise semi-variance could turn out to be negative).
(iii) Point Kriging Cross-Validation Method
Point kriging cross-validation (PKCV) is a technique referred to by Davis and Borgman (1979) as a
procedure for checking the validity of a mathematical model fitted to an experimental semi-variogram
that controls the kriging estimation.

62
The principle underlying the technique is as follows:
‘ ............ a sample point is chosen in turn on the sample grid that has a real value. The real value is
temporarily deleted from the data set and the sample value is kriged using the neighbouring sample
values confined within its radius of search. The error between the estimated value and the real value
is calculated. The kriging process is then repeated for rest of the known data points’ (David, 1977).
A crude semi-variogram model is initially fitted by visual inspection to the experimental semi-
variogram. Estimates of the initial sets of semi-variogram parameters (viz., Co, C and ‘a’) are made
from the initial model and cross-validated through point kriging empirically. The error statistics such
as mean error, mean variance of errors and mean kriging variance are then computed. The model
parametes are varied and adjusted until: (i) a ratio of mean variance of the errors (estimation variance)
to mean kriging variance approximating to unity (in practice, a value of 1  0.05 has been observed to
be the acceptable limits); (ii) a mean difference between sample values and estimated values close to
zero; and (iii) an adequate graphical fit to the experimental semi-variogram are achieved. For a good
estimate, most of the individual errors should also be close to zero (David, 1977). A model
approximated or fitted by this approach eliminates subjectivity.
PRACTICE OF KRIGING
Once the model semi-variogram parameters characterizing all information about the expected sample
variability are defined, the subsequent step involves estimation of block values together with their
associated variances through kriging. At this stage, a homogeneous mineralised zone is considered and
sliced into a number of regularly spaced horizontal sections by projecting sample data from various
transverse and longitudinal sections. Mineralized boundaries are then delineated on each of the
horizontal sections based on geological and mining considerations.
The spacing of horizontal cross-sections is manipulated from constant length at which drill hole
samples are composited, generally equaling bench height (in the case of an open pit) or vertical lift (in
the case of an underground operation). This involves minimum projection of sample data from
transverse and longitudinal sections onto horizontal sections. Each of the horizontal sections
(hereinafter termed horizontal slices), with a mineralised boundary delineated on them, is divided into
smaller grids equaling the size of a block.
Decision on the choice of a block size, or in other words, a selective mining unit (SMU) is generally
influenced by several factors (Johnson, 1969; David, 1977) such as sampling density, geological
structure, precision of sample data, method of mining, equipment capabilities, production target,
desired use of block, and capability of manipulating a huge number of blocks. Ideally, height of a block
should usually be taken as that of the proposed bench height or vertical lift, since this is the way it
would be mined. The other two dimensions should equal at least a quarter of the average drill spacing
(David, 1977). Daily production target is another important contributory factor, since the choice of an
equipment depends on the tonnage of material it can handle.
The individual slices, when divided into smaller grids based on SMU, form a set of X (Easting) and Y
(Northing) arrays of blocks with constant Z (Elevation) value. The arrays of blocks are then kriged slice
by slice producing kriged estimate and kriging variance for each of them and also a slice average. The
technique adopted for 3D block kriging (Sarkar et al., 1988) within a delineated mineralised boundary
entails (i) computation of average variability of samples contained within the block dimension, i.e. the
estimation variance; (ii) selection of nearest samples lying within the radius of search; (iii)

63
establishment of kriging matrices involving setting up of a semi-variance matrix that contain expected
variabilities between each of the nearest surrounding sample values and themselves, and setting up of
a matrix that contain the average variabilities between each of the nearest surrounding sample values
and block centre; (iv) establishment of kriging coefficient matrix; and (v) multiplication of kriging
coefficients by their respective sample values to provide kriged estimates. The kriging variance is
calculated from the sum of the products of the weight coefficients and their respective sample-block
variances. An extra constant, the lagrange multiplier is added to minimise the kriging variance. The
following input parameters are found to be adequate for block kriging :
(i) a minimum of 4 samples (because of the minimum necessity to define a surface) and a
maximum of 16 samples (because of reasonable computational time and cost) with at least one
sample in each quadrant (or one sample in each alternate octant) to krige a block;
(ii) radius of search for sample points around a block centre to be within two-third to full range of
influence.
Individual slice averages are then further averaged to produce a mean kriged estimate and a mean
kriging variance in order to provide global estimates. The 95% geostatistical confidence limits are
calculated as :
m  1.96 . 2k , ; where, m = mean kriged estimate; 2k = mean kriging variance.
GENERALIZED GEOSTATISTICAL STUDY

In summary, a geostatistical study entails the following steps:

 Stratification or splitting of mineralization into more homogenous domains;
 Compositing of sample values within each geologically homogenous zone;
 Frequency distribution analysis of the composite sample values;
 Validation of the hypothesis of one population (i.e statistically a single mode) through classical
statistical modelling;
 Geostatistical structural/spatial analysis of each zone individually by constructing experimental
semi-variograms at least along four principal directions (one along strike, one across strike and
two along oblique to strike directions of mineralization);
 Detecting presence of geostatistical anisotropy and trend, if any;
 Semi-variogram model fitting and establishment of semi-variogram model parameters;
 Delineation of mineralized boundary on horizontal slices;
 Decision on the choice of a block size;
 Kriging of small blocks within the limits of mineralized boundary slice by slice;
 Compilation of kriged outputs in 3-dimensions by stacking each of the slices with regularly
spaced blocks, one below the other, from top to bottom to produce a mineral inventory;
 Establishment of grade-tonnage relations at various hypothetical cutoff values by step-wise
integration of block frequency curve over a range of values (grades) to provide a basis for
choosing an optimum cutoff value (grade) and then estimating reserves from the mineral
inventory by applying appropriate cutoff criteria;
 On compilation of these steps, block estimates are displayed, assessed visually and a
comparison of block, sample composite and individual sample values is then made for a
reconciliation of the results. Only when the reconciliation process is complete to the satisfaction

64
 of all concerned, will the estimation of block values be accepted and used for follow-up
decisions.

MINERAL INVENTORY
Each of the slices with regularly spaced kriged blocks is then stacked one below the other from top to
bottom thereby giving a 3D array of blocks distributed regularly in space with their kriged mean (KM)
and kriging variance (KV) and tonnages per block obtained by multiplying the block dimensions by
bulk density of mineral. Such a 3D network of blocks is known as the mineral inventory which provides
the in situ stock of mineral.
GRADE-TONNAGE RELATIONS
Once a mineral inventory is developed, the next step of the integrated evaluation is to produce a series
of grade-tonnage estimates at various hypothetical cutoff grades. Generally, a greater tonnage is
associated with a relatively low grade. Progressively higher grades may be worked out by increasing
the degree of selectivity in mining and thus reducing the tonnage. This is known as grade-tonnage
relation. A simple numerical approach is to model the relation statistically. The method involves a step-
wise integration of the block grade frequency curve over a range of grades and calculates (i) quantity
of ore, metal and waste; (ii) average grade of ore and waste; and (iii) waste-to-ore ratio. Plots of these
relations provide grade-tonnage curves. These curves together with the mineral inventory provide a
sound basis for mine decisions.
Grade-Tonnage Calculations
Assume a total tonnage of ore (to) = 40 mt; Block Dimensions = 100m x 100m x 50m
Total no. of Blocks = 20; Av. Bulk Density = 4 t/m3

Grades No. of Class Expectancy CE ExA C(E x C/O Av ro W/O rm

(C.I) Blocks Average (E=f/n) (High A) (%) Grade, (mt) ratio (mt)
% (f) (A) to (High to g (%)
Low) Low)
52-54 2 53 2/20=0.10 1.00 5.30 57.90 52 57.90 40 0.00 23.16
54-56 3 55 3/20=0.15 0.90 8.25 52.60 54 58.44 36 0.11 21.03
56-58 6 57 6/20=0.30 0.75 17.10 44.35 56 59.13 30 0.33 17.73
58-60 4 59 4/20=0.20 0.45 11.80 27.25 58 60.56 18 1.22 10.90
60-62 3 61 3/20=0.15 0.25 9.15 15.45 60 61.80 10 3.00 6.18
62-64 2 63 2/20=0.10 0.10 6.30 6.30 62 63.00 4 9.00 2.52
Sum=20 Sum=1.00 Sum=
57.90
CE: Cumulative Expectancy; C(ExA): Cumulative product of Expectancy and Class Average
Average Grade,g = C(ExA)/CE; Tonnage of ore at a cutoff (C/O) grade, ro = to x CE; Tonnage of metal
at a cutoff grade, rm = ro x (go/100); Waste to Ore ratio, W/O = (to – ro) / ro.

65
EXAMPLE TO CALCULATE PLANNING CUTOFF GRADE

A massive lead-zinc deposit has been geostatistically evaluated which would be mined employing an
underground method. A mineral inventory has been developed for the deposit showing block tonnages,
grades and variances. From the mineral inventory, combined Pb+Zn grades have been taled in
categories as given below:
% Pb+Zn in Average Tonnage in
Grade category grade (%) in category (mt)
category
0.00 – 05.00 2.5 5.0
05.00 – 07.00 6.0 4.0
07.00 – 09.00 8.0 5.0
09.00 – 11.00 10.0 6.0
11.00 – 13.00 12.0 8.0
13.00 – 15.00 14.0 10.0
15.00 – 25.00 20.0 45.0
‘

Ratio of Pb:Zn is estimated at 2:3. A preliminary investigation into mining, processing and smelting
resulted in following:
(i) Underground dilution of ore reserve = 20%
(ii) Recovery of metal from run-of-mine (ROM) ore = 80%
(iii) Overall cost per tonne of run-of-mine (ROM) ore = Rs 32,000/-
(iv) Estimated price of Lead per tonne = Rs. 375,000/-
(v) Estimated price of Zinc per tonne = Rs. 750,000/-
(a) Calculate a cutoff grade based on the given information;
(b) Estimate the grade and tonnage of ore that could be available for mining.
Solution:
(i) Market price of 1 tonne of metal = Rs (0.4 x 375,000 + 0.6 x 750,000)
= Rs (150,000 + 45,000) = Rs 600,000

(ii) Cost to produce 1 tonne of ore with 20% dilution = Rs (32,000 x 1.2, where [1.2=1+(20/100)]
Following metal to ore tonnage relation: tm = to x (go / 100) x ro,
where, tm = tonnage of metal; to = tonnes of ore; go = working grade of ore; ro = ore recovery

Equating with unit cost:

Rs (32,000 x 1.2) x to = Rs 600,000 x to x (go/100) x ro
or, Rs (32,000 x 1.2) = Rs 600,000 x (go/100) x 0.8
or, Rs 38,400 = Rs 6000 x go x 0.8
or, go = (38,400 / (6000 x 0.8)) = 8%

Hence, the required cutoff grade is 8%

66
 (iii) Block Dimension = 100m x 100m x 25m; Av. Bulk Density = 4.0 t/m3
Tonnes in each category = Block Dimensions x No. of Blocks x Av. Bulk Density

% Pb+Zn Av. No. of Tonne Pb+Zn (Kt) C/O Ore Pb+Zn W/O Av
in Grade Gr. Block s (mt) (%) Reserve (Kt) ratio Grade, g
category (f) above above (%)
C/O C/O
0.0 – 5.0 2.5 5 5.0 125 0.0 83.0 12725 0.00 15.33
5.0 – 7.0 6.0 4 4.0 240 5.0 78.0 12600 0.06 16.15
7.0 – 9.0 8.0 5 5.0 400 7.0 74.0 12360 0.12 16.70
9.0–11.0 10.0 6 6.0 600 9.0 69.0 11960 0.20 17.33
11.0– 13.0 12.0 8 8.0 960 11.0 63.0 11360 0.32 18.03
13.0– 15.0 14.0 10 10.0 1400 13.0 55.0 10400 0.51 18.91
15.0– 25.0 20.0 45 45.0 9000 15.0 45.0 9000 0.84 20.00
Sum= Sum=12725 tm = (to x go) / 100
83

GEOSTATISTICAL OPTIMISATION OF DRILLING PROGRAMME

Drilling is carried out to gather information on the nature and extent of the orebody below the surface.
In the initial stage of mineral exploration campaign, few test drilling is carried out to intersect any
possible mineralization. Based on the results obtained from these few test drill holes, a scheme for drill
holes at wide intervals covering a limited horizontal and vertical extent is formulated. In the subsequent
phases of exploration, wide intervals are in-filled at a closer interval. At the end of each phase, a broad
assessment of tonnage and grade is carried out. The question is how close the drill spacing should be,
or in other words what should be the optimum drilling pattern? Geostatistics is able to answer this
question. The factors controlling the computation of kriging variance are:
 Characteristics of mineralisation as represented by semi-variogram;
 Size and shape of a block being estimated;
 Total number of samples used;
 Relative position of samples with respect to each other as well as with respect to the block; and
 Estimation method used.
Kriging variance does not depend on sample values although sample values do enter in computation of
block grade estimate. This is why it is possible to use kriging variance information in developing an
optimal drilling strategy, once the semi-variogram parameters are known from the model that is
developed on the basis of available sample values. In other words, it is possible to determine, a priori,
the impact of placing one or more additional drill hole on the overall estimate, i.e. how much reduction
is possible in the confidence limits of the overall estimate. One can also predict future drilling to
determine not only the additional number of holes required achieving a certain desired confidence level
but also select the particular locations of these holes during the global reserve estimation stage.

67
Table 1 Relationship of Kriging Variance with Number of drill holes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group No. Additional Mean Kriging Overall % Incremental %
no. of drill variance (KV) reduction in KV reduction per
holes (n) (%)2 from base case hole
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base case 0 1.0623 0.00 0.00
1 7 0.9085 14.48 2.07
2 12 0.7941 25.25 2.15
3 17 0.7138 32.81 1.51
4 22 0.6461 39.18 1.27
5 25 0.6359 40.14 0.32
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mean kriging variance is for the average thickness of seam for a coal deposit. The deposit covers
an area of approx. 89 km2 and there were altogether 123 drill holes within the deposit, generally spaced
at 600 to 1200 metre apart, prior to the additional drilling. As can be observed from Table 1 that
additional drilling of 22 holes would meet the requirement of optimal drilling strategy. However, if the
cost of exploration is also considered, then one can determine when to stop drilling based on the benefit-
cost consideration of marginal improvement in information versus marginal cost of drilling an
additional hole.
MISCLASSIFIED TONNAGES – ACTUAL VS. ESTIMATED
Actual block values

I
III ORE MINED
ORE LEFT AS ORE
AS WASTE

2%
II IV
WASTE LEFT WASTE MINED
AS WASTE AS ORE

2% Estimated block values

Fig. 6 Plot showing the relation between estimated and actual block values.

If we were able to obtain a set of true grade (e.g. blast hole grade) for a number of ore blocks at a
defined block size and we were to compare them with the expected grades obtained by any estimation
method, we would certainly find some blocks over-estimated, while others under-estimated by their
expected grades. This is what is known as Misclassified tonnage. If we plot these grades i.e. actual Vs.

68
estimated, we obtain a scatter diagram as shown in Fig. 6. Ideally, if the sampling method and the
subsequent estimation is unbiased then the relationship between two sets of values should be linear
with unit gradient and zero intercept. In practice, there is always some bias present but one can, by
carefully treating the sample grades and using optimisation technique (i.e. minimum variance
condition), reduce the misclassified blocks to minimal proportions.
It is observed that the scattering of the blocks follow an elliptical shape. Now if we apply a cutoff grade,
we observe four possible outcomes:

Zone I Ore correctly classified as ore,

Zone II Waste correctly classified as waste,
Zone III Actual ore misclassified as waste,
Zone IV Actual waste misclassified as ore.
Let us be clear that this would happen in any selective mining situation (and almost all are)
irrespective of any estimation procedure and whatever steps are taken to minimise the occurrence of
the zones III and IV outcomes. After all, an estimate is an expected value of the real value and can
never be the same otherwise the word ‘estimate’ would not exist. So, our interest should be to minimise
the proportion of blocks falling into III and IV zones of the diagram and to know their magnitude than
to hope it will not occur. Kriging based on the minimum variance condition is able to minimise this
variation between the actual and estimated grades.
The effect of the two above forms of misclassification are different. Waste that is misclassified as ore
dilutes the run-of-mine ore and makes the production grade to be lower than the expected grade (this is
one of the principal cause of mine/mill discrepancies). The effect is short term, and immediately affects
the balance between cost and reward. On the other hand, ore which is misclassified as waste is quite
different. This represents a loss of reserve and only affects the long term value of the property and the
efficiency in use of the resource.
Clearly, if we can predict the form of this zone of uncertainty we can both predict what would be the
expected grade mined more accurately and measure the effectiveness of steps taken to reduce the
misclassification. Incidentally, we never know the actual grades unless it is mined and so we cannot
plot the diagram. But we can approach it by trial mining, and this is one of the reasons for carrying out
such a programme as an integral part of an ore evaluation.
If we reduce the cutoff grade, the working grade decreases and the misclassification is decreased. On
the other hand, if we raise the cutoff grade, we raise the working grade and the proportion of
misclassification also increases. Hence, lowering or raising the cutoff grade does not solve the problem
of misclassification.
Possible Solutions:
(i) Decrease the spread of ellipse by using a geostatistical method;
(ii) Carry out a judicious sampling – the sample team should know the objective of collecting
samples; and
(iii) Analytical results should be cross checked very frequently to detect any assaying error.
Geostatistical Approach to Grade Control
Grade is a term used in mining industry for that property of rock to designate the amount and quality
of the potentially valuable minerals contained within it. The term is used in various ways and the usages
are by no means universal in the industry. In simple situations, grade may be thought of as a single

69
value of proportion, e.g. in a gold mine, the grade of ore may be expressed simply as weight proportion
of gold in rocks in gram/tonne. By contrast, in an iron ore mine, grade may involve not only the
proportion of iron ore minerals in the rocks, but also the content of silica, alumina, sulphur,
phosphorous, moisture content etc in the rocks. The term ‘grade’ in this situation of mining refers to
the magnitude of vector of parameters which taken together indicate the amount and qualities of the
desired minerals to assess the value of the rock in ground. While the grade of ore which if worked,
would allow a mining operation to meet its economic objectives is referred to as Target Grade, the
grade of a block of rock arrived at by computations made on the sample values is referred to as Expected
Grade.
Thus, grade is a term designated to the quality of the potentially valuable minerals contained within a
mineral deposit. Most mines provide a feed stock to some processing facilities. Such plants would only
operate efficiently on materials, the quality of which vary within controlled pre-defined limits. Grade
Control is a process that integrates the geological properties of a mineral deposit with the mining plan
and fulfils the objectives of providing the process plant or customer with material within its tolerable
limits of design specification and of responding to changes in economic conditions. It is a vital part of
the operating management of a mine. The operation is so controlled that ores of differing expected
grade are mined and combined to yield a product with an actual grade within the tolerable limits of the
target working grade. If a flotation plant is set up to process 10,000 TPD of 3% chalcopyrite, it usually
does no good to feed 10,000 tonnes of a 2.5% chalcopyrite one day and 10,000 tonnes of 3.5%
chalcopyrite the next day.
Mine and Plant Design Aspects of Grade Control
Any mining layout would consider certain size of ore block at which a practical distinction can be made
between ore and waste. This is called the minimum grade control block size. With the selection of a
method of mining and purchase of equipment, the grade control block size is usually fixed or varied
within narrow limits. In open-pit mining, it is the size of equipment that determines the bench height
and the width is decided by the safe slope, so that the grade control block size is represented by a
dimension along the bench at which it is feasible to change one’s mind and send the broken ore either
to the crusher or to the dump. An essential requisite to any grade control plan is to determine first the
minimum practical grade control block size and then design the mining method and select the
equipment accordingly. Once a broad outline of a method of mining has been made (or at least a small
number of alternatives chosen), the three critical aspects as far as grade control is concerned are:
(i) The selection of the number of faces and productive capacities that would be working
at any one time;
(ii) The transport system and the degree of mixing that would take place in the blending
yards, stockpiles, ore bins etc.;
(iii) The tolerance of the process plant and/or the customer to variation in grade of the
product.
In general, this means working out a series of compromises between the properties of a deposit and of
the engineering design. In so far as the process plant is concerned, those in charge of grade control
planning need to know the extent of the tolerable variations around the design average and over what
time scale this variation is important. Feed stock and product quality variations can be reduced by
blending, but large storage bins and blending yards add to overall cost. The important aspect of mine
configuration and equipment in a grade control plan is the number of faces that can produce ore at any

70
one time. Larger the number of producing faces, the greater will be the flexibility of controlling grade
variation. But for a given rate of production, a large number of producing faces would require large
numbers of smaller machines, more manpower and would lead to a higher unit cost. On the other hand,
as the number of producing faces becomes smaller, one looses the flexibility to mix ore of different
grades and the risk of grade variation thus becomes higher. In order to control grade variation, the aim
is then to determine an optimum number of producing faces that would enable the expected grade to
be maintained by mixing high and low grade ore at the lowest unit operating cost. Alternatively, for
mining a highly variable ore one could use large equipment and accept wide variations in run-off-mine
grade, and employ a blending process ahead of process plant.
The usual method of grade control is as follows. Given ‘n’ working faces with expected grades g1, g2,
g3………..gn, a vector of tonnages t1, t2, t3………tn is found out such that:
n
 ti = T (1)
i1

1 n
 gi ti = G
T i1
(2)

where, T is the required production for a period (day, shift etc.) and G is the required grade. Clearly,
the larger the number of producing faces, the more vectors ti can exist that satisfy equations (1) and (2)
above. But with more producing faces one needs more equipment, a larger workforce and a more
complex transport system, all of which combine to increase unit costs. The number of vectors ti required
is largely controlled by the variability of grade at the grade control block size. The vector of face
tonnage ti may be found out through linear programming by defining the problem as an objective
function on the basis of maximizing profit or some other management objective subject to a series of
constraints, stated as a set of linear equations. The constraints are the limitation of productive capacity
of the faces, the feed grade requirements of the process plant (or customer), the grades at the available
faces among several other things.
Selective Mining and Uncertainty
In almost all but the simplest mineral deposits, the expected grade as a geological entity is less than the
optimum working grade of the mine and thus, some degree of selective mining becomes necessary.
This is achieved by choosing a so called cutoff grade such that all material above it when mixed together
has an expected grade equal to the working grade. By definition, cutoff grade is the grade threshold
that distinguishes ore from waste. Grade control in operating mines is the day-to-day discrimination of
mined material into categories of ore and waste with respect to a cutoff grade. It is thus important to
understand the way cutoff grade can affect the working grade that is caused by the uncertainty
associated with the expected grade. Because of this uncertainty, during grade control operation some
ore blocks are misclassified as waste while some waste blocks as ore.
Aspect of Geological Properties
The geological factors that are required for making a grade control plan include:
(i) The classification of a deposit into a type of mineralisation;
(ii) The statistical frequency distribution of grade at the grade control block size;
(iii) The reserve/grade relationship;
(iv) The uncertainty of block grade estimates;

71
 (v) The natural variation of grade at the scale of mining.
Of these, the first two can be obtained from geological and exploration data, but the remaining ones
can only be obtained from workings at a more detailed scale than is necessary from exploration and is
most appropriately achieved via a bulk sampling and a trial mining programme. If carried out properly
the bulk sampling programme and trial mining would enable the uncertainty of grade estimates to be
measured from a comparison of the classical sampling results to the pilot mill returns. The natural
variation at the scale of mining can be determined from a semi-variogram computed on the bulk
sampling results. Comparison of the classical sampling methods with bulk sampling results would
enable the most cost effective method to be chosen for use during production.
Geostatistical Approach to Grade Control
A grade control plan in modern mining operation integrates the geological properties of a mineral
deposit with the mining plan in a way that the horizontal and vertical variability of grade can be
controlled at the scale of mining. The aim of such a plan is to determine an optimum number of
producing faces that would enable the expected grade to be maintained by mixing high and low grade
ore at the lowest unit operating cost. An essential requisite to this is the construction of an orebody
model at grade control block size to which it is practical to assign grade, tonnage and other geologic
values. Parameters used in determining the grade control block size include, among many, grade
variability, geologic continuity, machine-time capabilities, slope stability, and production rate. The idea
of orebody modelling is to estimate the orebody in terms of a series of unit of small blocks at the scale
of mining. One of the most important features of grade variability in a deposit is the extent to which
the grade at one place is similar to that nearby as compared with a greater distance away. In many
situations, it may be found that the grade of two blocks of rock close together are similar than two
blocks some distance apart while in other situations this may not be the case. This phenomena is capable
of being analysed by using geostatistical methods. The calculation of semi-varograms and estimation
of block values employing kriging technique that attempt to quantify the property of the regionalized
phenomena of the grade distribution provide an improved method to reduce the grade variability at the
scale of mining. This can be directly derived from the geostatistics of a deposit provided the sample
interval is at least as small as the average mining advance and also that it is in the same direction as
mining takes place.

To maintain the grade consistency, it is required that the design of the blocks, mine layout, face advance
and bench progress should be such that the overall variation of the grade is minimised in the direction
of mining advance. It is generally true that mineral deposits exhibit variation in grade both laterally and
vertically. The extent of such variation would differ depending on the geological properties of a deposit.
This variability of grade is a function of the scale at which the observations are made. In particular, the
variation to be expected in a mass of ore depends on the size of blocks that are dealt with. Geostatistical
approach to construction of semi-variograms along various directions aids to determine the desired
direction of optimum variance. Slice-wise kriged inventory of the orebody in terms of block-by-block
kriged estimate and kriging variance based on semi-variogram parameters is of great aid in determining
the desired direction of face advance and bench progress in optimising the scheme of mining sequence.
One essential factor in a grade control programme is that it depends on a very close collaboration
amongst geologists, mining engineers, mineral processing engineers and economists. Finally, it must
be said that any solution to a grade control problem will cost money. It is a matter of which solution
leads to the smallest increase in expenditure.

72