MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

CHAPTER 4

OPEN PIT OPTIMIZATION METHODS

4.1 Introduction
The purposes of optimisation are usually some or all of the following:
1. To maximise the recovery of ore
2. To minimise excavation of waste
3. To schedule waste removal at a constant level of activity avoiding peaks
4. To minimise initial waste stripping to bring the mine into production at the earliest possible
date
5. To mine ore of above average grade in the early years in order to secure a quick repayment of
capital invested.
6. To defer waste removal in order to reduce expenditure in the early years of the project.

Before attempting an optimisation, it is essential to thoroughly understand the grade distribution and
geometry of the orebody. This can be achieved by producing a block model from a very reliable
resource estimates resulting from a very reliable data and geological model (Annels, 1991).

4.2 Evolution of Pit Optimisation

4.2.1 Manual Method

 Traditional design method.

 Based on Stripping Ratios.
 Trial and error method.
 Accuracy depends on skill and accuracy of analyst.

Input Data:
 Vertical sections showing ore boundaries, grade distribution within the ore, overburden, and
waste rock.
 Plans for proposed mining levels showing ore/waste.
 Allowable maximum slope.
 Minimum pit floor dimensions.
 SR curves with grades, prices, etc.

Stages of Manual Design and Optimization

a) Generate vertical cross-sections of deposit (Fig. 4.1).
b) Generate level plans (Fig. 4.2).
 Cross-sections.
 Longitudinal sections.
 Radial sections.
c) From these sections and their intervals, generate volumes (waste, ore), tonnage and SR’s.
(Fig. 4.1).

1
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

d) Generate the economic SR which defines the limit of mining that ensures the achievement
of the cost minimum profit margin (Fig. 4.3).
e) Generate SRE vs. ore grade (Fig. 4.4).
f) Generate SRE vs. Selling price (Fig. 4.4).
g) Using the SRE, generate the pit limits for each section.
h) Using planimeter, estimate the volumes and tonnage of ore and waste on each section.

Characteristics of the Manual Method

a) Very time consuming and tedious.
b) Possible for small and geologically simple mineral deposits.
c) Prone to errors from judgement, tiredness, etc.
d) Impossible to carry out many design options using sensitivity and risk analysis.

Fig. 4.1 Illustration for Stripping Ratios

2
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

C = Cross-sections; L = Longitudinal Section; R = Radial Sections

Fig. 4.2 Level Plan with Position of Section Lines

3
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Fig. 4.3 Limits on Successively Deeper Levels

Fig. 4.4 Illustrating Decreasing BESR with Depth

4
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

4.3 OPEN PIT OPTIMIZATION

4.3.1 Introduction
Optimisation of the sequence of working can be attempted on a trial-and –error basis, but is usually
effective nowadays by computer. For this purpose, the deposit is often divided conceptually into
blocks, the size of which are determined by geological criteria and statistical analysis of grade. The
purposes of optimisation are usually some or all of the factors enumerated in Section 4.1.

The aim of this optimisation procedure is to define that combination of ore and waste blocks which
gives the highest value for the mineral recovery which gives the highest value for a specific pit
slope. It thus produces the true optimum pit as no other combination will give higher value. The
dimensions chosen for the individual blocks in the model are usually based on the need to delineate
the orebody as precisely as possible; on bench heights, SMUs and mining sequence chosen; on the
confidence of block grade estimates (controlled largely by drill hole spacing) (Annels, 1991).

4.3.2 Problem: Given economic block value (EBVijk) of the entire deposit, define the pit layout that
maximizes the value of the deposit subject to the underlying constraints.

4.3.3 Blocking Modeling: Geological and mine design.

• A 3-D geometrical layout used to represent the 3-D extent of the deposit to be extracted.
• Series of blocks with similar dimensions in the 3-D space (Fig. 4.5).

4.3.4 Block Attributes

i. Block dimension: (gx, gy, gz) → refer to the dimensions of the block in the x, y, z coordinate
system.
ii. Spatial position of blocks relative to a reference location: Assuming block A is the reference
with (1,1,1) coordinates , then
Block B ≡ (1, 1, 2) ≡ (Row 1, Column 1, Layer 2)
Block C ≡ (1, 2, 2) ≡ (Row 1, Column 2, Layer 2)
Block D ≡ (1, 2, 1) ≡ (Row 1, Column 2, Layer 1)
iii. Economic Block Values, EBVijk: Each block is identified by an economic value - a measure
of the profit/loss for the mineral content.

4.4 Economic Block Values, EBVijk

Based on: (i) Profit Before Taxes (PBT)

(ii) Profit After Taxes (PAT)
(iii) Net Present Value (NPV)

5
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN



PBT = REV - TC  PBT
 ijk ijk ijk

EBV = PAT = [PBT - CCA ]  [1 - TR] + CCA  PAT
ijk ijk ijk ijk ijk

 PAT CI 
 ijk ijk
-   NPV
 (1 + R)t (1 + R)t 
 

Fig. 4.5 Block Model Matrix

REVijk = g  To  P  Rec

g = grade; To = tonnage of ore; P = price; Rec. = mill recovery

 UC o  TOB ijk  ore block


TC = 
UC w  TWB ijk  waste block
ijk

UCo, UCw = unit cost of ore and waste respectively.

TOBijk, TWBijk = tonnage of ore and waste blocks respectively.

UCo = OCmine + OCmill + OCadmin + CImine + CImill + CIinfrl

6
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

UCw = OCmine + OCadmin + CImine + CIinfrl

Where CI is Cost of Investment.

;
4.5 OBJECTIVE FUNCTION OF PIT OPTIMIZATION

nm r
Maximize NPVAL =    EBV
i=1j=1k =1 ijk

4.5.1 Constraints
1) min  Pit Slopes  max
2) PCmin  Production Capacity  PCmax
3) Pmin  Commodity Price  Pmax
4) Qmin  Reserve Quantity  Qmax
5) gmin  Ore Grade  gmax
6) MEmin  Mill Efficiency  MEmax
7) MCmin  Milling Cost  MCmax
8) MPCmin  Mine Production Cost  MPCmax
9) Capital Investment  CImax

4.5.2 Floating (Moving) Cone Algorithm

Defines the mining process by the extraction of cones, partial cones and slices. It generates a series
of frustum–shaped removal increments, shown in Fig. 4.7. The blocks in the matrix can be defined
as:

Ore with + ve EBV


BLOCK = Waste with - ve EBV
air
 with zero EBV

4.5.3 Positive Moving Cone (MC)

By this approach, cones or frustums are established using positive economic blocks as bases. If the
sum of the economic block values for all the blocks in the cone is positive, the cone is included in
the mineable set of cones. Negative economic blocks and cones with negative values established are
not considered as part of the optimum layout. The flow chart for this approach is given below in Fig.
4.6.

Positive MC Algorithm
a) Estimate the expected revenues and total costs of mining each block, i.e., REVij and TCij,
respectively (i = 1,.., n; j = 1,..m)
b) Calculate the expected EBVij for all the blocks using the following equation:

7
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

EBVij = REVij – TCij

- ve  waste blocks

Sign of EBV = zero  air blocks
ij
+ ve  ore blocks


c) Boundary Corrections
a) if waste > ore , assign block to waste
ii) if ore > waste, assign block to ore
iii) if ore = waste, assign block to zero

Example 1
Consider the section below. Blocks 1, 2 and 3 are ore blocks with positive estimated revenue of
$80,000, $100,000 and $20,000 respectively. The rest of the blocks are waste.

A J

B I

C H
1 2
D G
3
E F

Fig. 4.6 Cross-section showing blocks 1, 2 and 3

If the cost of removing a block is $10,000 for waste and ore, find the ultimate pit design using the
MC algorithm. What is the net value of the pit?

SOLUTION

Revenue From Cone Costs for Net Value of

Net Value of Pit
Blk # Base On Block Remaining Cone Cone
($ × 103)
($ × 103) ($ × 103) ($ × 103)
1 80 90 -10 0
2 100 90 +10 +10
1 80 30 +50 +60
3 20 40 -20 +60

The Net Value of Pit = $60,000

The Ultimate Pit Design is enclosed in area A B C D G H I J

8
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

4.6 Two Dimensional Positive Floating Cone Algorithm

The positive moving cone methods will be demonstrated with some examples Fig. 4.7 shows a 2-
dimensional array of blocks with the net values of the blocks given. The blocks are equidimensional
and the slope angle will be 45o. This means that slope is formed by going up one and over one block.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 -1

2 -2 -2 +4 -2 -2

3 +7 +1 -3

Fig. 4.7 Block Model for Example 1

The following steps are used:

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

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

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

Step 4: The profitability of this section is found by summing the values of the blocks removed
(mined).

Step 5: The overall stripping ratio can be determined from number of positive (+) and negative (-)
blocks removed.

These rules can be applied to the section shown in Fig. 4.7. There are four positive blocks in the
model hence the four corresponding cones must be evaluated. Using a top-down rule, the block at
row 1, column 6 would initiate the search. Since there are no overlying blocks, the value of the cone
is the value of the block: +1. The value is positive, so the block is mined (see Fig. 4.8)

9
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Row 1:

Block 1,6 = +1 (mined)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 -1

2 -2 -2 +4 -2 -2

3 +7 +1 -3

Fig. 4.8 Block Model for Example 1

Row 2:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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

2 -2 -2 +4 -2 -2

3 +7 +1 -3

Fig. 4.9 Block Model for Example 1

Check Block2,4 = -1 + -1 +-1 + 4= +1 (mined)

Since this value is positive, the cone is mined (see Fig. 4.9).

10
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Row 3:

The next incremental cone is defined by the block on row 3, column 3. Check Block3,3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 -1 -1 -1

2 -2 -2 -2 -2

3 +7 +1 -3

Fig. 4.10 Block Model for Example 1

Block3,3 = -1 - 1 - 2 - 2 + 7 = +1 (mined)
Again since this value is positive, this cone is mined (see Fig. 4.10).

Row 3:

Finally, the next incremental cone is defined by the block on row 3, column 4. Check Block3,4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 -1

2 -2 -2

3 +1 -3

Fig. 4.11 Block Model for Example 1

Block3,4 = +1 - 2 = -1 (not mined)

The value of this cone is negative. Therefore, the cone is not mined (see Fig. 4.11)

Thus Fig. 4.11 depicts the overall final ultimate pit. The Total Value of this pit is:

Overall Pit Value: +1 + 1 + 1 = 3

The overall strip ratio is:

7
Overall Stripping Ratio = = 2.33:1
3

11
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

EXAMPLE 2: Applying the floating cone method to Fig. 5.12, we have:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5

2 -10 -10 5 5 6 8 6 -10 -10

3 -15 -15 6 6 8 10 5 -15 -15

4 -20 -20 4 5 6 12 4 -20 -20

5 -25 -25 5 6 8 10 3 -25 -25

Fig. 4.12 2-D Floating Cone Algorithm

Procedure

ROW 1: There is no positive ore block on row 1  No floating of the cone.

ROW 2:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
2 -10 -10 5 5 6 8 6 -10 -10
3 -15 -15 6 6 8 10 5 -15 -15
4 -20 -20 4 5 6 12 4 -20 -20
5 -25 -25 5 6 8 10 3 -25 -25

Block2,3 = -10 Don't mine

Block2,4 = -10 Don't mine
Block2,5 = -9 Don't mine
Block2,6 = -7 Don't mine
Block2,7 = -9 Don't mine

ROW 3

12
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
2 -10 -10 5 5 6 8 6 -10 -10
3 -15 -15 6 6 8 10 5 -15 -15
4 -20 -20 4 5 6 12 4 -20 -20
5 -25 -25 5 6 8 10 3 -25 -25

Block3,3 = -19 Don't mine

Block3,4 = -3 Don't mine
Block3,5 = 2 Mine
Recheck Block 3,4 = 6 Mine
Recheck Block 3,3 = -9 Don't mine
Block3,6 = 11 Mine
Block3,7 = -10 Don't mine

ROW 4

Block4,3 = -20 Don't mine

Block4,4 = -4 Don't mine
Block4,5 = 6 Mine
Block4,6 = 2 Mine
Block4,7 = -21 Don't mine

ROW 5

Block5,3 = -60 Don't mine

Block5,4 = -19 Don't mine
Block5,5 = 4 Mine
Block5,6 = -11 Don't mine
Block5,7 = -53 Don't mine

Pit Value 31

Stripping Ratio (SR)

No. Waste Blocks = 11

No. Ore Blocks = 14
TFw = 2.35 t/block
TFo = 2.65 t/block

Overall Stripping Ratio (OSR) =11/14 = 0.79:1 (m3/m3)

5.6.1 Major Problems

13
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

However, the floating cone method has some significant disadvantages. It may sometimes fail to
recognize an optimized pit in all cases. Also it sometimes fails to recognize a positive pit value
outline. A few examples of the shortcomings of the floating cone method will be demonstrated in the
next sections.

Example 2:
Problem 1: Missing combination of profitable blocks

This problem occurs when positive (ore) blocks are investigated individually. A single ore block
may not justify the removal of the necessary overburden while combinations of these blocks with
overlapping ones are profitable. Johnson (1973) has labelled this “the mutual support problem”.
This is demonstrated in Figs. 4.13 to 4.16.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

3 +10 -3 +10

Fig. 4.13 Block Model for Example 2 (Barnes, 1982)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

3 +10 -3 +10

Fig. 4.14 First Incremental Cone - Example 2 (Barnes, 1982)

The cone defined by Block3,3 has a value of:

- 1 – 1 - 1 - 1 – 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 + 10 = -1

Since the value is negative, the cone would not be mined by the simple moving cones method (see
Fig. 5.14).

14
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2
-2 -2 -2 -2 -2
3
+10 -3 +10

Fig. 5.15 Second Incremental Cone - Example 2 (Barnes, 1982)

Similarly for the cone defined by Block3,5, the value is (see Fig. 5.15):

- 1 – 1 - 1 - 1 – 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 + 10 = -1

Again this cone would not be mined (see Fig. 5.15).

However, due to the overlapping (mutual support) portion of the overburden cones, the value of the
composite union is positive (see Fig. 4.16).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

3 +10 -3 +10

Fig. 4.16 True Optimal Pit - Example 2 (Barnes, 1982)

- 1 – 1 - 1 - 1 – 1 – 1 – 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 – 2 - 2 + 10 + 10 = +3

The situation in Fig. 4.16 occurs often in real-world mineral deposits and a simple moving cone
approach misses it.

Example 3:

Problem 2: Extending the ultimate pit beyond the optimal limits

This is the situation where the moving cones algorithm can and often will include non-profitable
blocks in the pit design. The inclusion of non-profitable blocks will reduce the net value of the pit.
This situation occurs when profitable ore blocks, or profitable combinations of ore blocks, cause a
cone defined by an underlying apex to be positive; i.e. the positive values are being extended

15
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

downward to carry waste below their cones. The 2-D block model shown in Fig. 4.17 assumes the
maximum pit slope to be 45o.

1 2 3 4 5
1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2
+5 -2 -2
3
+5

Fig. 4.17 Block Model for Example 3 (Barnes, 1982)

1 2 3 4 5
1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2
+5 -2 -2
3
+5

Fig. 4.18 Large Incremental Cone for Example 3 (Barnes, 1982)

The value of the cone defined by Block3,3 is (see Fig. 4.18):

- 1 – 1 - 1 - 1 – 1 + 5 – 2 - 2 + 5 = +1

The fact that the value for this cone is positive does not imply that the cone should be mined. As
shown in Fig. 4.19, the Block2,2 is carrying this cone. The proper design includes only Block2,2 and
its three overlying blocks in Row 1, Columns 1, 2 and 3.

1 2 3 4 5
1
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
2
+5 -2 -2
3
+5

Fig. 4.19 Small Incremental Cone Example 3 (Barnes, 1982)

The value of the optimal design is equal to (- 1 – 1 - 1 + 5) = +2

The value of the small cone is greater than the value of the large cone.

16
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Example 4:

Problem 3: Combinations of problems 1 and 2

The most common and most difficult situation involving these two problems is their simultaneous
occurrence. The two-dimensional block model shown in Fig. 4.20 assumes a 45o pit slope. There are
three positive blocks and therefore three possible incremental cones.

1 2 3 4 5
1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -1

2 +5 -4 +5

3 +3

Fig. 4.20 Block Model for Example 4 (Barnes, 1982)

The value of the cone defined by Block2,2 (see Fig. 5.21) is:

-1–1–4+5=-1

1 2 3 4 5
1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -1

2 +5 -4 +5

3 +3

Fig. 4.21 First Incremental Cone for Example 4 (Barnes, 1982)

The value of the cone defined by Block2,4 (see Fig. 4.22) is:

-4–1–1+5=-1

1 2 3 4 5
1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -1

2 +5 -4 +5

3 +3

17
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Fig. 4.22 Second Incremental Cone for Example 4 (Barnes, 1982)

Yet the value of the cone for the Block3,3 (see Fig. 4.23) is;

- 1 – 1 – 4 – 1 – 1 +5 – 4 + 5 + 3 = +1

1 2 3 4 5
1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -1

2 +5 -4 +5

3 +3

Fig. 4.23 Third Incremental Cone for Example 4 (Barnes, 1982)

This would appear to imply that the pit design shown in Fig. 4.23 is optimal. However, this is not the
case. The optimal pit is shown in Fig. 4.24. The value of the pit is:

1 2 3 4 5
1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -1

2 +5 -4 +5

3 +3

Fig. 4.24 Optimal Pit Design for Example 4 (Barnes, 1982)

The value of the pit is:

- 1 – 1 – 4 – 1 – 1 +5 + 5 = +2

The value is one more than the “initially apparent” pit.

Example 5:

For example, with the ore and waste values shown in Fig.5.25 a floating cone technique would
examine the left hand ore and decide its value was 100 – 80 - 30 = -10 (Whittle, 1993). It would
decide not to mine the pit. It would then make a similar decision for the right hand orebody and
would conclude that there was nothing to mine. However, it can be seen that, if both orebodies are
mined, the mine has a total value of +10. This is called “cooperation” or “mutual support” of
adjacent blocks.

18
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Fig. 4.25 Mining too little - Ignoring Cooperation or mutual support of adjacent blocks

Fig. 4.26 shows examples of where the floating cone method fails to recognise an optimised pit with
a positive pit value.

i, j 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
(a) 2 -6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -6
3 -3 -3 -1 7 -1 -1 -3 -3
4 -4 -4 -4 5 -1 -4 -4 -4

?
1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
(b) 2 -6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -6 v = -1
3 -3 -3 -1 7 -1 -1 -3 -3
4 -4 -4 -4 5 -1 -4 -4 -4

?
1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
(c) 2 -6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -6 v = +12
3 -3 -3 -1 7 -1 -1 -3 -3
4 -4 -4 -4 5 -1 -4 -4 -4

19
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

(d) 2 -6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -6 v=9
3 -3 -3 -1 7 -1 -1 -3 -3
4 -4 -4 -4 5 -1 -4 -4 -4

Fig. 4.26 Failure of the Positive Moving Cone technique to obtain an optimised pit value

Problem #1 [Fig. 4.27]

Using the individual blocks consideration from top to bottom, and considering positive blocks, we
have the following:
1. b2,2 , b2,3 , b2,4 , b2,5 , b2,6 , b2,7 , are all –ve
2. b4,4 = +8 (cf. Fig. 4.28(
3. b2,7 = +3 (cf. Fig. 4.29)
4. Total Pit Value = +11

Use combined +ve block values

b22 + b23 + b24 + b25 + b26 + b27 = +30

b11 + b12 + b13 + b14 + b15 + .. + bi8 = -16

Total pit value = +30 – 16 = +14

Failed to recognize from maximum pit outline

j

?
1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
i

(a) 2 -6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -6 v = -1

3 -3 -3 -1 7 -1 -1 -3 -3

4 -4 -4 -4 5 -1 -4 -4 -4

20
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

?
1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

(b) 2 -6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -6 v =+8

3 -3 -3 -1 7 -1 -1 -3 -3

4 -4 -4 -4 5 -1 -4 -4 -4

Fig. 4.27 Failure of the Positive MC to Recognize the Optimum Pit

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2

(c) 2 -6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -6 v =+3

3 -7 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -7

4 -8 -8 -8 3 -8 -8 -8 -8

Fig. 4.28 Failure of the Positive MC to Recognize the Optimum Pit (continued)

Problem #2 Fig. 4.28

1).   b  Cone on b3,3 = -2

i=1 j=1  ij 

2).    b  Cone on b3,5 = -1

i=1 j=1  ij 

 No extraction in this situation

2)  bij cone on both b3,3 and b3,5 = + 1 

i =1 j=1

+ve pit outline and value.

21
 MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Note

In spite of the shortcomings of the positive moving cone method, there are, however, a number of
positive aspects of the technique which account for its widespread use and popularity (Barnes,
1982). These include:
1. Since the method is a computerization of manual techniques, mining engineers can use the
method, understand what they are using and feel comfortable with the results.
2. The moving cones technique can be used with generalised pit slopes. The single requirement is
an unambiguous rule for determining which blocks overlie individual ore blocks.
3. Computationally, the algorithm is quite simple. Development and implementation of a moving
cones computer programme does not require sophisticated knowledge in operations research or
computer science. The computer code could be developed in-house rather than purchased from a
software company.
4. It provides highly useable and sufficiently accurate results for engineering planning.

j
1 2 3 4 5 ?6 7

1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
i
(a) 2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 v =-2

3 -3 -3 6 -2 7 -3 -3

? ?
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

(b) -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 v =-1

-3 -3 6 -2 7 -3 -3

22
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

?
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

(c) -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 v =+1

-3 -3 6 -2 7 -3 -3

Fig. 4.29 The Moving Cone and the Problem of Overlapping Waste

4.7 The Lerchs-Grossman’s 2-D Algorithm

By this method, the economic block values, cumulative block values and temporary block values,
are estimated column wise. Arcs are provided to indicate the direction of optimum pit layout using
dynamic programming based on the following procedure:

a) Divide the 2-D section of the ore body into blocks, Bij [i = 1, ...., n, j = 1, ...., m]. Provide a
dummy row of blocks at the top.
b) Estimate the economic block values, EBVij, for all the blocks using the following formula:

EBVij = Revij – TCij  Waste or Ore blocks

EBVij = 0  dummy blocks

c) Compute the cumulative column values for each block from top to bottom.
i
CBV =  EBV r  i
ij r =0 ij
Designate this cumulative column figure as the second value in the respective block, e.g.

-2

EBVij
+5

+4

Values CBVij

23
 -2
-2
MN 584 +5 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN
+3
+4
Fig. 4.31 +7 Cumulative Block

d) From the north-west corner of the section (on level zero), compute the temporary block values,
TBVij as follows:

Designate TBVij, as the third number in the respective blocks. For example, assuming the following
blocks are being considered, the TBVij, can be determined as follows:

-2 -1 -2 -5
-2 -1 -2 -5
-2 +2 +10 +16
+5 +6 +3 +8
TBVij
+3 +5 +1 +3
+3 +12 +21 +31
+4 +8 +7 +9
+7 +13 +8 +12
+7 +20 +28 +40

Fig. 4.30 Temporary Block values, TBVij for a 2-D section

e) The maximum value at the surface, Poj, is the total value of the pit.
f) The path followed in back tracing from this maximum, Poj, defines the optimal contour of the pit,
which further defines the pit outline that maximizes the net value of the ore body.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

-5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
-5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
-5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -3 +8 +25 +31

24
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

-10 -10 +5 +5 +6 +8 +6 -10 -10

-15 -15 +0 +0 +1 +3 +1 -15 -15
-15 -20 -5 -5 +2 +13 +30 +36 +21
-15 -15 +6 +6 +8 +10 +5 -15 -15
-30 -30 +6 +6 +9 +13 +6 -30 -30
-30 -45 -14 +1 +10 +29 51 +35 +6
-20 -20 +4 +5 +6 +12 +4 -20 -20
-50 -50 +10 +11 +15 +25 +10 -50 -50
-50 -80 -35 -3 +16 +45 +65 +18 -15

-25 -25 +5 +6 +8 +10 +3 -25 -25

-75 -75 +15 +17 +23 +35 +13 -75 -75
-75 -125 -65 -18 +20 +55 +68 -7 -57

Illustrations

Fig. 5.32a Illustrating the Use of Dynamic Programming for Pit Design

25
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Fig. 4.32b Illustrating the Use of Dynamic Programming for Pit Design

Fig. 4.32c Illustrating the Use of Dynamic Programming for Pit Design

26
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Fig. 4.33 Worked Examples 2(b): Dynamic Programming

27
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Fig. 4.34 Sketches to Problem 5.3

28
MN 584 SUEFACE MINE PLANNING AND DESIGN

Fig. 4.35 Further Sketches to Problem 4.3

29